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

, an English artist, and famous copier of paintings, flourished in the reigns of Charles I. and Charles II. Being employed by the first of these kings to copy several eminent pieces in Italy, and having leave of the state of Venice to copy the celebrated Madonna of Raphael in St. Mark’s church, he performed the task so admirably well, that he is said to have put a trick upon the Italians, by leaving his copy, and bringing away the original; and that several messengers were sent after him, but that he had got the start of them so far as to carry it clear off. This picture was afterwards, in Oliver Cromwell’s days, bought by the Spanish ambassador, when the king’s collection was exposed to sale. Cross copied likewise Titian’s Europa, and other celebrated pieces, very successfully. He must be distinguished from Lewis Cross, who died 1724, and of whom it is recorded that he re-painted a little picture of Mary queen of Scots, in the possession of the duke of Hamilton, and was ordered to make it as handsome as he could. He made the face a round one. For many years it was believed an original, and innumerable copies have been made from it.

, a Franciscan friar and popish missionary in England, was chaplain to king James II. and followed the abdicated monarch to St. Germain’s in 1688, where he died a few years after. H was esteemed to be a man of parts, and published: 1. “A Sermon before the king and queen at St. James’s palace,” 1686. 2. “Cynosura, or the Miserere psalm paraphrased,” thin folio. 3. “Divine Poems.” 4. “Philotheus’s Pilgrimage to perfection, in a practice of ten days solitude,” Bruges, 1668.

, an eminent physician and benefactor to the science, was born in London, and educated at Emanuel college, Cambridge, where he was admitted a pensioner May 13, 1647, and took the degree of B. A. in 1650. In 1651 he was elected a fellow, and commenced M. A. in 1654. In 1659, being now settled as a physician in London, he was chosen rhetoric professor in Gresham college, and at the first meeting of the royal society, Nov. 28, 1660, was (though absent) appointed their register, whose business was to make minutes of what passed at their meetings. In this office he remained till the grant of their charter, when Dr. Wilkins and Mr. Oldenburg were nominated joint secretaries. On Oct. 7, 162, he was created M. D. at Cambridge, by royal mandate; and in May 1663 was chosen one of the first fellows of the royal society, and frequently afterwards was one of the council. The same year he was admitted a candidate of the college of physicians. In 1665 he travelled into France, and became acquainted with several eminent and learned men of that nation. In August 1670, he was chosen by the company of surgeons their lecturer on anatomy, which he held to his death; but this year he resigned his Gresham professorship, which could be held only by a bachelor, and soon after married Mary, daughter of John Lorimer, of London, esq. In 1674 and 1675 he read his “Theory of Muscular Motion,” in the theatre of Surgeous’-hall, an abstract of which was afterwards published by Mr. Hooke in his “Philosophical Collections.” In July 1675, he was admitted a fellow of the college of physicians, after he had waited for a vacancy upwards of twelve years. He was much esteemed as a physician, and came into great practice in the latter part of his life, on which account the loss of him was much regretted by the citizens of London. He died of a fever Oct. 12, 1684, and was buried in St. Mildred’s church in the Poultry, in a vault belonging to the Lorimer family, with an inscription on black marble, on the pavement in the chancel. His funeral sermon was preached by Dr. John Scott, rector of St. Peter-le-Poor, Broad-street, in which he gives him. a very high character, not only for learning, but those more amiable attributes of a physician, tenderness and kindness to the poor. He tiled rich, and besides many benevolent legacies, left his medical books to the college of physicians, and his mathematical collection to Emanuel college. His printed works are in the Philosophical Transactions; and many of his Mss. are in the British Museum (see Ayscough’s Cat. under the articles Crone, Croon, and Croun). He printed separately only one tract, “De ratione motus musculorum,” Lond. 1664, 4to Amst. 1667, 12mo, without his name in either edition. He left to Emanuel and six other colleges at Cambridge, a sum of money to found algebra lectures, which took place in 1710. This legacy, although a contingent on the death of his wife, was liberally settled by her in her life-time. He also left a plan of an annual lecture on museular motion before the royal society, which was also carried into execution by Mrs. Croun. The first lecture was read in 1738, by Dr. Alexander Stuart, physician to the queen, and has been continued ever since. These lectures, for a considerable number of years, have been regularly published in the Philosophical Transactions, and have been drawn up by the most eminent physiologists, who were members of the society, and contain a great collection of very curious and important facts, respecting the muscles and their motions. The Crounian lecture is endowed with the protits of a house in Old Fish-street.

, a divine and poet, was born either in Gloucestershire, or, according to Bale, in Northamptonshire, and entered a student of Magdalen college, Oxford, about the year 1534; and after taking the degree of B. A. was elected probationer fellow in 1542. In the beginning of the reign of Edward VI. he settled in London, took a house in Ely-rents, Holborn, and there exercised the trade of printer and bookseller, and being, we suppose, in orders, occasionally preached but being at the same time a zealous friend to the reformation, on the accession of queen Mary he went with the other exiles to Francfort, where he remained until the queen’s death. After his return to England he had several benefices bestowed on him, among which were the archdeaconry, and a prebend in Hereford, both which he resigned in 1567; a prebend of St. Paul’s, the rectory of St. Peter le Poor, and the vicarage of St. Giles’s Cripplegate; but he was deprived of the latter, the only promotion which he appears to have held at that time (1566), for a riot in the church, because the choristers wore surplices. In 1576, however, it appears that he was collated to the living of St. Lawrence Jewry, and probably was now more reconciled to the ceremonies and habits of the church. In 1578 he was presented with the freedom of the Stationers’ company, and soon after is found with the wardens, licensing copies. He died June 18, 1588, and was buried in his former church of St. Giles’s. He was, according to Tanner, a person of a happy genius, an eminent preacher, and a zealous advocate for reformation. His works, both in prose and verse, enumerated by Wood and Tanner, are now merely objects of curiosity. In 1550 he printed the first edition of “Pierce Plowman’s Vision,” with the view of helping forward the reformation by the revival of a book which exposed the absurdities of popery. He translated into popular rhyme, not only the Psalter, but the Litany, with hymns, all which he printed together in 1549. In the same year, and in the same measure, he published “The Voice of the Last Trumpet blown by the seventh angel,” a piece containing twelve several lessons for the instruction of all classes. He also attacked the abuses of his age in thirty-one “Epigrams,” 1550, and twice reprinted. In the same year he published a kind of metrical sermon on “Pleasure and Pain, Heaven and Hell Remember these four, and all shall be well.” In his “Dialogue between Lent and Liberty,” written to prove that Lent is a superstitious institution, Mr. Warton thinks that the personification of Lent is a bold and a perfectly new prosopopeia. Crowley likewise wrote and printed in 1588, a rhyming manual, “The School of Virtue and Book of Good Nature,” a translation, into metre, of many of the less exceptionable Latin hymns anciently used by the catholics. Among his prose works are “An Apology of those English preachers and writers which Cerberus, the three-headed dog of hell, chargeth with false doctrine under the name of Predestination,” 1566, 4to, and “Brief Discourse concerning those four usual notes whereby Christ’s Catholic Church is known,” 1581, 4 to, &c. In controversy he was usually warm, and not nice in his language; and in his poetry he consulted usefulness rather than taste.

Croxall had not long quitted the university before he was instituted to the vicarage of Hampton, in Middlesex; and afterwards^ Feb. 1731, to the united parishes of St. Mars-­Somerset and St. Mary Mounthaw, in London, both which he held till his death. He was also chancellor, prebendary, canon residentiary, and portionist of the church of Hereford; in 1732 was made archdeacon of Salop and chaplain to the king; and in Feb. 1734 obtained the vicarage of Selleck in Herefordshire. He died at an advanced age, Feb. 13, 1752. Dr. Croxall, who principally governed the church of Hereford during the old age of bishop Egerton, pulled down the old stone chapel adjoining to the palace, of which a fine plate was published by the society of antiquaries in 1737, and with the materials built a house for his brother, Mr. Rodney Croxall. Having early imbibed a strong attachment to the whig-interest, he employed his pen in favour of that party during the latter end of queen Anne’s reign; and published “Two original cantos, in imitation of Spenser’s Fairy Queen,” as a satire on the earl of Oxford’s administration. In 17 15 he addressed a poem to the duke of Argyle, upon his obtaining a victory over the rebels; and the same year published “The Vision,” a poem, addressed to the earl of Halifax. In 1720 he published “The Fair Circassian,” in 4to in 1722, a collection of “Fables of jÆsop and others, translated into English,” a work which continues to be popular, probably from its homely and almost vulgar style. He wrote all the dedications prefixed to the “Select Novels,” printed for Watts, 1729; and was the author of “Scripture Politics,” 1735, 8vo. This is an account intended for common readers of the historical part of the Old Testament. His latest publication was “The Royal Manual;” in the preface of which he endeavours to shew that it was composed by the famous Andrew Marvel, found among his Mss. but it was generally believed to be written by himself.

, a learned French writer, was born at Nantes, Dec. 4, 1661. His father, who was a merchant, was also a man of letters, and bestowed much pains on the education of his son, who answered his expectations by the proficiency he made in classical studies. He had, however, provided him with a private tutor, who happened to disgust him by the severity of his manners, and upon this account partly, at the age of fourteen, he desired to take a voyage to some of the West India islands, to which his father traded; but his principal inducement was what he had read in books of voyages, and the conversation of persons who had been in America, all which raised his curiosity to visit the new world. He embarked on board a French ship, with no other books than Erasmus’s Colloquies, and the Gradus ad Parnassum. His passage was not unpleasant, and during his residence at Guadeloupe he borrowed all the Latin books he could discover, and read them with avidity; but the chief advantage he seems to have derived here was an opportunity to learn the English, Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese San^uasres. To these he afterwards added an acquaintance with the German, Sclavonic, and AngloSaxon; and studied with much attention the ancient and modern Greek, the Hebrew, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Hebrew, Arabic, and even the Chinese. On his return to Nantes in 1677, he found his father’s affairs somewhat deranged, and was obliged to take a part in the business. Medicine appears to have been first suggested to him as a profession, but he found little inclination for that study; and some conferences he happened to have with the Benedictines of the congregation of St. Maur determined him to enter their society. He accordingly made his noviciate in 1673, and applied himself to the study of theology. In 1682 he formally became a member of the congregation. His residence at Paris, in the abbey of St. Germain des Pres, the vast number of books within his reach, and particularly of manuscripts, increased his knowledge and his thirst for knowledge, and some of his earliest labours were bestowed in preparing materials, collecting Mss. &c. for new editions of the works of St. Clement of Alexandria, and St. Gregory Nazianzen. But these were interrupted by certain differences which occurred in the abbey to which he belonged, and of which we have various accounts. The prior of St. Germain, father Loo, had a great aversion to the study of classical and polite literature, and was for confining the members to the strict religious duties of the house. This could not fail to be disgusting to a man of La Croze’s taste: but, according to other accounts, which seem more prohable, he began to entertain religious scruples about this time (lr.96), which induced him to withdraw himself. It is said that his superiors found among his papers a treatise against transubstantiation in his hand-writing, and which they believed to be his composition; but they discovered afterwards that it uas a translation from the English of Stillingfleet. Some other manuscripts, however, sufficiently proved that he had changed his opinion on religious matters; and the dread of persecution obliged him to make his escape to Basil, which he successfully accomplished in May 1696. Here he renounced the Roman catholic religion, and as his intention was to take up his residence, he was matriculated as a student of the college of Basil. He remained in this place, however, only till September, when he departed, provided with the most honourable testimonies of his learning and character from Buxtorf, the Hebrew professor, and Werenfels, dean of the faculty of theology. He then went to Berlin, where his object was to secure a iixed residence, devote himself to study, and endeavour to forget France. In order to introduce himself, he began with offering to educate young men, the sons of protestant parents, which appears to have answered his purpose, as in 1697 we find him appointed librarian to the king of Prussia; but his biographers are not agreed upon the terms. To this place a pension was attached, but not sufficient to enable him to live without continuing his school; and some assert that he was very poor at this time. The probability is, that his circumstances were improved as he became better known, and his reputation among the learned was already extensive. In June of 1697 he went to Francfort to visit the literati of that place, and their fine library, and visited also Brandenburgh for the same purpose. In November 1697 (or, as Chaufepie says, in 1702), he married Elizabeth Rose, a lady originally of Dauphiny, and thus, adds one of his Roman catholic biographers, completed the abjuration of the true religion. In 1698 he first commenced author, and from time to time published those works on which his fame rests. Soon after he became acquainted with the celebrated Leibnitz, with whom he carried on an intimate correspondence. In 17 13 he went to Hamburgh, where he paid many visits to the learned Fabricius, and in his letters speaks with great warmth of the pleasure this journey afforded; but this year, 17 J 3, was not in other respects a vei'y fortunate one to La Croze, and he formed the design of quitting Germany. He had been appointed tutor to the margrave of Schwel, and this employment terminating in 1714, he lost the pension annexed to it, and was reduced to considerable difficulties, of which he wrote to Leibnitz, as to a friend in whom he could confide. Leibnitz, by way of answer, sent him a copy of a letter which he had written to M. BernsdorfT, prime minister to the elector of Hanover, in his behalf. The object likely to be attained by this interest was a professorship at Helmstadt; but as it required subscription to the articles of the Lutheran church, M. la Croze, notwithstanding the persuasions Leibnitz employed, declined accepting it. His affairs, however, soon after wore a more promising aspect, partly in consequence of a prize he gained in the Dutch lottery. In 1717 he had the honour to be engaged as private tutor to the princess royal of Prussia, afterwards margravine of Bareoth. In 1724, for several months his studies were interrupted by a violent fit of the gravel; and on his recovery, the queen of Prussia, who always patronized La Croze, obtained for him the professorship of philosophy in the French college at Berlin, vacant by the death of M. Chauvin. This imposed on him the necessity of drawing up a course of philosophy, but as he never intended to print it, it is said not to have been executed with the care he bestowed on his other works. In 1713 father Bernard Pez, the Benedictine, made him liberal offers if he would return to the church he had forsaken, but this he declined with politeness, offering the arguments which influenced his mind to remain in the protestant church. In 1739 an inflammation appeared on his leg, which inApril put on appearances of mortification, hut did not prove fatal until May 21. About a quarter of an bour before his death he desired his servant to read the 51st and 77th psalms, during which he expired, in the seventy -first year of his age. He was reckoned one of the most learned men of his time, and was frequently called a living library. So extensive was his reading, and so vast iiis memory, that no one ever consulted him without obtaining prompt information. In dates, facts, and references he was correct and ready. We have already noticed how many languages he had learned, but it appears that he made the least progress in the Chinese, to which Leihnitz, in his letters, is perpetuiiy iirging him. The greater part of his life was employed in study, and he had no other pleasures. There was scarcely a book in his library whicli he had not perused, and he wrote ms notes on most of them. His conversation could not fail to be acceptable to men of literary research, as his memory was stored with anecdotes, which he told in a very agreeable manner. He was conscientiously attached to the principles of the reformed religion. He had always on his table the Hebrew Psalter, the Greek Testament, and Thomas a Kempis in Latin: the latter he almost had by heart, as well as Buchanan’s Psalms. His consistent piety and charity are noticed by all his biographers.

, author of an excellent “Concordance of the Bible,” was born in 1701 at Aberdeen, where he received his grammar learning: he afterwards studied at Marischal college, with a view of entering the church. Unfortunately, before the period arrived when he could be admitted to officiate as a public instructor, such decided symptoms of insanity appeared in his conduct, as rendered confinement necessary. This afterwards settled in a kind of belief that he was delegated by Heaven to reform a guilty world; and his conduct in a thousand instances demonstrated an ardour and zeal for the good of his fellow-creatures, that merited the highest applause. Thrice, however, he was shut up in a private madhouse, in which, if the nature of his disease did not lead him to exaggeration, he was cruelly treated. Once indeed he brought his action against a respectable physician, and other persons connected with him; the cause was tried, and Cruden was unable to make out a case. The verdict was given in favour of the defendants; and his appeal to the public was not of a kind to set aside that verdict, although he certainly suffered much more harsh treatment than was necessary. On his release from his first confinement, which was in his native place, he came to London, and engaged in some respectable families as private tutor. In the same employment he spent some years in the isle of Man; and in 1732 he opened a shop in London, under the Royal Exchange, as bookseller, and employed all his vacant time as a corrector of the press. In the following year he began to compile his great work, viz. “A complete Concordance of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament.” We can scarcely conceive any literary work that required more patient labour than this, and few have been executed with greater accuracy. He had nearly executed the whole before he looked for public remuneration. The first edition was published in 1737, and dedicated to queen Caroline, who had led the editor to expect her patronage but her majesty unfortunately died a few days before the work could be got ready. The author’s affairs were now embarrassed; he had none to look to for assistance, and in a fit of despondence he gave up his trade, and became a prey to melancholy. Shortly after this, he assumed the title of “Alexander the Corrector,” maintained that he was divinely commissioned to reform the manners of the age, and restore the due observance of the sabbath, appealing to prophecy, in which he fancied he saw his own character delineated. He sought, however, for earthly honours, and requested of his majesty the dignity of knighthood, and earnestly solicited his fellow-citizens to elect him member for the city of London. Both were deaf to his entreaties, and he turned from public offices to duties for which he was better qualified. He laboured almost incessantly, sometimes in works of pure benevolence, and at others as corrector of the press, and seldom allowed himself more than four or five hours for sleep. In 1770, after paying a visit to Aberdeen, he returned to London, and took lodgings at Islington, where he died November the first. In private life Mr. Cruden was courteous and affable, ready to assist all that came within his reach, as well with his money as with his advice, and most zealous in serving the distressed. One of his boldest efforts of this kind was in the case of Richard Potter, a poor ignorant sailor, who was condemned at the Old Bailey for uttering a forged seaman’s will, and who, in Mr. Cruden’s opinion, was so justly an object of the royal clemency, that he never ceased his applications to the secretary of state until he had obtained a pardon. The following year, 1763, he published a very interesting account of this affair, under the title of “The History of Richard Potter,” 8vo. His other publications were, “An Account of the History and Excellency of the Scriptures,” prefixed to a “Compendium of the Holy Bible,” 24-mo; and “A Scripture Dictionary, or Guide to the Holy Scriptures,” Aberdeen, 2 vols. 8vo; printed a short time after his death. He also compiled that very elaborate Index which belongs to bishop Newton’s edition of Milton, an undertaking inferior only to that of his “Concordance,” and which he undertook at the request of auditor Benson. Of his Concordance an edition was published in 1810, which may be justly pronounced the most correct that has appeared since the author’s time, every word with its references having been most carefully examined by Mr. Deodatus Bye, formerly a respectable printer in St. John’s gate, who voluntarily employed some years in this arduous task, for which he is richly entitled to the thanks of the public.

At what time he left Oxford, or upon what occasion, does not appear; but there is some reason to believe, it was for the sake of travelling in order to improve himself. For he was always inclined rather to a busy, than to a retired life; and held, that learning was of little service to any man, if it did not qualify him for active pursuits. This disposition recommended him much to the favour of the celebrated Robert earl of Essex, who was himself equally fond of knowledge and business. Cuff became his secretary in 1596, when the earl was made lord lieutenant of Ireland; but it had been happier for him, if he could have contented himself with the easy and honourable situation, which his own learning, and the assistance of his friends in the university, had procured him. Even his outset was unfortunate; he accompanied the earl in his expedition against Cadiz, and after its successful conclusion, was dispatched with his lordship’s letters to England, and, when he had landed, endeavoured with the utmost speed, to arrive with them at the court. Beinsr, however, unfortunately taken ill on the road, he was obliged to send up the letters, inclosed in one of his own, to Mr. Reynoldes, another of the earl’s secretaries. Mr. Cuff, agreeably to Jarge instructions which he had received from his lordship, had drawn up a discourse concerning the great action at Cadiz, which the earl purposed to be published as soon as possible, both to stop all vagrant rumours, and to inform those that were well affected, of the truth of the whole. It was at the same time to be so contrived, that neither his lordship’s name, nor Cuff’s, nor any other person’s, connected with the earl, should either be openly mentioned, used, or in such a manner insinuated, as that the most slender guess could be made, who was the penman. The publication was to have the appearance of a letter that came from Cadiz, and the title of it was to be, “A true relation of the action at Cadiz, the 21st of June, under the earl of Essex and the lord admiral, sent to a gentleman in court from one that served there in good place.” Sir Anthony Ashley, who was entrusted with the design, acted a treacherous part on this occasion. He betrayed the secret to the queen, and the lords of her council; the consequence of which was, that Mr. Fulke Grevill was charged by her majesty to command Mr. Cuff, upon pain of death, not to set forth any discourse concerning the expedition without her consent.

He was afterwards involved in all the misfortunes of that unhappy earl, and did not escape partaking of his fate. Upon the sudden reverse of the earl’s fortunes, Cuff was not only involved, but looked upon as the chief if not the sole cause and author of his misfortunes. Thus, when the earl was tried and condemned, February ly, 1601, and solicited by the divines who attended him while under sentence, he not only confessed matters prejudicial to Cuff, but likewise charged him to his face with being the author of all his misfortunes, and the person who principally persuaded him to pursue violent measures. Sir Henry Neville, also, being involved in this unhappy business, mentioned Cuff as the person who invited him to the meeting at JDrury-house; where the plot for forcing the earl’s way to the queen by violence was concerted. Cuff was brought to his trial March 5th following, and although he defended himself with great steadiness and spirit, was convicted, and executed at Tyburn, March 30, 1601; dying, it is said, with great constancy and courage. He declared, at the place of execution, that “he was not in the least concerned in that wild commotion which was raised by a particular great but unadvised earl, but shut up that whole day within the house, where he spent his time in very melancholy reflections: that he never persuaded any man to take up arms against the queen, but was most heartily concerned for being -an instrument of bringing that worthy gentleman sir Henry Neville into danger, and did most earnestly intreat his pardon, &c.” His character has been harshly treated by lord* Bacon, sir Henry Wotton, and other writers. Camden also, who knew him intimately, and had lived many years in great friendship with him, says that he was a man of most exquisite learning and penetrating wit, but of a seditious and perverse disposition. Others are milder in their censures 5 and all allow him to have been a very able and learned man. He wrote a book in English, a very little before his death, which was printed about six years after, under this title: “The differences of the ages of man’s life, together with the original causes, progress, and end thereof,” 1607, 8vo. It has been printed more than once since, and commended as a curious and philosophical piece. Wood says, that he left behind him other things ready for the press, which were never published. Bishop Tanner has given us the title of one; viz. “De rebus gestis in sancto concilio Nicaeno;” or, The transactions in the holy council of Nice, translated out of Greek into Latin, and believed to have been the work of Gelasius Cyricenus, which was transcribed from the original in the Vatican library by Cuff. And in the “Epistolae Francisci et Johannis Hotomanorum, Patris et Filii, et clarorum Virorum ad eos,” are several letters by Cuff, to John Hotman. These are said to exhibit distinguished marks of genius and learning; to be written in elegant Latin; and to contain some curious particulars. Mr. Warton informs us that, notwithstanding the severe check he received at Trinity college, he presented several volumes to the library. The manner of his death deprived him, as may easily be imagined, of a monument an old friend, however, ventured to embalm his memory in the following epitaph:

About this time his father was persuaded to listen to some flattering offers of situations for him; but, as his health was still in an unsettled state, he joined with his family in an excursion to York, where he passed half a year in the society and amusements of that city. The style of living there was a perfect contrast with what he had been accustomed to: he hunted in the mornings, danced in the evenings, and devoted but little time to study. He here got hold of Spenser’s Fairy Queen, in imitation of which he began to write stanzas to the same measure; at other times he also composed short elegies in the manner of Hammond; but for these pursuits he was seasonablyreproved by his mother, and relinquished them; and on his return to college, he was soon invited to the master’s lodge by Dr. Smith, who honoured him with approbation of his past exertions, and imparted to him a new arrangement that had been determined upon, for annulling so much of the existing statutes as restricted all bachelors of arts, except those of the third year’s standing, from offering themselves candidates for fellowships. Dr. Smith also kindly recommended him, as he should be in the second year of his degree at the next election, to present himself for examination.

During his residence in Queen Anne-street East, an event occurred which evinced in a striking manner his disinterested generosity and high sense of honour. He was visited by an old clergyman, the rev. Decimus Reynolds, son of bishop Reynolds, and first cousin to his father. This gentleman, without any previous intimacy, had bequeathed to Cumberland his estate twenty years before: he brought the will in his hand; but required that Cumberland should accompany him to a conveyancer, and direct that a positive deed of gift should be drawn up; for whfch purpose he had brought the title-deeds, and should leave them with Cumberland. Cumberland conjured Mr. Reynolds to inform him if he had any cause of displeasure with his nearer relations; stating that his natural heir was a man of most unexceptionable worth and good character. Mr. Reynolds stated that he left it to Cumberland, as being the representative of the maternal branch of his family; that Cumberland’s father hud ever been his valued friend; and that ho had constantly watched Cumberland’s character, though he had not established any personal acquaintance with him. Upon this explanation, and the evidence of Mr. Reynolds’ s having inherited no atom of his fortune from his paternal line, Cumberland consented to the drawing up of the deed, causing, however, highly to his honour, a clause of resumption to be inserted, impowering the donor to revoke his deed at any future time. This clause Mr. Reynolds was with great difficulty prevailed on to admit; prophetically observing, that it left him exposed to the solicitations of his relations, and in the debility of age, he might be pressed into a revocation of what he had decided upon as the most deliberate act of his life. After ten years of uninterrupted cordiality between them, this resumption actually took place; major Reynolds, the nephew of the old gentleman, bringing his order for the whole of the title-deeds; which were immediately delivered up by Cumberland exactly as he had received them.

, an historian, was born in Scotland, in the time of Cromwell’s usurpation, in 1654; his father was minister at Ettrick, in the shire and presbytery of Selkirk. He was educated, according to the custom of the Scotch gentlemen of those times who. were of the presbyterian sect, in Holland, where we may suppose he imbibed his principles of government, and was much with the Scotch and English refugees at the Hague before the revolution, particularly with the earls of Argyle and Sunderland. He came over to England with the prince of Orange; and was honoured with the confidence and intimacy of many leading men among the friends of king William and the revolution. We find him employed, at different times, in the character of a travelling companion or tutor; first to the earl of Hyndford and his brother Mr. William Carmichael, solicitor-general in the reign of queen Anne for Scotland; secondly, with the lord Lome, afterwards so well known under the name of John duke of Argyle; and thirdly, with the lord viscount Lonsdale. In 1703 we find him at Hanover with the celebrated Atldison, and graciously received by the elector and princess Sophia.

He was colonel of the Coldstream, or second regiment of guards, in 1701; when Steele, who was indebted to his interest for a captain’s commission in the lord Lucas’s regiment of fusileers, inscribed to him his first work, “The Christian Hero.” On the accession of queen Anne, he was made a lieutenant-general of the forces in Holland. February 13, 1702-3, he was appointed commander in chief of the English forces on the continent, during the absence of the duke of Marlborough; commander in chief of the forces in Ireland, under the duke of Ormond, March 23, 1704-5; and afterwards one of the lords justices of that kingdom, to keep him out of the way of action, a circumstance which broke his heart. He died at Dublin, Jan. 26, 1706-7, and was buried there on the 29th, in the cathedral of Christ-church. He was a person of eminent natural parts, well cultivated by study and conversation; of a free, unreserved temper; and of undaunted bravery and resolution. As he was a servant to queen Mary when princess of Orange, and learned the trade of war under her consort, he was early devoted to them both, and a warm supporter of the revolution. He was an absolute stranger to fear; and on all occasions gave distinguishing proofs of his intrepidity, particularly at the siege of Limerick in 1691, at the memorable attack of the castle of Namur in 1695, and at the siege of Venlo in 1702. Macky says of him, in 1703: “He hath abundance of wit, but too much seized with vanity and self-conceit; he is affable, familiar, and very brave. Few considerable actions happened in this as well as the last war, in which he was not, and hath been wounded in all the actions where he served; is esteemed to be a mighty vigilant officer, and for putting the military orders in execution; he is pretty tall, lusty, wellshaped, and an agreeable companion; hath great revenues, yet so very expensive, as always to be in debt; towards fifty years old.” Swift, in a ms note on the above passage, with his usual laconic cruelty, calls lord Cutts, “The vainest old fool alive.” He wrote a poem on the death of queen Mary; and published in 1687, “Poetical Exercises, written upon several occasions, and dedicated to her Royal Highness Mary Princess of Orange; licensed March 23, 1686-7, Roger L'Estrange.” It contains, besides the dedication signed “J. Cutts,” verses to that princess; a poem on Wisdom; another to Mr. Waller on his commending it; seven more copies of verses (one of them called “La Muse Cavalier,” which had been ascribed to lord Peterborough, and as such mentioned by Mr. Walpole in the list of that nobleman’s writings), and eleven songs; the whole composing a very thin volume, which is by no means so scarce as Mr. Walpole supposes it to be. The author speaks of having more pieces by him.

In 1673, the year after her father died, she went to Paris, and was then engaged in an edition of Callimachus, which she published in 1674, in 4to. Some sheets of that work having been shewn to Huetius, preceptor to the dauphin, and other learned men at court, a proposal was made to her of preparing some Latin authors for the use of the dauphin; which, though she rejected at first, she at last Undertook, and published an edition of Florus in 1674, in 4to. Her reputation being now spread over all Europe, Christina of Sweden ordered count Coningsmark to make her a compliment in her name; upon which mademoiselle le Fevre sent the queen a Latin letter with her edition of Florus. Her majesty wrote her an obliging answer; and not long after wrote her another letter, to persuade her to quit the protestant religion, and made her considerable offers to settle her at court. This, however, she declined, and proceeded in the task she had undertaken, of publishing authors for the use of the dauphin, the next of which was “Sextus Aurelius Victor,” Paris, 1681, 4to; in which same year also she published a French translation of the poems of Anacreon and Sappho with notes, which met with great applause; so great, as to make Boileau declare, that it ought to deter any person from attempting to translate those poems into verse. She published, for the use of the dauphin, Eutropius, Paris, 1683, 4to, which was afterwards printed at Oxford, 1696, 8vo; and Dictys Cretensis & Dares Phrygius, Paris, 1684, 4to, which was afterwards printed, cum notis variorum, at Asnst. 1702, 8vo. She had also published French translations of the Amphitryo, Epidicus, and Iludens, comedies of Plautus, Paris, 1683, 3 vols. 12mo, and of the Plutus and Clouds of Aristophanes, 1684, 12mo, with notes, and an examen of all these plays according to the rules of the theatre. She was so charmed with the Clouds of Aristophanes, it seems, that, as we learn from herself, she had read it over 200 times with pleasure.

, a painter, was born at Stockholm in 1656, and came to London at an early age, being introduced into this country by an English merchant, but he afterwards travelled to Paris, and resided there some time. He then visited Italy, where he painted, amongst others, the portrait of queen Christina of Sweden. In 1688 he returned to England, where he acquired very considerable reputation as a portrait painter, and was no contemptible rival of sir Godfrey Kneller, with whom he lived in habits of friendship. He died in London in 1743 at the advanced age of 87 years. His portraits of Addison, queen Anne, prince George of Denmark, the duke of Marlborough, and the duke of Ormond, have been engraved.

In 1771 he composed a very learned and ingenious paper, or law-case, on the disputed peerage of Sutherland. He was one of the trustees of the lady Elizabeth, the daughter of the last earl, and being then a judge, the names of two eminent lawyers were annexed to it. In that case, he displayed the greatest accuracy of research, and the most profound knowledge of the antiquities and rules of descent, in that country; which he managed with such dexterity of argument, as clearly established the right of his pupil, and formed a precedent, at the same time, for the decision of all such questions in future. In 1773 he published a small volume, entitled “Remarks on the History of Scotland.” Tnese appeared to be the gleanings of the historical research which he was making at that time, and discovered his lordship’s turn for minute and accurate inquiry into doubtful points of history, and at the same time displayed the candour and liberality of his judgment. This publication prepared the public for the favourable reception of the Annals of Scotland, in 2 vols. 4to, the first of which appeared in 1776, and the second in 1779, and fully answered the expectations which he had raised. The difficulties attending the subject, the want of candour, and the spirit of party, had hitherto prevented the Scotch from having a genuine history of their country, in times previous to those of queen Mary. Lord Hailes carried his attention to this history, as far back as to the accession of Malcolm Canmore, in 1057, and his work contains the annals of 14 princes, from Malcolm III. to the death of David II. Aiul happy it was that the affairs of Scotland attracted the talents of so able a writer, who to the learning and skill of a lawyer, joined the industry and curiosity of an antiquary; to whom no object appears frivolous or unimportant that serves to elucidate his subject.

The works of lord Hailes, arranged in the order of their publication, are as follow: 1. “Sacred poems, by various authors,” Edinb. 1751, 12mo. 2. “The wisdom of Solomon, wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach, or Ecclesiasticus.” Edinb. 1755, 12mo. 3. “Select discourses, nine in number, by John Smith, late fellow of Queen’s college, Cambridge,” Ediub. 17 06, 12mo. 4. “World,” No. 140, Sept. 4, 1755; a meditation among books. 5. World, No. 147, Thursday, Oct. 23, 1755. 6. World, No. 204, Thursday, Nov. 25, 1756. 7. “A discourse of the unnatural and vile Conspiracy attempted by John earl of Go wry, and his brother, against his majesty’s person, at St. Johnstoun, upon the 5th of Aug. 1600,” 1757, 12mo. 8. “A sermon which might have been preached in East Lothian, upon the 25th day of Oct. 1761, from Acts xxvii. 1, 2.” The barbarous people sbewed us no little kindness,“Edinb. 1761, 12mo; occasioned by the country people pillaging the wreck of two vessels, viz. the Betsy, Cunningham, and the Leith packet, Pitcairn, from London to Leith, cast away on the shore between D unbar and North Berwick. All the passengers on board the former, in number seventeen, perished; five on-board the latter, Oct. 16, 1761. An affecting discourse, which is said to have produced the restitution of some part of the pillage. 9.” Memorials and Letters relating to the history of Britain in the reign of James I. published from the originals,“Glasgow, 1762. 10.” The works of the ever-memorable Mr. John Hailes of Eton, now first collected together,“Glasgow, 1765, 3 vols. The fine-paper copies of this work are truly elegant. 11. A specimen of a book entitled: Ane compendious booke of godlie and spiritual sangs, collectit out of sundrie parts of the Scripture, with sundrie other ballates, changed out of prophaine sangs, for avoyding of sin and harlotrie, with augmentation of sundrie gucle and godlie ballates, not contained in the first edition. Printed by Andro Hart,” Edinb. 1765, 12mo. 12. “Memorials and Letters relating to the history of Britain in the reign of Charles’ I. published from the originals,” Glasgow, 1766. 13. “An Account of the Preservation of Charles II. after the battle of Worcester, drawn up by himself; to which are added, his letters to several persons,” Glasgow, 1766. 14. “The secret correspondence between sir Robert Cecil and James VI.” 1766, 12mo. 15. “A catalogue of the lords of session, from the institution of the college of justice, in 1532, with historical notes,” Edinb. 1767, 4to. 16. “The private correspondence of doctor Francis Atterbury, bishop of Rochester, and his friends, in 1725, never before published,” 1768, 4to. 17. “An examination of some of the arguments for the high antiquity of regiam majestatem; and an inquiry into the authenticity of the leges Malcolrni,” Edinb. 1769, 4to. 18. “Historical Memoirs concerning the Provincial Councils of the Scottish Clergy, from the earliest accounts of the,; aera of the reformation,” Edinb. 1769, 4to. 19. “Canons of the church of Scotland, drawn up in the provincial councils held at Perth, anno 1242 and 1269,” Edinb. 1769, 4to. 20. “Ancient Scottish poems, published from the manuscript of George Bannatyne, 1568,” Edinb. 1770, 12mo. 21 .“The additional case of Elizabeth, claiming the title and dignity of countess of Sutherland,” 4to. 22. “Remarks on the History of Scotland,” Edinb. 1773, 12mo. 23. “Hubert! Langueti Epistolae ad Philippum Syclm-ium eqtritem Anglum, ace ura rite D. Dalrymple de Hailes eq.” Edinb. 1776, 8vo. 24. “Annals of Scotland, from the accession of Malcolm III. suriiamed Canmore, to the accession of Robert!.” Edinb. 1776. 25. “Tables of the succession of the kings of Scotland, from Malcolm 111. to Robert 1.” 26. Chronological abridgment of the volume.“The appendix contains eight dissertations. 27.” Annah of Scotland, from the accession of Robert I. surnamed Bruce, to the accession of the house of Stewart,“177:, 4to, with an appendix containing nine dissertations. 28.” Account of the Martyrs of Smyrna and Lyons, in the 2d century, with explanatory notes,“Edinb. 1776. 29,” Remains of Christian Antiquity,“Edinb. 1778, 3 vols. 30.” Octavius, a dialogue by Marcus Minucius Felix,“Edinb. 1781. 31.” Of the manner in which the persecutors died, by Lactantius,“Edinb. 17S2. 32.” Luciani Coelii Firmiani Lactantii divinarum institutionum liber quintus, sen de justitia,“1777. 33.” Disquisitions concerning the Antiquities of the Christian Church,“Glasgow, 1783. 34.” Sketch of the life of John Barclay,“1786, 4to. 35.” Sketch of the life of John Hamilton, a secular priest, who lived about 1600,“4to. 36.” Sketch of the life of sir James Ramsay, a general officer in the armies of Gustavus Adolphus, king of Sweden.“37.” Life of George Leslie,“4 to. 38.” Sketch of the life of Mark Alex. Boyd,“4to. 39.” The opinions of Sarah duchess dowager of Marlborough, published from her originalMSS.“1788, 12mo. 40.” The address of Q. Septini. Tertullian to Scapula Tertullus, proconsul of Africa," Edinb. 1790, 12mo. This address contains many particulars relating to the church after the 3d century. The translator has rejected all words and phrases of French origin, and writes entirely in the Anglo-Saxon dialect. In the course of the notes, many obscurities of the original, not adverted to by other commentators, are explained. Some strange inaccuracies of Mr. Gibbon are also detected, not included in the misrepresentations of his two famous chapters. He was long engaged in pursuits to examine the authenticity of the books of the New Testament. The result is said to have been, that he discovered every verse contained in it, with the exception of two or three, in the writings of the three first centuries. Indeed this seems to have been an object in all his works; for, at the end of each of his translations and editions of the primitive Christian writers, a table is given of passages quoted or mentioned by them.

was born in 1709, at Deane, in Cumberland, where his father was then rector. He had his school education at Lowther, in Westmoreland, and thence was removed, at the age of sixteen, to Queen’seollege, in Oxford. When he had taken his first degrees, he was employed as tutor or governor to lord Beauchamp, only son of Algernon Seymour, earl of Hertford, late duke of Somerset. During his attendance on that noble youth, he employed some of his leisure hours in adapting Milton’s “Masque at Ludlow Castle” to the stage, by a judicious insertion of several songs and passages selected from other of Milton’s works, as well as of several songs and other elegant additions of his own, suited to the characters and to the manner of the original author. This was received as a very acceptable present to the public; and it still continues one of the most favourite dramatic entertainments, under the title of “Comus, a masque,” being set to music by Dr. Arne. We cannot omit mentioning to Dalton’s honour, that, during the run of this piece, he industriously sought out a grand-daughter of Milton’s, oppressed both by age and penury; and procured her a benefit from this play, the profits of which to her amounted, it is said, to upwards of 120l. Dr. Johnson wrote the Prologue spoken on this occasion. A bad state of health prevented Dr. Dalton from attending his pupil abroad, and saved him the mortification of being an eye-witness of his death, which was occasioned by the small-pox, at Bologna, in Italy. Soon after, succeeding to a fellowship in his college, he entered into orders, according to the rules of that society.

, an English lawyer, was born somewhere in the county of Cambridge, in 1554, and bred to his profession in Lincoln’s-inn, or Gray’s-inn, and was formerly as well known for his book on the office of justice of the peace, as Burn is at present: his “Duty of Sheriffs” was also a book in good esteem. In Neal’s “History of the Puritans,” mention is made of Mr. Dalton the queen’s counsel, who, in 1590, pleaded against Mr. Udal, who was condemned for writing a libel called “A demonstration of Discipline:” this was probably our Dalton, who also in 1592 supported the episcopal power in parliament, of which he was a member, when attacked by the puritan party. There is a ms. of his in the British Museum, entitled “A Breviary or Chronology of the state of the lioinan or Western church or Empire; the decay of true religion, and the rising of papacy, from the time of our Saviour till Martin Luther.” In this he is styled Michael Dalton of Gray’s-inn, esq. It is supposed that he died before the commencement of the civil war.

At the death of Spenser, Daniel, according to Anthony Wood, was appointed poet-lanreat to tiuceu Elizabeth; but Mr. Malone, whose researches lead to more decisive accuracy, considers him only as a volunteer laureat, like Jonson, Dekker, and others who furnished the court with masks and pageants. In king James’s reign he was made gentleman extraordinary, and afterwards one of the grooms of the privy-chamber to the queen consort, who took great delight in his conversation and writings. Some of la’s biographers attribute this promotion to the interest of his brother-in-law, Florio, the Italian lexicographer, but it is perhaps more probable that he owed it to the Pembroke family. Mrs. Cooper, in her Muses’ Library, observes, that in the introduction to his poem on the civil wars, he acknowledges the friendship of one of the noble family of Mountjoy; and this, adds our female critic, is the more grateful and sincere, as it was published after the death of his benefactor. He now rented a small house and garden in Old-street, in the parish of St. Luke’s, London, where he composed most of his dramatic pieces, and enjoyed the friendship of Shakspeare, Marlowe, and Chapman, as well as of many persons of rank; but he appears to have been dissatisfied with the opinions entertained of his poetical talents; and towards the end of his life retired to a farm, which he had at Beckington, near Philips-Norton, in Somersetshire, and where, after some time devoted to study and contemplation, he died, and was buried Oct. 14, 1619. He had been married to his wife Justina, several years, but left no issue.

“He was born not far from Taunton, in this county (Somersetshire), whose father was a master of musick and his harmonious mind made an impression on his son’s genius, who proved an exquisite poet. He carried in his Christian and surname, two holy prophets, his monitors so to qualify his raptures, that he abhorred all prophaneness. He was also a judicious historian, witness his Lives of our English kings since the conquest, until king Edward III. wherein he hath the happiness to reconcile brevity with clearness, qualities of great distance in other authors. He was a servant in ordinary to queen Anne, who allowed him, a fair salary. As the tortoise burieth himself all the winter under the ground, so Mr. Daniel would lye hid at his garden-house in Old -street, nigh London, for some months together (the more retiredly to enjoy the company of the muses) and then would appear in publick, to converse with his friends, whereof Dr. Cowel and Mr. Camden were principal. Some tax him to smack of the old cask, as resenting of the Romish religion, but they have a quicker palate than I, who can make any such discovery. In his old age he turned husbandman, and rented a farm in Wiltshire, nigh the Devizes. I can give no account how he thrived thereupon. For though he was well versed in Virgil, his fellow-husbandman-poet, yet there is more required to make a rich farmer, than only to say his Georgics by heart; and I question whether his Italian will fit our English husbandry. Besides, I suspect that Mr. Daniel his fancy was too fine and sublimated to be wrought down to his private profit.”

His works consist of: 1. “The Complaint of Rosamond,” Lond. 1594, 1598, 1611, and 1623, 4to. 2. Various “Sonnets” to Delia. 3. “Tragedy of Cleopatra,” Lond. 1594, 1598, 4to. 4. “Of the” Civil Wars between the houses of Lancaster and York,“Lond. 1604, 1609, 8vo, and 1623, 4to. 5.” The Vision of the Twelve Goddesses, presented in a Mask,“&c. London, 1604, 8vo, and 1623, 4to. 6.” Panegyric congratulatory,“delivered to king James at Burleigh Harrington, in Rutlandshire, Lond. 1604 and 1623, 4to. 7.” Epistles“to various great personages, in verse, Lond. 1601 and 1623, 4to. 8.” Musophilus, containing a general Defence of Learning,“printed with the former. 9.” Tragedy of “Philotas,” Lond. 1611, &c. 8vo. 10. “Hymen’s Triumph; a pastoral tragi-comedy,” at the nuptials of lord Roxborough, Lond. 1623, 4to, 2d edit. 11.“Musa,” or a Defence of Rhyme, Lond. 1611, 8vo. 12. The “Epistle of Octavia to M. Antoiiius,” Lond. 1611, 8vo. 13. The first part of the “History of England,” in three books, Lond. 1613, 4to, reaching to the end of king Stephen, in prose; to which he afterwards added a second part, reaching to the end of king Edward III. Lond. 1618, 1621, 1623, and 1634, folio, continued to the end of king Richard III. by John Trussel, some time a Winchester scholar, afterwards a trader and alderman of that city. 14. “The Queen’s Arcadia,” a pastoral tragicomedy, 1605, 1623, Lond. 4to. 15. “Funeral poem on the Death of the earl of Devon,” Lond. 1623, 4to. In the same year his poetical works were published in 4to, by his brother John Daniel.

, a brave warrior in the end of the sixteenth and beginning of the seventeenth century, and created earl of Dariby by king Charles I. was the second son of sir John Danvers, knight, by Elizabeth his wife, daughter and coheir to John Nevil the last lord Latimer. He was born at Dantesey in Wiltshire, on the 28th of June, 1573. After an education suitable to his birth, he went and served in the Low Country wars, under Maurice count of Nassau, afterwards prince of Orange; and was engaged in many military actions of those times, both by sea and land. He was made a captain in the wars of France, occasioned in that kingdom by the League; and there knighted for his good service under Henry IV. king of France. He was next employed in Ireland, as lieutenantgeneral of the horse, and serjeant-major of the whole army, under Robert earl of Essex, and Charles Baron of Montjoy, in the reign of queen Elizabeth. Upon the accession of king James I. he was, on account of his family’s deserts and sufferings, advanced, July 21, 1603, to the dignity of a peer of this realm, by the title of Baron of Dantesey: and in J 605, by a special act of parliament, restored in blood as heir to his father, notwithstanding the attainder of his elder brother, sir Charles Danvers, knight. He was also appointed lord president of Munster in Ireland; and in 1620 made governor of the Isle of Guernsey for life. By king Charles I. he was created earl of Danby, February 5, 1625-6; and made of his privy council; and knight of the order of the garter. Being himself a man of learning, as well as a great encourager of it, and observing that opportunities were wanting in the university of Oxford for the useful study of botany, he purchased for the sum of two hundred and fifty pounds, five acres of ground, opposite Magdalen college, which had formerly served for a burying-place to the Jews (residing in great numbers at Oxford, till they were expelled England by king Edward I. in 1290), and conveyed his right and title to that piece of land to the university, on the 27th of March, 1622. The ground being first considerably raised, to prevent its being overflowed by the river Cherwell, the heads of the university laid the first stones of the walls, on the 25th of July following. They were finished in 1633, being fourteen feet high: and cost the noble benefactor about five thousand pounds. The entrance into the garden is on the north side under a stately gate, the charge of building which amounted to between rive and fix hundred pounds. Upon the front of that gateway, is this Latin inscription: Gloriie Dji Opt. Max. Honori Caroli Regis, in usum Acad. et Keipub. Henricus Comes Danby, D.D. MDCXXXII. For the maintenance of it, and of a gardener, the noble founder left, by will, the impropriate rectory of Kirkdale in Yorkshire: which was afterwards settled for the same purpose, by his brother and heir sir John Danvers, knt. The earl of Danby’s will bore date the 14th of December, 1640.

, bishop of Salisbury in the seventeenth century, was born in Watling-street, London, where his father was an eminent merchant, but originally descended from the ancient family of the Davenants of Sible-Heningham, in Essex. What school he was educated in, we cannot find. But, on the 4th of July, 1587, he was admitted pensioner of Queen’s college, in Cambridge. He regularly took his degrees in arts; that of master in 1594. A fellowship was offered him about the same time; but his father would not permit him to accept of it, on account of his plentiful fortune: however, after his father’s decease he accepted of one, into which he was admitted September 2, 1597. Being thus settled in the college, he distinguished himself, as before, by his learning and other excellent qualifications. Tn 1601-he took his degree of B. D. and that of D. D. in 1609. This same year last-mentioned he was elected lady Margaret’s professor, which place he enjoyed till 1621. He was also one of her preachers in 1609 and 1612. On the 20th of October 1614, he was admitted master of his college, and continued in that station till April 20, 1622. And so considerable did he become, that he was one of those eminent English divines sent by king James I. to the synod of Dovt, in 1618. He returned to England in May 1619, after having visited the principal cities in the Low Countries. Upon the death of his brother-in-law, Dr. Robert Townson, he was nominated bishop of Salisbury; and was elected June 11, 1621, confirmed November 17 following, and consecrated the 18th of the same month. He continued in favour during the remainder of king James the First’s reign; but in Lent 1630-1, he incurred the displeasure of the court Cor meddling (in a sermon preached before the king at Whitehall) with the predestinarian controversy “all curious search” into which his majesty had strictly enjoined “to be laid aside.” In a letter to Dr. Ward, bishop Davenant gives the following account of this unpleasant affair. As soon as his sermon was ended, it was signified to him that his majesty was much displeased that he had stirred this question, which his majesty had forbidden to be meddled withal, one way or other: the bishop’s answer was, that he had delivered nothing but the received doctrine of our church, established in the 17th article, and that he was ready to justify the truth of what he had then taught. He was told, the doctrine was not gainsaid, but his majesty had given command these questions should not be debated, and therefore he took it more offensively that any should be so bold as in his own hearing to break his royal commands. To this he replied, that he never understood his majesty had forbidden the handling of any doctrine comprised in the articles of our church, but only raising of new questions, or adding of new sense thereunto, which he had not done, nor ever should do. Two days after, when he appeared before the privy-council, Dr. Sam. Harsnet, archbishop of York, made a speech nearly half an hour long, aggravating the boldness of bishop Davenant’s offence, and shewing many inconveniencies that it was likely to draw after it. When the archbishop had finished his speech, the bishop desired, that since he was called thither as an offender, he might not be put to answer a long speech upon the sudden; but that his grace would be pleased to charge him point by point, and so to receive his answer; for he did not yet understand wherein he had broken any commandment of his majesty’s, which was taken for granted. After some pause, the archbishop told him he knew well enough the point which was urged against him, namely, the breach of the king’s declaration. Then he stood upon this defence, that the doctrine of predestination, which he taught, was not forbidden by the declaration; 1st, Because in the declaration all the articles are established, amongst which, the article of predestination is one. 2. Because all ministers are urged to subscribe unto the truth of the article, and all subjects to continue in the profession of that as well as of the rest. Upon these and such like grounds, he gathered that it could not be esteemed amongst forbidden, curious, or needless doctrines; and here he desired that out of any clause in the declaration it might be shewed him, that keeping himself within the bounds of the article, he had transgressed his majesty’s command; but the declaration was not produced, nor any particular words in it; only this was urged, that the king’s will was, that for the peace of the church these high questions should be forborne. He added, that he was sorry he understood not his majesty’s intention; which if he had done before, he should have made choice of some other matter to treat of, which might have given no offence; and that for the time to come, he should conform himself as readily as any other to his majesty’s command; whereupon he was dismissed. At his departure he entreated the lords of the council to let his majesty understand that he had not boldly, or wilfully and wittingly, against his declaration, meddled with the fore-named point; and that now, understanding fully his majesty’s mind and intention, he should humbly yield obedience thereunto. But although he was dismissed without farther censure, and was even admitted to kiss the king’s hand, yet he was never afterwards in favour at court. He died of a consumption April 20, 1641, to which a sense of the melancholy event approaching did not a little contribute. Among other benefactions, he gave to Queen’scollege, in Cambridge, the perpetual advowsons of the rectories of Cheverel Magna, and Newton Tony, in Wiltshire, and a rent-charge of 3 1l. 10s. per annum, for the founding of two Bible-clerks, and buying books for the library in the same college. His character was that of a man humble and hospitable; painful in preaching and writing; and behaving in every station with exemplary gravity and moderation. He was a man of great learning, and an eminent divine; but strictly attached to Calvinism in the article of unconditionate predestination, &c. Whilst he was at the synod of Dort, he inclined to the doctrine of universal redemption; and was for a middle way between the two extremes, maintaining the certainty of the salvation of a certain number of the elect; and that offers of pardon were sent not only to all that should believe and repent, but to all that heard the Gospel; that grace sufficient to convince and persuade the impenitent (so as to lay the blame of their condemnation upon themselves) went along with these offers; that the redemption of Christ and his merits were applicable to these; and consequently there was a possibility of their salvation. He was buried in Salisbury cathedral.

This play had success enough to procure him the recommendation, if nothing more substantial, of many persons of distinction, and of the wits of the times; and with such encouragement he renewed his attendance at court, adding to its pleasures by his dramatic efforts, and not sparingly to the mirth of his brethren the satirists, by the unfortunate issue of some of his licentious gallantries. For several years his plays and masks were acted with the greatest applause, and his character as a poet was raised very high by all who pretended to be judges. On the death of Ben Jonson, in 1638, the queen procured for him. the vacant laurel, which is said to have given such offence to Thomas May, his rival, as to induce him to join the disaffected party, and to become the advocate and historian of the republican parliament. In 1639, Davenaut was appointed “Governor of the king and queen’s company acting at the Cockpit in Drurv-lane, during the lease which Mrs. Elizabeth Beeston, alias Hutcheson, hath or doth hold in the said house.” When the civil commotions had for some time subsisted, the peculiar nature of them required that public; amusements should be the decided objects of popular resentment, and Davenant, who had administered so copiously to the pleasures of the court, was very soon brought under suspicions of a more serious kind. In May 16M, he was accused before the parliament, of being a partner with many of the king’s friends, in the design of bringing the army to London for his majesty’s protection. His accomplices effected their escape, but Davenant was apprehended at Feversham, and sent up to London. In July following he was bailed, but on a second attempt to withdraw to France, was taken in Kent. At last, however, he contrived to make his escape without farther impediment, and remained abroad for some time. The motive of his flight appears not to have been cowardice, but an unwillingness to sacrifice his life to popular fury, while there was any prospect of his being able to devote it to the service of his royal master. Accordingly, when the queen sent over a considerable quantity of military stores for the use of the earl of Newcastle’s army, Davenant resolutely ventured to return to England, and volunteered his services under that nobleman, who had been one of his patrons. The earl ma.le him lieutenant-general of his ordnance, a post for which, if he was not previously prepared, he qualified himself with so much skill and success, that in September 1643, he was rewarded with the honour of knighthood for the service he rendered to the royal cause at the siege of Gloucester. Of his military prowess, however, we have no farther account, nor at what time he found it necessary, on the decline of the king’s affairs, to retire again into France. Here he was received into the confidence of the queen, who in 1646 employed him in one of her importunate and ill-advised negociations with the king, who was then at Newcastle. About the same time Davenant had embraced the popish religion, a step which probably recommended him to the queen, but which, when known, could only tend to increase the animosity of the republicans against the court, which was already too closely suspected of an attachment to that persuasion. The object of his negociation was to persuade the king to save his crown by sacrificing the church; a proposition which his majesty rejected with becoming dignity; and this, as lord Clarendon observes, “evinced an honest and conscientious principle in his majesty’s mind, which elevated him above all his advisers.” The queen’s advisers in the measure were, his majesty knew, men of no religious principle, and he seems to have resented their sending an ambassador of no more consequence than the manager of a play-house.

His first political work was, “An Essay upon Ways and Means of supplying the War,” 1695. In this treatise he wrote with so much strength and perspicuity upon the nature of funds, that whatever pieces came abroad from the author of the Essay on Ways and Means, were sufficiently recommended to the public; and this was the method he usually took to distinguish the writings he afterwards published. 2. “An Essay on the East-India Trade,” 1697. This was nothing more than a pamphlet, written in form of a letter to the marquis of Normandy, afterwards duke of Buckinghamshire. 3. “Discourses on the public revenues, and of the trade of England. Part I. To which is added, a discourse upon improving the revenue of the state of Athens, written originally in Greek by Xenophon, and now made English from the original, with some historical notes by another hand,” 1698. This other hand was Walter Moyle, esq. who addressed his discourse to Dr. Pavenant. There is a passage in it which shews, that there were some thoughts of sending over our author in quality of director-general to the East-Indies; and is also a clear testimony what that great man’s notions were, in regard' to the importance of his writings. It is this: “The great trade to the East-Indies, with some few regulations, might be established upon a bottom more consistent with the manufactures of England; but in all appearance this is not to be compased, unless some public-spirited man, with a masterly genius,” meaning Dr. Davenant himsrlf, “be placed at the head of our affairs in India. And though we, who are his friends, are loth to lose him, it were to be wished for the good of the kingdom, that the gentleman, whom common fame and the voice of the world have pointed out as the ablest man for such a station, would employ his excellent judgment and talents that way, in the execution of so noble and useful a design.” 4. “Discourses on the Public Revenues, and on the Trade of England, which more immediately treat of the foreign traffic of this kingdom. Part II.” 1698. 5. “An Essay on the probable Method of making the people gainers in the Balance of Trade,” 1699. 6. “A Discourse upon Grants and Resumptions: shewing, how our ancestors have proceeded with such ministers as have procured to themselves grants of the crown revenue; and that the forfeited estates ought to be applied to the payment of public debts,” 1700. 7. “EsMiys upon the Balance of Power; the right of making War, Peace, Alliances; Universal Monarchy. To which is added, an Appendix, containing the records referred to in the second essay,” 1701. It was in this book that our author was carried away by his zeal to treat the church, or at least some churchmen, in so disrespectful a manner, as to draw upon himself a censure from one of the houses of convocation. 8. “A picture of a Modern Whig, in two parts,” 1701. There is, however, nothing but general report, founded upon the likeness of style and other circumstantial evidence, to prove that this bitter pamphlet fell from the pen of our author; and, if it did, he must be allowed to have been the greatest master of invective that ever wrote in our language; others have attributed it to Defoe. 9. “Essays upon Peace at Home and War Abroad, in two parts,” 1704. This is the first piece our author published after the time that he is supposed to have reconciled himself to the ministry; it was suspected to be written at the desire of lord Halifax, and was dedicated to the queen. It drew upon him the resentment of that party, by whom he had been formerly esteemed, but who now bestowed upon him as ill language, or rather worse, than he had received from his former opponents. 10. “Reflections upon the Constitution and Management of the Trade to Africa, through the whole course and progress thereof, from the beginning of the last century to this time,” &c. 1709, fol. in 3 parts. 11. “A Report to the honourable the Commissioners for putting in execution the Act, entitled, an Act for the taking, examining, and stating the Public Accounts of the Kingdom, from Charles Davenant, LL. D. inspector-general of the exports and imports,” 1712, part I. 12. “A Second Report to the Honourable the Commissioners,” &c. 1712. It may be necessary to observe, that several of the above-recited pieces were attacked in the warmest manner, at the time they were published; but the author seems to have satisfied himself in delivering his sentiments and opinions, without shewing any further concern to defend and support them against the cavils of party zeal and contention. Most of his political works were collected and revised by sir Charles Whitworth, 1771, in 5 vols. 8vo.

, an eminent and learned critic, was the son of a merchant in London, and born there April 22, 1679. After being educated in classical learning at the Charterhouse-school, he was, June 8, 1695, admitted of Queen’s-college in Cambridge, where he took the degree of B. A. in 1698. On July 7, 1701, he was chosen fellow of his college and the year following took the degree of M. A. and was proctor in 1709. In 1711, having distinguished himself by several learned publications hereafter mentioned, he was collated by Moore, bishop of Ely, to the rectory of Fen-Ditton near Cambridge, and to a prebend in the church of Ely; taking the same year the degree of LL. D. Upon the death of Dr. James, or, as Bentham says, Dr. Humphrey Gower, he was, on March 23, 1716-17, chosen master of Queen’s-college; and created D. D. the same year, when George I. was at Cambridge. He died March 7, 1731-2, aged 53, and was buried in the chapel of his college, where a flat marble stone was laid over his grave, with a plain inscription at his own desire. His mother, who was daughter of sir John Turton, knt. is said to have been living in 1743.

, a poet and statesman, was the third son of John Davies, of Tisbury, in Wiltshire, not a tanner, as Anthony Wood asserts, but a gentleman, formerly of New Inn, and afterwards a practitioner of law in his native place. His mother was Mary, the daughter of Mr. Bennett, of Pitt-house in the same county. When not fifteen years of age he was sent to Oxford, in Michaelmas term 1585, where he was admitted a commoner of Queen’s college, and prosecuted his studies with perseverance and success. About the beginning of 1588 he removed to the Middle Temple, but returned to Oxford in 1590, and took the degree of B. A. At the Temple, while he did not neglect the study of the law, he rendered himself obnoxious to the discipline of the place by various youthful irregularities, and after being fined, was at last removed from commons. Notwithstanding this, he was called to the bar in 1595, but was again so indiscreet as to forfeit his privileges by a quarrel with Mr. Richard Martin, whom he beat in the Temple hall. For this offence he was in Feb. 1597-8 expelled by the unanimous sentence of the society. Martin was, like himself, a wit and a poet, and had once been expelled for improper behaviour. Both, however, outlived their follies, and rose to considerable eminence in their profession. Martin became reader of the society, recorder of London, and member of parliament, and enjoyed the esteem of Selden, Ben Jonson, and other men of learning and genius, who lamented his premature death in 1618.

After this affair Davies returned to Oxford, where he is supposed to have written his poem on the “Immortality of the Soul.” There is some mistake among his biographers as to the time of its publication, or even of its being written. If, as they all say, he wrote it at Oxford in 1598, and published it in 1599, how is either of these facts to be reconciled with the dedication to queen Elizabeth, which is dated July 11, 1592? Mr. Park, whose accuracy and zeal for literary history induced him to put this question to the readersof the Biographia Britannica, has not attempted a solution, and it must remain in this state, unless an edition of the “Nosce Teipsum” can be found of a prior date, or any ground for supposing that the date of the dedication was a typographical error. This poem, however, procured to him, as he deserved, a very high distinction among the writers of his time, whom, in harmony of versification, he has far surpassed. Whether Elizabeth bestowed any marks of her favour does not appear. He knew, however, her love of flattery, and wrote twenty-six acrostic hymns on the words “Elizabetha regina,” which are certainly the best of their kind.

It is probable that these complimentary trifles made him known to the courtiers, for when the queen was to be entertained by Mr. Secretary Cecil, our poet, by desire, contributed his share in “A Conference between a gentleman usher and a post,” a dramatic entertainment, which does not add much to his reputation. A copy exists in the British Museum, Harl. ms. No. 286. His progress from being the terrae filius of a court to a seat in parliament is not known, but we find that he was chosen a member in the last parliament of Elizabeth, which met on the 27th of October 1601. He appears to have commenced his political career with spirit and intelligence, by opposing monopolies, which were at that time too frequently granted, and strenuously supporting the privileges of the house, for which the queen had not the greatest respect.

, a celebrated historian, was the son of Anthony Davila, who was constable of the kingdom of Cyprus when it was under the power of the Venetians; but having lost his situation by the conquest made by the Turks in 1570, retired to Venice, and being possessed of some property at Sacco in the territory of Padua, determined to settle there. His son was born in this place in 1576, and named Henry Catherine, in honour of Henry III. and Catherine de Medicis, who had shown marks of great respect and kindness for the constable, when he was in France a little before the war of Cyprus. When young Davila had attained his seventh year, his father sent him to France, where he was placed under the care of the marechal D‘Hemery, who had married his father’s sister. D’Hemery, who resided at Villars in Normandy, gave his nephew an excellent education, and at a suitable age introduced him at court as one of the pages to the queen mother. At the age of eighteen, he served in the war against the League, and distinguished himself by an ardour which frequently endangered his life. In 1599, the war being concluded by the peace of Vervins, Davila was recalled by his father and by the Venetians, and returned to Italy. The republic of Venice entrusted him with various employments, both military and civil, such as the government of Candy, and of Dalmatia, and what pleased him most, the title of constable was confirmed to him, and in the senate and on all public occasions he took precedence after the doge. The last office to which he was appointed, but which he never enjoyed, was that of commander of Crema. On his way to this place, the different towns and villages, through which he was to pass, were ordered to furnish him with a change of horses and carriages; but when he arrived at a place near Verona, and requested the usual supplies, they were denied; and on his remonstrating, a brutal fellow shot him dead with a pistol. The assassin was immediately killed by one of Davila’s sons, who happened to be with him. This misfortune happened in 1631, exactly a year after he had published, in Italian, his history of the civil wars of France, under the title “Istoria delle Guerre civili di Francia,” Venice, 4to, reprinted in 1634, 1638, and often since. The finest editions are tnose of Paris, 1644, 2 vols. folio, and of Venice, 1733, 2 vols. folio. We have two old translations into English, 1647, by Aylesbury, and 1678. by dottrel, folio; but the best is that by Farneworth, 1755, 2 vols. 4to. The French have likewise translations by Baudouin, 1642, and by Grosley and the abbe Mallet, 1757, 3 vols. 4to, and there is a Latin translation by Cornazano, Rome, 1743, 3 vols. 4to.

, a very eminent statesman, and secretary of state in the reign of queen Elizabeth, was, if not a native of Scotland, at least descended from those who were, as himself professed to sir James Mel vile. At what time he came into the court of queen Elizabeth, or in what state, is uncertain. It is most probable, that his parts and learning, together with that extraordinary diligence and wonderful address for which he was always distinguished, recommended him to Mr. Killigrew, afterwards sir Henry Kiiligrew, with whom he went in quality of secretary, at the time he was sent into Scotland, to compliment queen Mary upon the birth of her son. This was in 1566, and there is a good reason to believe that he remained from that time about the court, and was employed in several affairs of great consequence. In 1575, when the states of Brabant and Flanders assumed to themselves the administration of all affairs till his catholic majesty should appoint a new governor of the Low Countries, Mr. Davison was sent over with a public character from the queen to those states, under the plausible pretence of exhorting them to continue in their obedience to his catholic majesty; but, in reality, to see how things actually stood in that part of the world, that her majesty might be the better able to know how to proceed in respect to the several applications made to her from the prince of Orange, and the people of Holland. He executed this commission very successfully, and therefore the queen sent him over as her minister, to pacify the troubles that had arisen at Ghent; and when his presence was no longer necessary there, he was commissioned on her behalf to the States of Holland, in 1579. His conduct there gave equal satisfaction to the queen his mistress, and to those with whom he negotiated. He gave them great hopes of the queen’s assistance and support, and when a sum of money was desired, as absolutely necessary towards providing for their defence, he very readily undertook to procure it upon reasonable security; in consequence of which, a very considerable sum was sent from England, for which all the valuable jewels and fine plate that had been pledged by Matthias of Austria to the States of Holland, and which were the remains of the magnificence of the house of Burgundy, were transported to England. These journies, and the success attending them, gave Mr. Davison great reputation at court, insomuch, that in all matters of a nice and difficult nature, Davison was some way or other continually employed. Thus in 1583, when matters wore a serious aspect in Scotland, he was sent thither as the queen’s ambassador, in order to counteract the French ministers, and to engage the king of Scots and the people, both to slight the offers made them from that country, and to depend wholly upon assistance from England. Affairs in the Low Countries coming at last to a crisis, and the states resolving to depend upon queen Elizabeth, in the bold design they had formed of defending their freedom by force of arms, and rendering themselves independent, Mr. Davison, at this time clerk of the privy council, was chosen to manage this delicate business, and to conclude with them that alliance which was to be the basis of their future undertakings. In this, which, without question, was one of the most perplexed transactions in that whole reign, he conducted things with such a happy dexterity, as to merit the strongest acknowledgments on the part of the States, at the same time that he rendered the highest service to the queen his mistress, and obtained ample security for those expences which that princess thought necessary in order to keep danger at a distance, and to encourage the flames of war in the dominions of her enemy, whom at that juncture she knew to be meditating how he might transfer them into her own. Upon the return of Mr. Davison into England, after the conclusion of this treaty, he was declared of the privy-council, and appointed one of her majesty’s principal secretaries of state, in conjunction with sir Francis Walsingham; so that, at this time, these offices may be affirmed to have been as well filled as in any period that can be assigned in our history, and yet by persons of very different, or rather opposite dispositions; for Walsingham was a man of great art and intrigue, one who was not displeased that he was thought such a person, and whose capacity was still deeper than 'those who understood it best apprehended it to be. Davison, on the other hand, had a just reputation for wisdom and probity; and, though he had been concerned in many intricate affairs, yet he preserved a character so unspotted, that, to the time he came into this office, he had done nothing that could draw upon him the least imputation. It is an opinion countenanced by Camden, and which has met with general acceptance, that he was raised in order to be ruined, and that, when he was made secretary of state, there was a view of obliging him to go out of his depth in that matter, which brought upon him all his misfortunes. This conjecture is very plausible, and yet there is good reason to doubt whether it is well founded. Mr. Davison had attached himself, during the progress of his fortunes, to the potent earl of Leicester; and it was chiefly to his favour and interest that he stood indebted for this high employment, in which, if he was deceived by another great statesman, it could not be said that he was raised and ruined by the same hands. But there is nothing more probable than that the bringing about such an event by an instrument which his rival had raised, and then removing him, and rendering his parts useless to those who had raised him, gave a double satisfaction to him who managed this design. It is an object of great curiosity to trace the principal steps of this transaction, which was, without doubt, one of the finest strokes of political management in that whole reign. When the resolution was taken, in the beginning of October 1586, to bring the queen of Scots? to a trial, and a commission was issued for that purpose, secretary Davison’s name was inserted in that commission; but it does not appear that he was present when that commission was opened at Fotheringay castle, on the llth of October, or that he ever assisted there at all. Indeed, the management of that transaction was very wisely left in the hands of those who with so much address had conducted the antecedent business for the conviction of Anthony Babington, and his accomplices, upon the truth and justice of which, the proceedings against the queen of Scots entirely depended. On the 25th of October the sentence was declared in the star-chamber, things proceeding still in the same channel, and nothing particularly done by secretary Davison. On the 29th of the same month the parliament met, in which Serjeant Puckering was speaker of the house of commons; and, upon an application from both houses, queen Elizabeth caused the sentence to be published, which, soon after, was notified to the queen of Scots; yet hitherto all was transacted by the other secretary, who was considered by the nation in general as the person who had led this prosecution from beginning to end. The true meaning of this long and solemn proceeding was certainly to remove, as far as possible, any reflection upon queen Elizabeth; and, that it might appear in the most conspicuous manner to the world, that she was urged, and even constrained to take the life of the queen of Scots, instead of seeking or desiring it. This assertion is not founded upon conjecture, but is a direct matter of fact; for, in her first answer to the parliament, given at Richmond the 12th of November, she complained that the late act had brought her into a great strait, by obliging her to give directions for that queen’s death; and upon the second application, on the 24th of the same month, the queen enters largely into the consequences that must naturally follow upon her taking that step, and on the consideration of them, grounds her returning no definitive resolution, even to this second application. The delay which followed after the publication of the sentence, gave an opportunity for the French king, and several other princes, to interpose, but more especially to king James, whose ambassadors, and particularly sir Robert Melvile, pressed the queen very hard. Camden says, that his ambassadors unseasonably mixing threatenings with intreaties, they were not very welcome; so that after a few days the ambassadors were dismissed, with small hopes of succeeding. But we are elsewhere told, that, when Melvile requested a respite of execution for eight days, she answered, “Not an hour.” This seemed to be a plain declaration of her majesty’s final determination, and such in all probability it was, so that her death being resolved, the only point that remained under debate was, how she should die, that is, whether by the hand of an executioner, or otherwise. In respect to this, the two secretaries seem to have been of different sentiments. Mr. Davison thought the forms of justice should go on, and the end of this melancholy transaction correspond with the rest of the proceedings. Upon this, sir Francis Walsingham pretended sickness, and did not come to court, and by this means the whole business of drawing and bringing the warrant to the queen to sign, fell upon Davison, who, pursuant to the queen’s directions, went through it in the manner that Camden has related. But it is very remarkable, that, while these judicial steps were taking, the other method, to which the queen herself seemed to incline, proceeded also, and secretary Walsingham, notwithstanding his sickness, wrote the very day the warrant was signed, which was Wednesday, February 1st, 1586-7, to sir Amiss Pawlet and sir Drew Drury, to put them in mind of the association, as a thing that might countenance, at least, if not justify, this other way of removing the queen of Scots. It is true, that Mr. Davison subscribed this letter, and wrote another to the same persons two days after; but it appears plainly from the anssver, that the keepers of the queen of Scots considered the motion as coming from Walsingharn. The warrant being delivered to the lords of the council, they sent it down by Mr. Beale, their clerk, a man of sour and stubborn temper, and who had always shewn a great bitterness against the queen of Scots. The day of his departure does not appear; but queen Mary had notice given her on the Monday, to prepare for death on the Wednesday, which she accordingly suffered. As soon as queen Elizabeth was informed of it, she expressed great resentment against her council, forbad them her presence and the court; and caused some of them to be examined, as if she intended to call them to an account for the share they had in this transaction. We are not told particularly who these counsellors were, excepting the lord treasurer Burleigh, who fell into a temporary disgrace about it, and was actually a witness against Mr. Davison. As for the earl of Leicester and secretary Walsingharn, they had prudently withdrawn themselves at the last act of the tragedy, and took care to publish so much, by their letters into Scotland; but secretary Davison, upon whom it was resolved the whole weight of this business should fall, v.-deprived of his office, and sent prisoner to the Tower, at which nobody seerus to have been so much alarmed as the lord treasurer, who, though himself at that time in disgrace, wrote to the queen in strong terms, and once intended to have written in much stronger. This application bad no effect, for the queen having sent her kinsman Mr. Cary, son to the lord Hunsdon, into Scotland, to excuse the matter to king James, charged with a letter to him under her own hand, in which she in the strongest terms possible asserted her own innocence, there was a necessity of doing something that Davison[?] carry an air of evidence, in support of the turn she had now given to the death of that princess. On the 28th of March following, Davison, after having undergone various examinations, was brought to his trial in the star chamber, for the contempt of which he had been guilty, in revealing the queen’s counsels to her privy counsellors, and performing what he understood to be the duty of his office in quality of her secretary. We have several accounts of this trial, which, in a variety of circumstances, differ from each other. In this, however, they all agree, that the judges, who fined him ten thousand marks, and imprisonment during the queen’s pleasure, gave him a very high character, and declared him to be, in their opinions, both an able ana an honest man. One thing is very remarkable, that, in the conclusion of this business, sir Christopher Wray, chief justice of the queen’s bench, told the court, that though the queen had been offended with her council, and had left them to examination, yet now she forgave them, being satisfied that they were misled b? this man’s suggestions. Sir James Melvile, who wrote at that time, and who seems to have had some prejudice against Davison, said very candidly and fairly upon this occasion, that he was deceived by the council. As soon as the proceeding was over, the queen, to put it out of doubt with the king of Scots, that his mother was put to death without her privity or intention, sent him the judgment given against Davison, subscribed by those who had given it, and exemplified under the great seal, together with another instrument, under the hands of all the judges of England, that the sentence against his mother could not in the least prejudice his title to the succession. As for Mr. Davison, now left to a strange reward for his past services, a long imprisonment, which reduced him to indigence, he comforted himself with the thoughts of his innocence; and, to secure his memory from being blasted by that judgment which had withered his fortune, he had long before written an apology for his own conduct, which he addressed to secretary Walsingham, as the man most interested in it, and who could best testify whether what he affirmed was truth or not. In this he gave a very clear and natural detail of the transaction which cost him all his sufferings. It is allowed by all who have written on this subject, and especially by Camden, that he was a very unhappy, though at the same time a very capable and honest man. As such we have seen him recommended to queen Elizabeth by the treasurer Burleigh, and as such he was strongly recommended by the earl of Essex to king James I. It seems, that noble person stuck fast by him under his misfortunes, which plainly shews the party to which he had always adhered. That lord lost no opportunity of soliciting the queen in his favour, and never let slip any occasion of testifying for him the warmest and thesincerest affection. At length, it seems he was not altogether unsuccessful; for though, upon the death of secretary Walsingham, the queen absolutely rejected his motion, that Mr. Davison should come into his place, yet, afterwards, it seems that she yielded in some degree, as plainly appears by the earl’s letter to king James. That we are under an incapacity of tracing him farther, is owing to the profound silence of the writers of those times.

Mr. Whitaker, in his elaborate work entitled “Mary queen of Scots vindicated,” has not forgotten Elizabeth’s conduct with regard to Davison. In the first edition he took proper notice of it, and gave a general account of the unfortunate secretary’s apology. But in the second edition he has inserted the apology at large, and accompanied it with a number of notes that strongly display the unjust and cruel manner in which Davisou was treated by his royal mistress. The pointed observations of Mr. Whitaker’s concluding note afford such a correct view of his character, as, although somewhat different from the preceding in the Biographia Britannica, is probably nearer the truth.

"Let me here, at the end of the apology, remark finally concerning Davison, that, though he was not an honest man, yet he was so nearly one, as to be a very prodigy for the ministry of Elizabeth. He refused, it appears, to sign that very bond of association which was signed by all the nation, and which even the despairing Mary offered, on her liberty being granted, to sign herself. Yet he refused, though Leicester pushed on the association, and though Elizabeth urged him to sign it. Among the pleas which he advances for himself in his other apology, he particularly states * his former absolute refusal to sign the band of association, being earnestly pressed thereunto by her majesty’s self,‘ (Robertson, II. 483). This indeed is a very strong evidence of a manly virtuousness in him. But he did other things in the same spirit of virtue. He declined to act as a commissioner on the examination of Babington and his accomplices for their conspiracy in favour of Mary, and took a journey to Bath, in order to save himself from acting, (Robertson, II. 483). He was a means, too, of preventing the commissioners who were sent to try Mary at Fotheringay castle, from pronouncing sentence upon her immediately after the trial, and of obliging them to return first to London, and report their proceedings to Elizabeth, (Robertson, II. 483). We have already seen that he kept the warrant for the execution of Mary five or six weeks in his hands, without offering to present it to Elizabeth for her signing. We have equally seen that he actually neglected to obey a personal command of Elizabeth’s for bringing the warrant to her, and that he thus neglected for ’ many days,‘ even till the queen fired at his conduct, and sent him a peremptory order to bring it. Even then, and even when Paulet’s answer had been received, and all delay was now at an end for ever, he would not be concerned in sending away the warrant himself, but returned it into the hands from which he had received it, and left Cecil and the council to send it. And, as in all the time ’ before her trial, he neither is nor can be charged, to have had any hand at all in the cause of the said queen, or done any thing whatsoever concerning the same, directly or indirectly,‘ so, * after the return thence of the commissioners, it is well known to all her council, that he never was at any deliberation or meeting whatsoever, in parliament or council, concerning the cause of the said queen, till the sending down of her majesty’s warrant unto the commissioners by the lords and others of her council,’ (Robertson, II. 481).

“These deeds of honesty, no doubt, had successively marked him out for vengeance to the rest of the ministry, and to the queen. He was therefore selected by Cecil, `with her majesty’s own privity,' to be the secretary with whom the warrant should he lodged for signing, (Robertson, II. 481). He was thus exposed to a train of decisive trials. It would be seen whether he offered to present the warrant to Elizabeth for her signature. Should he not offer, a command might be given him by Elizabeth to bring it up. Should he hesitate to obey this, a sharp rebuke and a peremptory order might be sent him. If he was refractory in all these points, then the wrath of Elizabeth would burst out upon him, and sweep him away from her presence for ever. If he complied in any, his farther compliance might be tried in ordering him to the great seal with the warrant, and in directing him to use the warrant, when sealed, with secresy. Should he be found pliable in this trial, the grand scheme of assassination, the favourite wish of Elizabeth’s heart, which had repeatedly been talked over by her other ministers before Elizabeth and him, which they all united to approve, though none of them offered to undertake, and which had been so talked over and so approved of, merely to put Davison upon undertaking it, might finally be urged upon Davisou in private by Elizabeth herself. Should he bend to this urgency, and engage in the work of assassination, Elizabeth, as soon as ever the work was done, would have risen upon him with an affected passion, and made his life the forfeit of his compliance. And should he not bend, all his present, and all his former refractoriness would be remembered at once against him, and unite to draw down the rage of Elizabeth in a storm of real resentment upon him. Either way the man was sure to be ruined. He complied, though only in part. He brought up the warrant at the second order. He carried it to the great seal. He even united with Walsingham to mention Elizabeth’s proposal of assassination to Paulet; but he would go no farther. He actually protested to Elizabeth herself against the proposal before he mentioned it to Paulet. He protested to her against every scheme of assassination. And he was therefore ruined at last by Elizabeth, in a most impudent stretch of falsehood, for doing what he did not do, and in truth and reality, for not doing what he was wanted to do.”

“Thus fell Davison, a memorable evidence of the cunning, the perfidiousness, and the barbarity of Elizabeth and her Cecil! But he was fully revenged of them both in his fall. He wrote the present apology, which serves so greatly to expose the characters of both. It is very convincing in itself; is even drawn up with the air and address of a fine writer, and is peculiarly valuable to the critical investigators of Elizabeth’s conduct. It differs very usefully from that in Dr. Robertson’s Appendix, in being written within the very month of all the main transactions recorded in it, and being therefore very full, circumstantial, and accurate; while that was written many years afterward, is only general and short, and is often inaccurate. It was not, however, a? Camden says, a ‘ private’ apology sent to ‘ Walsingham,’ (Orig. i. 465. Trans. 392). It was evidently calculated, as I have shown before, for the inspection of Elizabeth herself. And, as it would naturally be sent to his brother-secretary for her inspection, so was it a bold challenge to her for the truth and exactness of all his averments, and would serve only to increase the load already descending to crush him. The other was written, not only when the little particulars had faded off from the mind, when memory had confounded some circumstances that were distinct in themselves, and a regular narrative, if it could have been given, was no longer of consequence but, what is very surprizing, when Davison had lost all copy, and even all minutes of this very apology. It was drawn up, too, when he was no longer afraid of showing his forbearance in the cause of Mary, and indeed had reason for displaying it all at large. He therefore goes back much farther in the second apology than in the first, to the return of Mary’s judges from Fotheringay, to the moment of her trial, to the examination of Babington, &c. and to the times preceding all. In this whole period he shows us his secret attachment to Mary, by such a train of incidents as seems peculiarly calculated for the eye of Mary’s son on his accession to the throne of England. Yet Elizabeth must have been alive at the writing of it, since she is spoken of as still queen; and I therefore suppose it to be written at the latter end of Elizabeth’s reign, when all the nation began to turn their eyes towards Scotland for a successor to her; and when Davison would naturally endeavour to make that attachment to Mary, for which he had suffered so severely from Elizabeth, promote his interest with James.”

, a celebrated Austrian general, prince of Tiano, knight of the golden fleece, and of the order of Maria Theresa, field marshal, minister of state, and president of the Aulic council of war, was born in 1705, of an ancient and illustrious family. He was colonel of a regiment of infantry in 1740, and distinguished himself in the war which Maria Theresa carried on for the preservation of the dominions which were left her by Charles VI. The succeeding war procured him a still more brilliant fame. Prince Charles of Lorraine being besieged in Prague, Daun, at the headof an army collected in haste, took the resolution to force the enemy to raise the siege, gave battle to the king of Prussia at Chotchemitch, the 18th of June, 1757, and gained a complete victory. It was on this occasion that the empress-queen instituted the military order that bears her name. The battle of Hochkirchen, in 1758, added fresh laurels to those of the deliverer of Prague. In 1758, by a series of judicious movements he delivered Olmutz, and attacked the Prussians in 1759 at Pirna, took the whole army commanded by general Finck, and made them prisoners of war. He had not the same success at Siplitz near Torgau, in 1760, where the enemy, after the marshal had been obliged to retire from the field on account of a dangerous wound, gained the superiority. This was followed by the peace of Hubertsbourg in 1763. He died at Vienna, the 5th of February 1766, with the reputation of an experienced, brave, circumspect general, humane and compassionate, uniting the virtues of the Christian with those of the soldier. Occasions where prudence was more necessary than activity, were particularly favourable to him. His perceptions were quick and sure; but, when the urgency of the moment excluded maturity of reflection, he found it difficult to take a vigorous determination. Accordingly his victories were often without effect, and the vanquished, by bold and rapid manoeuvres, sometimes were enabled almost instantly to repair their defeat.

, a learned English divine, was born in 1530, at Barton-Kirk in Westmoreland, and became a student in Queen’s college, Oxford, in 1597, and when B. A. was made tabarder, and in 1605, master of arts and fellow. At college he was of a retired studious disposition, and accounted an ornament to the society. Having taken orders, he was beneficed at Barton-kirk, and afterwards presented to a prebend of Carlisle. About the same time he received the degree of D. D. from the university of St. Andrew’s, and was promoted to the rectory of Ashby in Westmoreland. He was much esteemed for learning, and talents in preaching, of which he published a specimen in “Sermons preached upon several occasions,” London, 1653. He died in the month of February in the same year, and was buried in the chancel of Bartonkirk. His character was honoured by verses in Greek, Latin, and English, by Tully, Williamson, and Ellis, three scholars of Queen’s.

, archbishop of York, the youngest son of sir John Dawes, baronet, by Jane his wife, the daughter and only child of Richard Hawkins, of Braintree, in the county of Essex, gent, was born Sept. 12, 1671, at Lyons, (a seat which came by his mother) near Braintree, and received the first rudiments of learning at Merchant-taylors’-school in London, from Mr. John Hartcliffe, and Mr. Ambr. Bonwicke, successively masters of that school; under whose care he made great proficiency in the knowledge of the classics, and was a tolerable master of the Hebrew tongue, even before he was fifteen years of age; which was chiefly owing to the additional care that Dr. Kidder, afterwards bishop of Bath and Wells, took of his education. In act term 1687, he became a scholar of St. John’s college in Oxford, and after his continuance there two years or upwards, was made fellow. But his father’s title and estate descending to him, upon the death of his two brothers, which happened about the same time, he left Oxford, and entering himself a nobleman in Catherine-hall, Cambridge, lived in his eldest brother’s chambers; and, as soon as he was of fit standing, took the degree of master of arts. His intention, from the very first, was to enter into holy orders; and therefore to qualify himself for that purpose, among other introductory works, he seems to have made some of our late eminent divines a considerable branch of his study, even before he was eighteen years of age: and he shewed always a serious and devout temper of mind, and a true sense and love of piety and religion. After he had taken his master of arts’ degree, not being of age to enter into holy orders, he thought it proper to visit the estate he was now become owner of, and to make a short tour into some other parts of the kingdom, which he had not yet seen. But his intended progress was, in some measure, stopped by Ims happening to meet with Frances, the eldest daughter of sir Thomas Darcy, of Braxstead-lodge, in Essex, baronet, a fine and accomplished woman, to whom he paid his addresses, and, not long after, married. As soon as he came to a competent -age, he was ordained deacon and priest by Dr. Compton, bishop of London. Shortly after, he was created doctor in divinity, by a royal mandate, in order to be qualified for the mastership of Catherine-hall; to which he was unanimously elected, in 1696, upon the death of Dr. John Echard. At his coming thither he found the bare case of a new chapel, begun by his predecessor; to the completion of which he contributed very liberally, and, among other beneficial acts to his college, he obtained, through his interest with queen Anne, and her chief ministers, an act of parliament for annexing the first prebend of Norwich which should become vacant, to the mastership of Catherine-hall for ever. Not long after his election, he became vice-chancellor of Cambridge, and discharged that dignity with universal applause. In 1696, he was made one of the chaplains in ordinary to king William; and, shortly after, was presented by his majesty without interest or solicitation, and merely, as the king said, by way of pledge of his future favour, to a prebend of Worcester, in which he was installed August 26, 1698, On the 10th of November 1698, he was collated by archbishop Tenison to the rectory, and, the 19th of December following, to the deanery, of Bocking in Essex, and behaved in that parish in a very charitable and exemplary manner. After queen Anne’s accession to the throne, he was made one of her majesty’s chaplains, and became so great a favourite with her, that he had a reasonable expectation of being advanced to some of the highest dignities in the church. Accordingly, though he happened accidentally to miss of the bishopric of Lincoln , which became vacant in 1705; yet her majesty, of her own accord, named him to the see of Chester, in 1707, upon the death of Dr. Nicholas Stratford: and he was consecrated February 8, 1707-8. In 1713-4, he was, by the recommendation of his worthy predecessor Dr. John Sharp, translated to the archiepiscopal see of York, being elected thereto February 26, and enthroned by proxy the 24th of March following. He continued above ten years in this eminent station, honoured and respected by all. At length a diarrhoea, to which he had been subject several times before, ending in an inflammation of his bowels, put a period to his life April 30, 1724, in the fifty-third year of his age. He was buried in the chapel of Catherine-hall, Cambridge, near his lady, who died December 22, 1705, in the twenty-ninth year of her age. By her he had seven children, William, Francis, William, Thomas, who all died young; and Elizabeth, Jane, and Darcy, who survived him. In person he was tall, proportionable, and beautiful. There was in his look and gesture something easier to be conceived than described, that gained every one’s favour, even before he spoke. His behaviour was easy and courteous to all; his civility free from formality; his conversation lively and cheerful, but without any tincture of levity. He had a genius well fitted for a scholar, a lively imagination, a strong memory, and a sound judgment. He was a kind and loving husband, a tender and indulgent parent, and so extraordinary good a master, that he never was observed to be in a passion; and took care of the spiritual as well as the temporal welfare of his domestics. In his episcopal capacity, he visited his large diocese with great diligence and constancy, Nottinghamshire one year, and Yorkshire another; but every third year he did not hold any visitation. He performed all the offices of his function with becoming seriousness and gravity. He took great care and caution, to admit none but sufficient labourers into the Lord’s harvest; and when admitted, to appoint them stipends adequate to their labour. He administered justice to all with an equal and impartial hand; being no respecter of persons, and making no difference between the poor and rich, but espousing all into the intimacy of his bosom, his care, his affability, his provision, and his prayers.

2. “The Duties of the Closet,” &c. written by him before he was twenty-one years of age. 3. “The Duty of Communicating explained and enforced,” &c. composed for the use of his parish of Bocking, in order to introduce a monthly celebration of the Holy Communion; which used to be administered, before his coming thither, only at the three great festivals of the year. 4. “Sermons preached upon several occasions before king William and queen Anne,” London, 1707, 8vo, dedicated to queen Anne.

, a very eminent English printer in the sixteenth century, was born in St. Peter’s parish, Dunwich, in Suffolk, and is supposed to have descended from a good family in that county. From whom he learned the art of printing, is not clear, unless perhaps Gibson, one of whose devices Day frequently used. He first began printing about 1544, a little above Holborn Conduit, and at that time was in conjunction with William Seres. In 1549 he removed into Aldersgate-street, near St. Anne’s church, where he built a printing-office, but kept shops in various parts of the town, where his books were sold. It would appear that he forbore printing during the reign of queen Mary, yet continued improving himself in the art, as was evident by his subsequent publications. He was the first in England who printed the Saxon letter, and brought that of Greek to great perfection, as well as the Italic and other characters, of which he had great variety. Archbishop Parker, who frequently employed him, considered him as excelling his brethren in skill and industry. He was the first person admitted into the livery of the Stationers’ company, after they obtained their charter from Philip and Mary, was chosen warden in 1564, 1566, 1571, and 1575, and master in 1580. In 1583 he yielded up to the disposal of the company, for the relief of their poor, his right to certain books and copies. He died July 23, 1584, after having followed the business of a printer with great reputation and success for forty years, and was buried in the parish church of Bradley Parva, in the county of Suffolk, with a monument on which are inlaid the effigies of him, his wife, and family, and some lines, cut in the old English letter, intimating his services in the cause of the reformation by his various publications, especially of Fox’s Acts and Monuments; and that he had two wives, and numerous children by both. Besides Fox, he printed several valuable editions of the Bible, of the works of the martyrs, of Ascham, and other then accounted standard authors.

, a dramatic writer of very little value, flourished in the reign of James I. The exact periods of his birth and decease are not ascertained; but he could not have died young, as his earliest play bears date 1600, and his latest 1637. Mr. Oldys thinks that he was living in 1638, and that he was in the King’s-bench prison from 1613 to 1616, or longer. It is supposed he had acquired reputation even in the time of queen Elizabeth, whose decease and funeral he commemorates in his “Wonderful Year,” 1603. He was contemporary with Ben Jonson, with whom he quarrelled. Of this we have usually bad the following account: that “Jonson, who certainly could never ‘bear a rival near the throne,’ has, in his ‘ Poetaster,’ the Dnnciad of that author, among many Other poets whom he has satirised, been peculiarly severe on Decker, whom he has characterised under the name of Crispinus. This compliment Decker has amply repaid in his ‘ Satyromastix, or the untrussing a humourous Poet,’ in which, under the title of young Horace, he has made Ben the hero of his piece.” The provocation, however, on the part of Jonson is completely overthrown by Mr. Gilchrist, whose accurate research has established the fact that the Crispinus of Jonson was not Decker, but Marston. In the Biog. Dramatics, is a long list of forgotten plays by Decker; and his “Gull’s Hornbook,” a scarce little tract by him, was elegantly and curiously reprinted in 1813.

Disturbed with these reports, he left England again in 1548, and went to the university of Louvain; where he distinguished himself so much, that he was visited by the duke of Mantua, by don Lewis de la Cerda, afterwards duke of Medina, and other persons of great rank. While he remained there, sir William Pickering, who was afterwards a great favourite with queen Elizabeth, was his pupil; and in this university it is probable, although not certain, that he had the degree of LL. D. conferred upon him. July 1550 he went from thence to Paris, where, in the college of Uheims, he read lectures upon Euclid’s Elements with uncommon applause; and very great offers were made him, if he would accept of a professorship in that university. In 1551 he returned to England, was well received by sir John Cheke, introduced to secretary Cecil, and even to king Edward himself, from whom he received a pension of 100 crowns a year, which was in 1553 exchanged for a grant of the rectories of Upton upon Severn, and Long Lednam in Lincolnshire. In the reign of queen Mary, he was for some time very kindly treated; but afterwards came into great trouble, and even danger of his life. At the very entrance of it, Dee entered into a correspondence with several of the lady Elizabeth’s principal servants, while she was at Woodstock and at Milton; which being observed, and the nature of it not known, two informers charged him with practising against the queen’s life by inchantments. Upon this he was seized and confined; but being, after several trials, discharged of treason, he was turned over to bishop Bonner, to see if any heresy could be found in him. After a tedious persecution, August 19, 1555, he was, by an order of council, set at liberty; and thought his credit so little hurt by what had happened, that Jan. 15, 1556, he presented “A supplication to queen Mary, for the recovery and preservation of ancient writers and monuments.” The design was certainly good, and would have been attended with good consequences, if it had taken effect; its failure cannot be too deeply regretted, as there was then an opportunity of recovering many of the contents of the monastic libraries dispersed in Edward’s time. Dee also appears to have had both the zeal and knowledge for this undertaking. The original of his supplication, which has often been printed, is still extant in the Cotton library; and we learn from it, that Cicero’s famous work, “De Republica,” was once extant in this kingdom, and perished at Canterbury.

Upon the accession of queen Elizabeth, at the desire of lord Robert Dudley, afterwards earl of Leicester, he delivered somewhat upon the principles of the ancient astrologers, about the choice of a fit day for the coronation of the queen, from whom he received many promises; nevertheless, his credit at court was not sufficient to overcome the public odium against him, on the score of magical incantations, which was the true cause of his missing several preferments. He was by this time become an author; but, as we are told, a little unluckily; for his books were such as scarce any pretended to understand, written upon mysterious subjects in a very mysterious manner. In the spring of 1564 he went abroad again, to present the book which he dedicated to the then emperor Maximilian, and returned to England the same summer. In 1563, he engaged the earl of Pembroke to present the queen with his “Propaedurnata Aphoristica” and two years after, sir Henry Billingsley’s translation of Euclid appeared, with Dee’s preface and notes; which did him more honour than, all his performances, as furnishing incontestable proofs of a more than ordinary skill in the mathematics. In 1571, we find him in Lorrain; where falling dangerously sick, the queen was pleased to send him two physicians. After his return to England, he settled himself in his house at Mortlake; where he prosecuted his studies with great diligence, and collected a noble library, consisting of 4000 volumes, of which above a fourth part were Mss. a great number of mechanical and mathematical instruments, a collection of seals, and many other curiosities. His books only were valued at 2000l. It was upon his leaving the kingdom in 1583, that the populace, who always believed him to be one who dealt with the devil, broke into his house at Mortlake; where they tore and destroyed many things, and dispersed the rest in such a manner, that the greatest part of them were irrecoverable.

In 1572, anew star appeared in Cassiopeia’s chair, which gave Dee an opportunity of distinguishing himself in his own way. March 1575, queen Elizabeth went to his house, to see his library; but having buried his wife only a few hours before, he could not entertain her in the manner he would have done, nor indeed did she enter the house; but he brought out to her majesty a glass of his, which had occasioned much discourse; shewed her the properties of it, and explained their causes, in order to wipe off the aspersion, under which he had so long laboured, of being a magician. In 1577, a comet appearing, the queen sent for him to Windsor, to consult him upon it, and was pleased with his conversation, and promised him her royal protection, notwithstanding the vulgar reports to his prejudice. The year after, her majesty being greatly indisposed, Dee was sent abroad to confer with the German physicians. The queen, hinting her desire to be thoroughly informed as to her title to countries discovered in different parts of the globe by subjects of England, Dee applied himself to the task with great vigour so much, that October 3, 1580, which was not three weeks after, he presented to the queen, in her garden at Richmond, two large rolls, in which those countries were geographically described and historically explained; with the addition of all the testimonies and authorities necessary to support them, from records, and other authentic vouchers. These she very graciously received; and, after dinner, the same day conferred with Dee about them, in the presence of some of her privy-council, and of the lord-treasurer Burleigh especially. His next employment, of consequence enough to be remembered, was the reformation of the calendar; which, though it never took effect until the reign of George II. was one of his best performances, and did him great credit.

The noise their adventures made in Europe induced queen Elizabeth to invite Dee home, who, in May 1689, set out from Trebona towards England. He travelled with great pomp and solemnity, was attended by a guard of horse; and, besides waggons for his goods, had uo less than three coaches for the use of his family; for he had married a second wife, and had several children. He landed at Gravesend Nov. 23; and, Dec. 9, presented himself at Richmond to the queen, who received him very graciously. He then retired to his house at Mortlake; and collecting the remains of his library, which had been torn to pieces and scattered in his absence, he sat down to study. He had great friends; received many presents; yet nothing, it seems, could keep him from want. The queen had quickly notice of this, as well as of the vexations he suffered from the common people, who persecuted him as a conjuror, which at that time was not a title equivalent to an impostor. The queen, who certainly listened oftener to him than might have been expected from her good sense, sent him money from time to time: but all would not do. At length he resolved to apply in such a manner as to procure some settled subsistence; and accordingly, Nov. 9, 1592, he sent a memorial to her majesty by the countess of -Warwick, in which he very earnestly pressed her, that commissioners might be appointed to hear his pretensions, and to examine into the justness of his wants and claims. This had a good effect; for, on the 22d, two commissioners, sir Thomas Gorge, knt. and Mr. Secretary Wolley, were actually sent to Mortlake, where Dee exhibited a book, containing a distinct account of all the memorable transactions of his life, those which occurred in his last journey abroad only excepted; and, as he read this historical narration, he produced all the letters, grants, and other evidences requisite to confirm them, and where these were wanting, named living witnesses. The title of this work, the original of which still remains in the Cotton library, and a transcript of it among Dr. Smith’s written collections, runs thus: “The compendious rehearsal of John Dee, his dutiful declaration and proof of the course and race of his studious life for the space of half an hundred years now by God’s favour and help fully spent, and of the very great injuries, damages, and indignities which for these last nine years he hath in England sustained, contrary to her majesty’s very gracious will and express commandment, made unto the two honourable commissioners by her most excellent majesty thereto assigned, according to the intent of the most humble supplication of the said John, exhibited to her most gracious majesty at Hampton-court, ann. 1592, Nov. 9.” Upon the report made by the commissioners to the queen, he received a present, and promises of preferment; but these promises ending like the former in nothing, he engaged his patroness, the countess of Warwick, to present another short Latin petition to the queen, but with what success does not appear. In Dec. 1594, however, he obtained a grant to the chancellorship of St. Paul’s. But this did not answer his end: upon which he applied himself next to Whitgift, archbishop of Canterbury, by a letter, in which he inserted a large account of all the books he had either published or written: and in consequence of this letter, together with other applications, he obtained a grant of the vvardenshipof Manchester-college. Feb. 15D6, he arrived with his wife and family in that town, and was installed in his new charge. He continued there about seven years; which he is said to have spent in a troublesome and unquiet manner. June 1604, he presented a petition to king James, earnestly desiring him that he might be brought to a trial; that, by a formal and judicial sentence, he might be delivered from those suspicions and surmises which had created him so much uneasiness for upwards of fifty years. But the king, although he at first patronized him, being better informed of the nature of his studies, refused him any mark of royal countenance and favour; which must have greatly affected a man of that vain and ambitious spirit, which all his misfortunes could never alter or amend. November the same year he quitted Manchester with his family, in order to return to his house at Mortlake; where he remained but a short time, being now very old, infirm, and destitute of friends and patrons, who had generally forsaken him. We find him at Mortlake in 1607; where he had recourse to his former invocations, and so came to deal again, as he fancied, with spirits. One Hickman served him now, as Kelly had done formerly. Their transactions were continued to Sept. 7, 1607, which is the last date in that journal published by Casaubon, whose title at large runs thus: “A true and faithful relation of what passed for many years between Dr. John Dee, a mathematician of great fame in queen Elizabeth and king James their reigns, and some spirits, tending, had it succeeded, to a general alteration of most states and kingdoms in the world. His private conferences with Rudolph emperor of Germany, Stephen. king of Poland, and divers other princes, about it. The particulars of his cause, as it was agitated in the emperor’s court by the pope’s intervention. His banishment and restoration in part; as also the letters of sundry great men and princes, some whereof were present at some of these conferences, and apparitions of spirits to the said Dr. Dee, out of the original copy written with Dr. Dee’s own hand, kept in the library of sir Thomas Cotton, knt. baronet. With a preface confirming the reality, as to the point of spirits, of this relation, and shewing the several good uses that a sober Christian may make of all. By Meric Casaubon, D. D. Lond. 1659,” fol.

This book made a great noise upon its first publication; and many years after, the credit of it was revived by one of the ablest mathematicians and philosophers of his time, the celebrated Dr. Hooke; who believed, that not only Casaubon, but archbishop Usher, and other learned men, were entirely mistaken in their notions about this book; and that, in reality, our author Dee never fell under any such delusions, but being a man of great art and intrigue, made use of this strange method of writing to conceal things of a political nature, and, instead of a pretended enthusiast, was a real spy. But there are several reasons which will not suffer us to suppose this. One is, that Dee began these actions in England; for which, if we suppose the whole treatise to be written in cypher, there is no account can be given, any more than for pursuing the same practices in king James’s time, who cannot be imagined to have used him as a spy. Another, that he admitted foreigners, such as Laski, Rosenberg, &c. to be present at these consultations with spirits; which is not reconcileable with the notion of his being intrusted with political secrets. Lastly, upon the return of Dee from Bohemia, Kelly did actually send an account to the queen of practices against her life; but then this was in a plain and open method, which would never have been taken, if there had been any such mysterious correspondence between Dee and her ministers, as Hooke suggests. In the latter end of his life he became miserably poor. It is highly probable that he remained under these delusions to his death; for he was actually providing for a new journey into Germany, when, worn out by age and distempers, he died in 1608, aged eighty, and was buried at Mortlake. He left behind him a numerous posterity both male and female, and among these his eldest son Arthur, who is mentioned in our next article.

The books which Dee printed and published are, 1. “Propaedumata aphoristica; de prsestantiorib.ua quibustlam naturae virtutibus aphorismi,” Lond. 1558, 12mo. 2. “Monas hieroglyphica ad regem Romanorum Maxirnilianum,” Antwerp, 1564. 3. “Epistola ad eximium ducis Urbini mathematicum, Fredericum Commandinum, praefixa libello Machometi Bagdedini de superficierum divi­^ionibus, edita opera Devi et ejusdem Commandini Urbinatis,” Pisauri,!570. 4. “The British Monarchy, otherwise called the Petty Navy Royal,” 1576, a ms. in the Ashmolean museum. 5. “Preface Mathematical to the English Euclid, published by sir Henry Billingsley, knt.” where he says many more arts are wholly invented by name, definition, property, and use, than either the Grecian or Roman mathematicians have left to our knowledge, 1570. 6. “Divers and many Annotations and Inventions dispersed and added after the tenth book of the English Euclid,” 1570. 7. “Epistola prseiixa ephemeridibus Joannis Feldi a 1557, cui rationem declaraverat ephemericles conscribendi.” 8. “Parallaticee com mentation is praxeosque nucleus quidam,” Lond. 1573. This catalogue of Dee’s printed and published books is to be found in his Compendious Rehearsal, &c. as well as in his letter to archbishop Whitgift. Among them are, l.“The great volume of famous and rich discoveries, wherein also is the history of king Solomon every three years, his Ophirian voyage, the originals of presbyter Joannes, and of the first great charn and his successors for many years following. The description of divers wonderful isles in the northern, Scythian, Tartarian, and the other most northern seas, and near under the north pole, by record written 1200 years since, with divers other rarities,” 1576. 2. “The British complement of the perfect art of Navigation. A great volume. In which are contained our queen Elizabeth her tables gubernautic for navigation by the paradoxal compass, invented by him anno 1.557, and navigation by great circles, and for longitudes and latitudes, and the variation of the compass, finding most easily and speedily, yea, if need be, in one minute of time, and sometimes without sight of sun, moon, or stars, with many other new and needful inventions gubernautic,” 1576. 3. “De modo evangelii Jesu Christ! publicandi, propagandi, stabiliendique, inter infideles atlanticos. Volumen magnum libris distinctum qtiatuor: quorum primus ad serenissimam r.ostram potentissimamque reginam Elizabetham inscribiiur; secundus ad summos privati sutc sacra: majestatis consilii senatores; tertius ad Hispaniarum regem Philippum quartus ad pontificem Romanum,” 1591. 4. “Speculum unitatis, sive, apologia pro fratre llogerio Bacone Anglo; in quo docetur nihil ilium per daemoniorum fecisse auxilia, sed pbilosopbum fuisse maximum naturaliterque, et modis homini Christiano licitis maximas fecisse res, quas indoctum solet vulgus in dtemoniorum referre facinora, ' 1557. 5.” De nubium, soils, lunse, ac reliquorum planetarum, imo, ipsius stelliferi cceli, ab intimo ternc centro distantiis, mutuisque intervallis, et eorundem omnium magnitudine, liber anofeutTixo;, ad Edvardum Sextum, Anglisc regem,“1551. 6.” The philosophical and poetical original occasions of the configurations and names of the heavenly Asterisms written at the request of the honble. lady, lady Jane, duchess of Northumberland,“1553. 7.” De hominis corpore, spiritu, et anima: sive, microcosmicum totius naturalis philosophise compendium.“8.” De unico mago et triplice Herode, eoque antichristiano,“1570. 9.” Reipublicae Britannicoe synopsis,“in English, 1562. 10.” Cabbalæ Hebraicæ compendiosa tabella,“1562. 11.” De itinere subterraneo,“, lib. 2. 1560. 12.” Trochilica inventa," lib. 2. 1553, &c. &c.

As he had endeavoured to promote the revolution by his pen and his sword, he had the satisfaction of participating in the pleasures and advantages of that great event. During the hilarity of the moment, the lord-mayor of London asked king William to partake of the city feast on the 29th of October, 1689. Every honour was paid to the sovereign of the people’s choice. A regiment of volunteers, composed of the chief citizens, and commanded by the celebrated earl of Peterborough, attended the king and queen from Whitehall to the Mansion-house. Among these troopers, gallantly mounted, and richly accoutred, was Daniel De Foe.

In the midst of the furious contest of party, civil and religious, on the accession of queen Anne, our author was engaged in a controversy concerning the Occasional Conformity of Dissenters; a controversy, which in those days occasioned vehement contests between the two houses of parliament, but which is now probably silenced for ever.

While he lay friendless in Newgate, his family ruined, and he himself without hopes of deliverance, a verbal message was brought him from sir Robert Harley, speaker of the house of commons, afterwards earl of Oxford, desiring to know what he could do for him. Harley approved, probably, of the principles and conduct of De Foe, and might foresee, that, during a factious age, such a genius could be converted to many uses. Our author was content to intimate a wish only for his release; and when Harley became secretary of state, in April 1704, and had frequent opportunities of representing the unmerited sufferings of De Foe to the queen and to the treasurer, lord Godolphin; yet our author continued four months longer in prison. The queen, however, inquired into his circumstances; and lord Godolphin sent a considerable sum to his wife, and to him money to pay his fine and the expence of his discharge. Here is the foundation, he says, on which be built his first sense of duty to the queen, and the indelible bond of gratitude to his first benefactor, as he calls Harley. “Let any one say, then,” he asks, “what I could have done, less or more than I have done for such a queen and such a benefactor?” All this he manfully avowed to the world, when queen Anne lay lifeless as king William, his first patron; pnd when the earl of Oxford, in the vicissitude of party, had been persecuted by faction, and overpowered, though not conquered, by violence. Being released from Newgate, in August 1704, De Foe, in order to avoid the town-talk, retired to St. Edmund’s Bury; but his retreat did not prevent persecution. Dyer, the newswriter, propagated that De Foe had Hed from justice; Fox, the bookseller, published, that he had deserted his security; andStephen, a state -messenger, every where said, that he had a warrant to apprehend him all which arose from petty malice, for when De Foe informed the secretary of state where he was, and when he would appear, he was told not to fear, as he had not transgressed.

De Foe began the year 1706 with “A Hymn to Peace,” occasioned by the two houses of parliament joining in one address to the queen. On the 4th of May, he published “An Essay at removing National Prejudices against an Union with Scotland.” In July, he published “Jure Divino,” a satire against tyranny and passive obedience, which had been delayed, for fear, as he declares, of parliamentary censure. This satire, says the preface, had never been published, had not the world seemed to be going mad a second time with the error of passive obedience and non-resistance. “And because some men require,” says he, “more explicit answers, I declare my belief, that a monarchy, according to the present constitution, limited by parliament, and dependent upon law, is not only the best government in the world, but also the best for this nation in particular, most suitable to the genius of the people, and the circumstances of the whole body.”

About this time, lord Godolphin, who knew how to discriminate characters, determined to employ De Foe on a very important commission. The queen said to him, while he kissed her hand, she had such satisfaction in his former services, that she had again appointed him for another affair, which was something nice, but the treasurer would tell him the rest. In three days he was sent to Scotland. His knowledge of commerce and revenue, his powers of insinuation, and his readiness of pen, were deemed of no small utility in promoting the union. He accordingly arrived at Edinburgh, in October 1706; and we find him no inconsiderable actor in that greatest of all good works. He attended the committees of parliament, for whose use he made several of the calculations on the subject of trade and taxes. He endeavoured to confute all that was published by the writers in Scotland against the union; and he had his share of danger, since, as he says, “he was watched by the mob; had his chamber windows insulted; but, by the prudence of his friends, and God’s providence, he escaped.” In the midst of this great scene of business and tumult, he collected the documents, which he afterward published for the instruction of posterity, with regard to cne of the most difficult transactions in our annals.

De Foe now lived at Newington, in comfortable circumstances, and was principally employed in writing the “Review,” which at last he relinquished after nine years continuance, and began to write “A General History of Trade,” which he proposed to publish in monthly numbers; but this history, which exhibits the ingenuity and strength of De Foe, extended only to two numbers. He appears, at last, to have been silenced by noise, obloquy, and insult, and finding himself treated in this manner, he declined writing at all, and secreted himself, for a time, at Halifax, or on the borders of Lancashire, where, observing the insolence of the Jacobite party, he wrote the following tracts, “A Seasonable Caution;” “What, if the Pretender should come?” “Reasons against the Succession of the House of Hanover;” and “What if the Queen should die:” those pamphlets, whose titles were ironical, were so much approved by the zealous friends of the protestant succcbbiun, that they were diligent to disperse them through the most distant counties; ana 1 yet the reader will learn, with indignation, that for these De Foe wen arrested, obliged to give Soo/. bail, contrary to the bill of rights, and prosecuted by information, in Trinity term, 1713. This prosecution was instituted by the absurd zeal of Mr. auditor Benson. Our author attributes it to the malice of his enemies, who were numerous and powerful. No inconsiderable people were heard to say, that they knew the books were against the pretender, but that De Foe had disobliged them in other things, and they resolved to take this advantage to punish him. He was prompted by consciousness of innocence to defend himself in the “Review” during the prosecution, which offended the judges, who, being infected with the violent spirit of the times, committed him to Newgate in Easter term 1713. He was, however, soon released, on making a proper submission, and the earl of Oxford being still in power, that nobleman procured him the queen’s pardon, in November 1713.

“No sooner was the queen dead,” says De Foe, “but the rage of men increased upon me to that degree, that their threats were such as I am unable to express. Though I have written nothing since the queen’s death; yet a great many things are called by my name, and I bear the answei'ers insults. 1 have not seen or spoken with the earl of Oxford, since the king’s landing, but once; yet he bears the reproach of my writing for him, and I the rage of men for doing it.” — De Foe appears, indeed, to have been stunned by factious clamour, and overborne, though not silenced, by unmerited obloquy. He probably lost his original appointment when the earl of Oxford was finally expelled. Instead of meeting with reward for his zealous services in support of the protestant succession, he was, on the accession of George I, discountenanced even by those who had derived a benefit from his active exertions. Thus cruelly circumstanced, he published in 1715, his “Appeal to Honour and Justice, being a true account of his conduct in public affairs.” As a motive for this intrepid measure, he affectingly says, “By the hints of mortality, and the infirmities of a life of sorrow and fatigue, I have reason to think, that I am very near to the great ocean of eternity; and the time may not be long ere I embark on the last voyage: wherefore, I think I should make even accounts with this world before I go, that no slanders may lie against my heirs, to disturb them in the peaceable possession of their father’s inheritance, his character.” Before he could finish his appeal, he was struck with an apoplexy. After languishing more than six weeks, neither able to go on, nor likely to recover, his friends would delay the publication no longer. “It is the opinion of most who know him,” says Baker, the publisher, “that the treatment which he here complains of, and others of which he would have spoken, have been the cause of this disaster.” When the ardent mind of De Foe reflected on what he had done, and what he had suffered, his heart melted in despair, and the year 1715 may be regarded as the period of our author’s political life. The death of Anne, and the accession of George the first, seem to have convinced him of the vanity of party-writing. And from this eventful epoch, he appears to have studied how to meliorate the heart, and how to regulate the practice of life.

, an excellent painter and engraver, was the son of William Delft, and a near relation (grandson, according to Pilkington) of Michael Miravelt, and born at Delft in 1619. He drew and painted portraits with excellent taste; and having been instructed by Miravelt, acquired a similar mode of design and colouring, and successfully imitated him in the management of his pencil, so that he is said to have equalled Miravelt in force and delicacy. He is, however, more generally known as an engraver; and his best prints are highly finished: some of them are executed in a bold, powerful, open style, which produces a fine effect. Such was his portrait of Hugo Grotius, dated 1652; and others in a neat and much more finished manner, as we find, says Strutt, in the admirable portrait of Michael Miravelt, from a picture of Vandyke. It does not appear that he was ever in England; and yet he engraved several English portraits, as Charles I. of England, Henrietta Maria, his queen, George Villars, duke of Buckingham, &c. and, accor.lmg to lord Orf'ord, styled himself the king’s engraver He died in 1661.

, an ingenious electrician, was born in the parish of St. Martin’s, London, in 1710. His father having escaped from France to Holland, upon the revocation of the edict of Nantes, came over to England with king William. He died soon after the birth of his son, who was brought up by his uncle, an officer in the English service, and page of honour to queen Mary, who placed him at Westminster school. Whilst pursuing his studies there, he boarded in the house of Dr. Desaguliers, who instructed him in the mathematics and natural philosophy. At the age of seventeen, before he had left school, he married; and went to Leyden and followed his studies in the university of that place. In 1740, he began to read lectures in experimental philosophy at Edinburgh, and continued them till he was interrupted by the rebellion. He then took up arms for government, and was a volunteer at the battle of Preston-pans. In 1746, he resumed his lectures, and published his discovery of the effects of electricity upon the growth of vegetables. This discovery was afterwards claimed by abbé Nollet; but is very properly assigned to Dr. Demainbray by Dr. Priestley, in his “History of Electricity.” In 1749, Dr; Demainbray went to Dublin, where he read his lectures with much success, as he did afterwards in several of the French universities, who honoured him with prize medals, and admitted him into their societies. In 1753, being then at Paris, he was invited over to England, to read a course of lectures to his present majesty (then prince of Wales) and the duke of York. On his return to England he married a second wife, his first wife having died about the year 1750. In 1755 he read a public course of lectures in the concert-room in Panton-street, and in 1757 in Carey-street, opposite Boswell-court. After this he gave private courses to other branches of the royal family; and on the arrival of her present majesty in England, instructed her in experimental philosophy, and natural history. In 1768, he was appointed astronomer to his majesty’s new observatory at Richmond, and adjusted the instruments there in time to observe the transit of Venus, which happened the ensuing year. Dr. Demainbray died at Richmond Feb. 20, 1782, and was interred in the churchyard of Northall, where he had purchased a small estate.

In 1647 he was entrusted by the queen with a message to the king, who was then in the hands of the army, and to whom he got admittance by the help of his acquaintance Hugh Peters; “which trust,” says he, in the dedication of his poems to Charles II. “I performed with great safety to the persons with whom we corresponded: but about nine months after, being discovered by their knowledge of Mr. Cowley’s hand, 1 happily escaped both for myself and them.” In April 1648 he conveyed away James duke of York into France, as Wood says; but Clarendon assures us, that the duke went off with colonel Bamfield only, who contrived the means of escape. Not long after, he was sent sent ambassador from Charles II. to the king of Poland; and William (afterwards lord) Crofts was joined in the embassy with him. Among his poems is one entitled, “On my lord Crofts’s and my journey into Poland, from whence we brought 10,000l. for his majesty, by the decimation (or tithing) of his Scottish subjects there.” About 1652 he returned to England; and, his paternal estate being greatly reduced by gaming and the civil wars, he was kindly entertained by lord Pembroke at Wilton; where, and sometimes at London, he continued with that nobleman above a year. At the restoration he entered upon the office of surveyor-general of all his majesty’s buildings; and at the coronation of the king, was created K. B. Wood pretends, that Charles I. had granted our poet the reversion of that place, after the decease of the famous Inigo Jones, who held it; but sir John himself, in the dedication of his poems, assures us, that Charles II. at his departure from St. Germain’s to Jersey, was pleased, freely, without his asking, to confer it upon him. After his promotion to tbis office, he gave over his poetical lines, and “made it his business,” he says, “to draw such others as might be more serviceable to his majesty, and, he hoped, more lasting.” Uponsome discontent arising from a second marriage, he had the misfortune to be deprived of his reason. Dr. Johnson notices a slight circumstance omitted by other writers, which is, that when our poet was thus afflicted, Butler lampooned him for his lunacy. “I know not,” adds the doctor, “whether the malignant lines were then made public; nor what provocation incited Butler to do what no provocation can excuse.” On his recovery, which was soon, he wrote his fine verses upon the death of Cowley; whom yet he survived but a few months; for he died at his office near Whitehall, which he had before built, March 1668, and was interred in Westminster-abbey, near Chaucer, Spenser, and Cowley. Sir John was an early member of the royal society.

, a clergyman who is entitled to a place in this Dictionary, as having been a contributor to the first edition of it, was born at Sebergbam, in Cumberland, of an ancient family, in 1724, and was educated under the rev. Josiah Ralph, of whose poems he superintended a handsome edition published by subscription. From school he went to Queen’s-college, Oxford, when be took his master’s degree June 16, 1752. On leaving college, he became curate to the rev. Dr. Graham, of Netherby, at Arthuret, and Kirkandrews; and here he printed a local poem, entitled “Gariston,” which is now scarce a as he only circulated a few copies among his friends. In 1753, Dr. Graham removed him to be his curate at Ashted, in Surrey, in which living, upon the doctor’s resignation, Mr. Demon succeeded him. He died here June 27, 1777, leaving three sons and four daughters. As he had had no opportunity to make much provision for this family, the late lord Suffolk generously gave his widow the next presentation to the living, which bounty was so well managed by a judicious friend, as to secure a very comfortable annuity to her and her children. Mr. Denton was a man of unassuming, modest manners; serene and placid, rather than cheerful; and a facetious man, rather than a man of humour. In discharging the duties of his profession, he was exemplarily decent, and his parishioners loved him when living, and lamented him dead. Early in life he reformed, and published a very useful manual of devotions, entitled “Religions retirement for one day in every month,” from the original of Gother, a popish writer. This he undertook “to free from the peculiarities of the Romish church, and to fit it for the use of Protestants.” He is, however, better known by two well-written poems, “Immortality, or the Consolation of human life, a Monody,” printed separately in 4to, 1755, and afterwards reprinted in Dodsley’s Collection; and “The House of Superstition,” a vision, 1762, 4to, afterwards prefixed by Mr. Gilpin to his “Lives of the Reformers.” In both he has proved himself no unsuccessful imitator of the style of Spenser. He also compiled the supplemental volume to the first edition of the Biographical Dictionary, in which the lives are given with equal candour and accuracy.

, the youngest son of sir T. Denton, of Hillesden, in Buckinghamshire, was born at Stow, in April 1605. He received his education at Magdalenhall, in Oxford, where he was initiated into the practice of medicine, under Dr. Henry Ashworth. In 1634 he took his degree of doctor, and going to reside in London, he was appointed physician to the king Charles I. in 1636, and attended his majesty to Scotland in 1639. During the troubles which succeeded, he continued to practise in London, without interfering in the factions of the time; and on the restoration of Charles II. was made one of his physicians in ordinary, and was soon after admitted fellow of the college of physicians. He lived to the accession of king William and queen Mary, to whom, in 168D, he dedicated “Jus Regiminis,” being a jnsiiticntion of defensive arms in general, shewing that the revolution was the just right of the kingdom. He died at his house in Coventgarden, on the yth of May, 1691, and was buried at Hillesden. His daughter was married to George Nicholas, son of sir Edward Nicholas, sometime secretary of state under the kings Charles I. and II. His works are all on political subjects 1. “Horie Subseciva?, or a treatise shewing the original, grounds, reasons, and provocations, necessitating our sanguinary Laws against Papists, made in the days of queen Elizabeth,” 1664, 4to. 2. “The Burnt Child dreads the Fire, or an examination of the merits of the Papists, relating to England, mostly from their own pens, in justification of the late act of parliament for preventing dangers which may happen from popish recusants,” London, 1675, 4to, 3. “Jus Cassaris et Ecclesiae vere dicta?,” 1681, fol. to which he added, on a single sheet, “An Apology for the Liberty of the Press”

On his return to France, however, we find him confirming the rumours against him by assuming the female dress. In excuse for this we are told that this was not a matter of choice, but insisted on by the French court, and submitted to on his part with much reluctance. Monstrous as this absurdity seems to be on the part of the French government, it is now ascertained that whilst the business of the policies was going on in this country, the celebrated Caron de Beaumarchais was actually employed by that government in negociating with D‘Eon, not only for the delivery of some state-papers in his possession, and his return to France, but for the immediate assumption of the female dress and character. When D’Eon returned to France, he shewed no disposition to comply with the wishes or injunctions of his royal master, but continued for some time to wear the military uniform; and it was not till after an imprisonment of some weeks in the castle of Dijon, that the apprehension of consequences still more unpleasant, and on the other hand, a promise of the most substantial marks of court favour, induced him to assume the female character and garb, which having once adopted, he ever after continued to support, maintaining the most inviolable secrecy on the subject of his sex to the day of his death. In consequence of this compliance with the pleasure of his court, the peusion formerly granted by Louis XV. was continued, with permission to retain the cross of St. Louis; a most flattering acknowledgment was made of past services, civil and military, and the metamorphosed chevalier was even appointed to a situation in the household of the queen of France.

, a puritan divine of the sixteenth century, was a native of the county of Kent, and related to the Derings of Surrenden. He was educated at Christ’s college, Cambridge, of which he was chosen fellow ia 1668, and then took his degree of bachelor of divinity. The year before, according to Mr. Cole, he was admitted lady Margaret’s professor of divinity. He was also one of the preachers at St. Paul’s, and in 1569 obtained the rectory of Pluckley in the diocese of Canterbury, and became chaplain to the duke of Norfolk. On Dec. 20, 1571, he was presented by the queen to the prebend of Chardstoke in the cathedral of Salisbury. He was much celebrated for his eloquence in the pulpit, and for his general learning and acuteness as a disputant, of which last he gave a proof, in a work written against the popish Dr. Harding, entitled “A Sparing Restraint of many lavish Untruths,” &c. 1568, 4to. But at length he not only adopted the sentiments of Cartwright and others on the subject of habits and ceremonies, but contended in the pulpit for the entire change of church government by bishops, &c. for which he was, after a long examination and controversy, suspended from preaching in 1573. Strype has given a particular account of his prosecution and answers. He died June 26, 1576, lamented for his piety and usefulness. But he appears to have carried his resistance to the established religion to a greater height than most of his brethren, and did not spare the queen herself. Once when preaching before her majesty, he told her, that when she was persecuted by queen Mary, her motto was tanquam ovis (“like a sheep”), but now it might be tanquam indomita juvjenca (“like an untamed heifer”). The queen, however, retained so much of her milder character as only to forbid his preaching at court; to which Neal, who quotes Fuller for this anecdote, adds that “he lost all his preferments in the church,” although no such words are to be found in Fuller. His principal works are, 1. a A Lecture or Exposition upon a part of the fifth chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, as it was read in St. Paul’s, Dec. 6, 1572,“Lond. 1581, Itnno. This work was extended to” Twenty-seven Lectures or Readings upon part of that Epistle,“1576. 2.” A Sermon preached before the Queen’s Majesty, Feb. 25, 1569,“Lond. 1584. 3.” A Sermon preached at the Tower of London, Dec. 11, 1569,“ibid. 158-k These three are noticed, with extracts, in the Bibliographer, vol. I. 4.” Certain godly and comfortable Letters, full of Christian consolation," &c. no date, 4to, all which, with some other tracts of Dering’s, were collected and printed in one vol. 8vo, by Field in 1595. His correspondence with lord Burleigh may be seen in Strype’s Annals.

During the course of Des Cartes’ residence in Holland, he paid three visits to his native country; one in 1643, when he published an abstract of his philosophy, under the title of “Specimina Philosophies,” the second and third, in 1647 and 1648, when he was amused with a promise of an annual pension of three thousand livres, which he never received. His chagrin upon this disappointment was, however, relieved by an invitation which, through the hands of the French ambassador, he received from Christina, queen of Sweden, to visit Stockholm. That learned princess had read his treatise “On the Passions” with great delight, and was earnestly desirous to be instructed by him in the principles of his philosophy. Des Cartes, notwithstanding the difficulties which he apprehended from the severity of the climate, was prevailed upon to accept the invitation, and arrived at Stockholm in 1649. The queen gave him a respectful reception; and the singular talents which he discovered, induced her earnestly to solicit this eminent philosopher to remain in her kingdom, and assist her in establishing an academy of sciences. But Des Cartes had not been more than four months in Sweden, when a cold which he caught in his early morning visits to the queen, whom he instructed in philosophy, brought on an inflammation of the lungs, which soon put a period to his life. The queen is said to have lamented his death with tears. His remains were interred, at the request of the French ambassador, in the cemetery for foreigners, and a long historical eulogium was inscribed upon his tomb. Des Cartes died Feb. 11, 1650. His remains were afterwards, in 1656, carried from Sweden into France, and interred with great pomp in the church of St. Genevieve du Mont.

, the first earl of Essex of this name and family, a general equally distinguished for his courage and conduct, and a nobleman not more illustrious by his titles than by his birth, was descended from a most ancient and noble farrr!“, being the son of sir Richard Devereux, knight, by Do 'thy, daughter of George earl of Huntingdon, and gra.idson of Walter viscount of Hereford, so created by king Edward the Sixth. He was born about 1540, at his grandfather’s castle in Carmarthenshire, and during his education applied himself to his studies with great diligence and success. He succeeded to the titles of viscount Hereford and lord Ferrers of Chartley, in the nineteenth year of his age, and being early distinguished for his modesty, learning, and loyalty, stood in higii favour with his sovereign, queen Elizabeth. In 1569, upon the breaking out of the rebellion in the north, under the earls of Northumberland and Westmoreland, he raised a considerable body of forces, which joining those belonging to the lord admiral and the earl of Lincoln, he was declared marshal of the army, and obliged the rebels to disperse. This so highly recommended him to the queen, that in 1572 she honoured him with the garter, and on the 4th of May, the same year, created him earl of Essex, as being descended by his great grandmother from the noble family of Bourchier, long before honoured with the same title. In the month of January following, he was one of the peers that sat in judgment upon the duke of Norfolk. At this time he was such a favourite with the queen, that some, who were for confining her good graces to themselves, endeavoured to remove him by encouraging an inclination he shewed to adventure both his person and fortune for her majesty’s service in Ireland. Accordingly, on the 16th of August, 1573, he embarked at Liverpool, accompanied by lord Darcy, lord Rich, and many other persons of distinction, together with a multitude of volunteers, who were incited by the hopes of preferment, and his lordship’s known reputation. His reception in Ireland was not very auspicious landing at Knockfergus on the 16th of September, he found the chiefs of the rebels inclined apparently to submit; but having gained time, they broke out again into open rebellion. Lord Rich was called away by his own affairs, and by degrees, most of those who went abroad with the earl, came home again upon a variety of pretences. In this situation Essex desired the queen to carry on the service in her own name, and by her own command, though he should be at one half of the expence. Afterwards he applied to the earls of Sussex and Leicester, and the lord Burleigh, to induce the queen to pay one hundred horse and six hundred foot; which, however, did not take effect; but the queen, perceiving the slight put upon him, and that the lord deputy had delayed sending him his commission, was inclined to recal him out of Ulster, if Leicester and others, who had promoted his removal, had not dissuaded her. The lord deputy, at last, in 1574, sent him his patent, but with positive orders to pursue the earl of Desmond one way, while himself pressed him another. The earl of Essex reluctantly obeyed, and either forced or persuaded the earl of Desmond to submission; and it is highly probable, would have performed more essential service, if he had not been thwarted. The same misfortune attended his subsequent attempts; and, excepting the zeal of his attendants, the affection of the English soldiers, and the esteem of the native Irish, he gained nothing by all his pains. Worn out at length with these fruitless fatigues, he, the next year, desired leave to conclude upon honourable terms an accommodation with Turlough Oneile, which was refused him. He then surrendered the government of Ulster into the lord deputy’s hands, believing the forces allowed him altogether insufficient for its defence; but the lord deputy obliged him to resume it, and to majrch against Turlough, Oneile, which he accordingly did; and his enterprize” being in a fair way of succeeding, he was surprized to receive instructions, which peremptorily required him to make peace. This likewise he concluded, without loss of honour, and then turned his arms against the Scots from the western islands, who had invaded and taken possession, of his country. These he quickly drove out, and, by the help of Norris, followed them into one of their islands; and was preparing to dispossess them of other posts, when he was required to give up his command, and afterwards to serve at the head of a small body of three hundred men, with no other title than their captain. All this he owed to Leicester; but, notwithstanding his chagrin, he continued to perform his duty, without any shew of resentment, out of respect to the queen’s service. In the spring of the succeeding year he came over to England, and did not hesitate to express his indignation against the all-powerful favourite, for the usage he had met xvith. But as it was the custom of that great man to debase his enemies by exalting them, so he procured an order for the earl of Essex’s return into Ireland, with the sounding title of earl -marshal of that kingdom, and with promises that he should be left more at liberty than in times past; but, upon his arrival at Ireland, he found his situation so little altered for the better, that he pined away with grief and sorrow, which at length proved fatal to him, and brought him to his end. There is nothing more certain, either from the public histories, or private memoirs and letters of that age, than the excellent character of this noble earl, as a brave soldier, a loyal subject, and a disinterested patriot; and in private life he was of a chearful temper, kind, affectionate, and beneficent to all who were about him. He was taken ill of a flux on the 21st of August, and in great pain and misery languished to the 22d of September, 1576, when he departed this life at Dublin, being scarcely thirty-five years old. There was a very strong report at the time, of his being poisoned; but for this there seems little foundation, yet it must have been suspected, as an inquiry was immediately made by authority, and sir Henry Sidney, then lord deputy of Ireland, wrote very fully upon this subject to the privy-council in England, and to one of the members of that council in particular. The corpse of the earl was speedily brought over to England, carried to the place of his nativity, Carmarthen, and buried there with great solemnity, and with most extraordinary i< monies of the unfeigned sorrow of all the country round about. A funeral sermon was preached on this occasion, Nov. 26, 1576, and printed at London 1577, 4to. He married Lettice, daughter to sir Frances Knolles, knight of the garter, who survived him many years, and whose speedy marriage after his death to the earl of Leicester, upon whom common fame threw the charge of hastening his death, perhaps might encourage that report. By this lady he had two sons, Robert and Walter, and two daughters, Penelope, first married to Robert lord Rich, and then to Charles Blount, earl of Devonshire; and Dorothy, who becoming the widow of sir Thomas Perrot, knight, espoused for her second husband Henry Percy earl of Northumberland.

One important objection only has been brought forward against the character of the first earl of Essex, which is mentioned by Dr. Leland, in his History of Ireland. The story, as literally translated by Mr. O'Connor, from the Irish manuscript annals of queen Elizabeth’s reign, is as follows: “Anno 1574. A solemn peace and concord was made between the earl of Essex and Felim O‘Nial. However, at a feast wherein the earl entertained that chieftain, and at the end of their good cheer, O’Nial with his wife were seized, their friends who attended were put to the sword before their faces. Felim, together with his wife and brother, were conveyed to Dublin, where they were cut up in quarters. This execution gave universal discontent and horrour.” Considering the general character of the earl of Essex, we cannot avoid greatly doubting of the authenticity of this fact; and indeed, if it was founded on truth, it must appear very extraordinary that it should not have occurred in any other narrative of the times.

Mr. Park has allotted this nobleman a place in his additions to the “Royal and Noble Authors,” as having written “The Complaint of a Sinner, made and sung by the earle of Essex upon his beath-bed in Ireland,” printed in the “Paradise of dainty Devises,” 1576. There is a copy of this in the Harleian Mss. 293, with an account of the earl’s sickness and death, which latter is ascribed to a dysentery, without any hint of poison. Besides this, the earl wrote a letter to the council, another to the queen, and a third to lord Burleigh, all which afford favourable proofs of his talents and excellent character. The former is inserted in the Biographia Britannica, and the two latter in Murden’s State Papers.

, earl of Essex, memorable for having been a great favourite, and an unhappy victim to the arts of his enemies and his own ambition, m the reign of queen Elizabeth, was son of the preceding, and born Nov. 10, 1567, at Netherwood, his father’s seat in Herefordshire. His father dying when he was only in his 10th year, recommended him to the protection of William Cecil lord Burleigh, whom he appointed his guardian. Two years after, he was sent to the university of Cambridge by this lord, who placed him in Trinity college, under the care of Dr. Whitgift, then master of it, and afterwards archbishop of Canterbury. But Mr. Cole, for many reasons, is inclined to think that he was placed at Queen’s, under Dr. Chaderton. He was, however, educated with much strictness, and applied himself to learning with great diligence; though it is said that, in his tender years, there did not appear aoy pregnant signs of that extraordinary genius which shone forth in him afterwards. In 1583, he took the decree of M. A. and kept his public act, and soon after left Cambridge, and retired to his own house at Lampsie in South Wales, where he spent some time, and became so enamoured of his rural retreut, that he was with difficulty prevailed on to quit it. His first appearance at court, at least as a candidate for royal favour, was in his seventeenth year; and he brought thither a fine person, an agreeable behaviour, and an affability which procured him many friends. By degrees he so far overcame the reluctance he first shewed against the earl of Leicester, his father’s enemy, and now very strangely his father-in-law, that in 1585 he accompanied him to Holland, where we find him next year in the field, with the title of general of the horse. In this quality he gave the highest proofs of personal courage in the battle of Zutphen, fought in 1586; and, on his return to England, was made, the year after, master of the horse in the room of lord Leicester promoted. In 1588, he continued to rise, and indeed almost reached the summit of his fortune; for, when her majesty thought fit to assemble an army at Tilbury, for the defence of the kingdom against the Spanish invasion, she gave the command of it, under herself, to the earl of Leicester, and created the earl of Essex general of the horse. From this time he was considered as the favourite declared; and if there was any mark yet wanting to rix the people’s opinion in that respect, it was shewn by the queen’s conferring on him the honour of the garter.

So quick an elevation, and to so great an height, unfortunately excited an impetuosity of spirit that was natural to the earl of Essex, who, among other instances of uncontrouled temper, often behaved petulantly to the queen herself t who did not admit, while she sometimes provoked, freedoms of that kind from her subjects. His eagerness about this time to dispute her favour with sir Charles Blunt, afterwards lord Montjoy and earl of Devonshire, ended in a duel, in which sir Charles wounded him in the knee. The queen, so far from being displeased with it, is said to have sworn a good round oath, that it was fit somebody should take him down, otherwise there would be no ruling him, yet she assisted in reconciling the rivals; who, to their honour, continued good friends as long as they lived. la 1589, sir John Norris and sir Francis Drake having undertaken an expedition for restoring don Antonio to the crown of Portugal, the earl of Essex, willing to share the glory, followed the fleet and army to Spain; which displeasing the queen very bighty, as it was done without her consent or knowledge, she sent him the following letter: “Essex, your sudden and undutifnl departure from our presence and your place of attendance, you may easily conceive how offensive it is and ought to be unto us. Our great favours, bestowed upon you without deserts, have drawn you. thus to neglect and forget your duty; for other construction we cannot make of these your strange actions. Not meaning, therefore, to tolerate this your disordered part, we gave directions to some of our privy-council, to let you know our express pleasure for your immediate repair hither, which you have not performed as your duty doth bind you, increasing thereby greatly your former offence and undutiful behaviour in departing in such sort without our privity, having so special office of attendance and charge near our person. We do therefore charge and command you forthwith, upon the receipt of these our letters, all excuses and delays set apart, to make your present and immediate repair nnto us, to understand our farther pleasure. Whereof see you fail not, as you will be loth to incur our indignation, and will answer for the contrary at your uttermost peril. The 15th of April, 1589.”

At his return, however, he soon recovered her majesty’s good graces, but again irritated her by a private match \ttth Frances, only daughter of sir Francis Walsingham, and widow of sir Philip Sidney. This her majesty apprehended to be derogatory to the honour of the house of Essex; and, though for the present, little notice was taken of it, yet it is thought that it was not soon forgot. In 1591, he went abroad, at the head of some forces, to assist Henry IV. of France: which expedition was afterwards repeated, but with little or no success. In 1592-3, we find him present in the parliament at Westminster, about which time the queen made him one of her privy-council. He met, however, in this and the succeeding years, with various causes of chagrin, partly from the loftiness of his own temper, but chiefly from the artifices of those who envied his great credit with the queen, and were desirous to reduce his power within bounds. Thus a dangerous and treasonable book, written abroad by Parsons, a Jesuit, and published under the name of Doleman, with a view of creating dissension in England about the succession to the crown, was dedicated to him, on purpose to make him odious; and it had its effect. But what chiefly soured his spirit, was his perceiving plainly, that though he could in most suits prevail for himself, yet he was able to do little or nothing for his friends. This appeared remarkably in the case of sir Francis Bacon, which the earl bore with much impatience; and, resolving that his friend should not be neglected, gave him of his own a small estate in land. There are indeed few circumstances in the life of this noble person, that do greater honour to his memory, than his patronage of men of parts and learning. It was this regard for genius which induced him to bury the immortal Spenser at his own expence; and in the latter part of his life, engaged him to take the learned sir Henry Wotton, and the ingenious Mr. Cuffe, into his service: as in his earlier days he had admitted the incomparable brothers, Anthony and Francis Bacon, to share his fortunes and his cares.

But whatever disadvantages the earl might labour under from* intrigues at court, the queen had commonly recourse to his assistance in all dangers and difficulties, and placed him at the head of her fleets and armies, preferably to any other person. His enemies, on the other hand, were contriving and exerting all they could against him, by insinuating to the queen, that, considering his popularity, it would not be at all expedient for her service to receive such as he recommended to civil employments; and they carried this so far, as even to make his approbation a sufficient objection to men whom they had encouraged and recommended themselves. In 1598, a warm dispute arose in the council, between the old and wise lord-treasurer Burleigh and the earl of Essex, about continuing the war with Spain. The earl was for it, the treasurer against it; who at length grew into a great heat, and told the earl that he seemed intent upon nothing but blood and slaughter. The earl explained himself, and said, that the blood and slaughter of the queen’s enemies might be very lawfully his intention; that he was not against a solid, but a specious and precarious peace; that the Spaniards were a subtle and ambitious people, who had contrived to do England more mischief in the time of peace, than of war, &c. The treasurer at last drew out a Prayer-book, in which he shewed Essex this expression: “Men of blood shall not live out half their days.” As the earl knew that methods would be used to prejudice him with the people of England, especially the trading part, who would easily be persuaded to think themselves oppressed by taxes levied for the support of the war, he resolved to vindicate his proceedings, and for that purpose drew up in writing his own arguments, which he addressed to his dear friend Anthony Bacon. This apology stole into the world not long after it was written; and the queen, it is said, was exceedingly offended at it. The title of it runs thus: “To Mr. Anthony Bacon, an Apologie of the Earle of Essexe, against those which falselie and maliciouslie take him to be the only hindrance of the peace and quiet of his countrie.” This was reprinted in 1729, under the title of “The Earl of Essex’s vindication of the war with Spain,” in 8vo.

About this time died the treasurer Burleigh, which was a great misfortune to the earl of Essex; for that lord having shewn a tenderness for the earl’s person, and a concern for his fortunes, had many a time stood between him and his enemies. But now, this guardian being gone, they acted without any restraint, crossed whatever he proposed, stopped the rise of every man he loved, and treated all his projects with an air of contempt. He succeeded lord Burleigh as chancellor of the university of Cambridge; and, going down, was there entertained with great magnificence*. This is reckoned one of the last instances of this great man’s felicity, who was now advanced too high to sit at ease; and those who longed for his honours and employments, very closely applied themselves to bring about his fall. The first great shock he received came from the queen herself, and arose from a warm dispute with her majesty about the choice of some fit and able person to superintend the affairs of Ireland. Camden tells us, that there were only present on this remarkable occasion, the lord admiral, sir Robert Cecil, secretary; and “Windebanke, clerk of the seal. The queen considered sir William Knolls, uncle to Essex, as the most proper person for that charge: Essex contended, that sir George Carew was a much fitter man for it. When the queen could not be persuaded to approve his choice, he so far forgot himself and his duty, as to turn his back upon her in a contemptuous manner; which insolence her majesty not being able to bear, gave him a box on the ear, and, somewhat in her father’s language, bid him” go and be hanged.“He immediately clapped his hand on his sword, and the lord admiral stepping in between, he swore a great oath, declaring that he neither could nor would put up an affront of that nature; that he would not have taken it at the hands of Henry VIII. and in a great passion immediately withdrew from court. The lord keeper advised him to apply himself to the queen for pardon. He sent the lord keeper his answer in a long and passionate letter, which his friends afterwards unadvisedly communicated; in which he appealed from the queen to God Almighty, in expressions to this purpose:” That there was no tempest so boisterous as the resentment of an angry prince; that

preceding April. He did not succeed the authority of the queen, who recomin the contest; for being generally mended by letters Thomas Sackville,

parly, as his deceased father-in-law chosen, had been, the interest of the lord chanthe queen was of a flinty temper; that he well enough knew what was due from him as a subject, an earl, and grand marshal of England, but did not understand the office of a drudge or a porter; that to own himself a criminal was to injure truth, and the author of it, God Almighty: that his body suffered in every part of it by that blow given by his prince; and that it would be a crime in him to serve a queen who had given him so great an affront." He was afterwards reconciled and restored in appearance to the queen’s favour, yet there is good reason to doubt whether he ever recovered it in reality: and his friends have generally dated his ruin from this singular dispute *.

The ear) met with nothing in Ireland but disappointments, in the midst of which, an army was suddenly raised in England, under the command of the earl of Nottingham; nobody well knowing why, but in reality from the suggestions of the earl’s enemies to the queen, that he rather meditated an invasion on his native country, than the reduction of the Irish rebels. This and other considerations made him resolve to quit his post, and come over to England; which he accordingly did, and presented himself before the queen. He met with a tolerable reception; but was soon after confined, examined, and dismissed from all his offices, except that of master of the horse. In the summer of“1600, he recovered his liberty; and in the autumn following, he received Mr. Cuffe, who had been his secretary in Ireland (See Cuffe), into his councils. Cuffe, who was a man of his own disposition, laboured to persuade him, that submission would never do him any good; that the queen was in the hands of a faction, who were his enemies; and that the only way to restore his fortune was to obtain an audience, by whatever means he could, in order to represent his case. The earl did not consent at first to this dangerous advice; but afterwards, giving a loose to his passion, began to declare himself openly, and among other fatal expressions let fall this, that” the queen grew old and cankered; and that her mind was become as crooked as her carcase.“His enemies, who had exact intelligence of all that he proposed, and had provided effectually against the execution of his designs, hurried him upon his fate by a message, sent on the evening of Feb. 7, requiring him to attend the council, which he declined. This appears to have unmanned him, and in his distraction of mind, he gave out, that they sought his life kept a watch in Essex-house all night; and summoned his friends for his defence the next morning. Many disputes ensued, and some blood was spilt; but the earl at last surrendered, and was carried that night to the archbishop’s palace at Lambeth, and the next day to the Tower. On the 19th, he was arraigned before his peers, and after a long trial was sentenced to lose his head: upon which melancholy occasion he said nothing more than this, viz.” If her majesty had pleased, this body of mine might have done her better service; however, I shall be glad if it may prove serviceable to her any way.“He was executed upon the 25th, in his thirty-fourth year, leaving behind him one only son and two daughters. As to his person, he is reported to have been tall, but not very well made; his countenance reserved; his air rather martial than courtly; very careless in dress, and a little addicted to trifling diversions, He was learned, and a lover of learned men, whom he always encouraged and rewarded. He was sincere in his friendships, but not so careful as he ought to have been in making a right choice; sound in his morals, except in point of gallantry, and thoroughly well affected to the protestant religion. Historians inform us, that as to his execution, the queen remained irresolute to the very last, and sent sir Edward Carey to countermand it but, as Camden says, considering afterwards his obstinacy in refusing to ask her pardon, she countermanded those orders, and directed that he should die. There is an odd story current in the world about a ring, which the chevalier Louis Aubrey de Mourier, many years the French minister in Holland, and a man of great parts and unsuspected credit, delivers as an undoubted truth; and that upon the authority of an English minister, who might be well presumed to know what he said. As the incident is remarkable, and has made much noise, we will report it in the words of that historian:” It will not, I believe, be thought either impertinent or disagreeable to add here, what prince Maurice had from the mouth of Mr. Carleton, ambassador of England in Holland, who died secretary of state so well known under the name of lord Dorchester, and who was a man of great merit. He said, that queen Elizabeth gave the earl of Essex a ring, in the height of her passion for him, ordering him to keep it; and that whatever he should commit, she would pardon him when he should return that pledge. Since that time the earl’s enemies having prevailed with the queen, who, besides, was exasperated against him for the contempt he had shewed her beauty, now through age upon the decay, she caused him to be impeached. When he was condemned, she expected to receive from him the ring, and would have granted him his pardon according to her promise. The earl, finding himself in the last extremity, applied to admiral Howard’s lady, who was his relation; and desired her, by a person she could trust, to deliver the ring into the queen’s own hands. But her husband, who was one of the earl’s greatest enemies, and to whom she told this imprudently, would not suffer her to acquit herself of the commission; so that the queen consented to the earl’s death, being full of indignation against so proud and haughty a spirit, who chose rather to die than implore her mercy. Some time after, the admiral’s lady fell sick; and, being given over by her physicians, she sent word to the queen that she had something of great consequence to tell her before she died. The queen came to her bedBide i and having ordered all her attendants to withdraw, the admiral’s lady returned her, but too late, that ring from the earl of Essex, desiring to be excused for not having returned it sooner, since her husband had prevented her. The queen retired immediately, overwhelmed with the utmost grief; she sighed continually for a fortnight, without taking any nourishment, lying in bed entirely dressed, and getting up an hundred times a night. At last she died with hunger and with grief, because she had consented to the death of a lover who had applied to her for mercy." Histoire de Hollancle, p. 215, 216.

Lord Orford has entered into a long disquisition on the proofs of queen Elizabeth’s love for the earl of Essex, and certainly proves that she had a more than ordinary attachment to him, although in some of the circumstances it ap pears to savour more of the fondness of a capricious mother, than of a mistress. His lordship has done wiser in having placed the earl of Essex among the noble authors of England. The various pieces enumerated by lord Orford justly entitle him to that distinction; and he has a farther claim to it from the numerous letters of his which occur in the different collections of state papers, and especially in Birch’s “Memoirs of the Reign of queen Elizabeth.” “But of all his compositions,” says Mr. Walpole, “the most excellent, and in many respects equal to the performances of the greatest geniuses, is a long letter to the queen from Ireland, stating the situation of that country in a most masterly manner, both as a general and statesman, and concluding with strains of the tenderest eloquence, on finding himself so unhappily exposed to the artifice of his enemies during his absence. It cannot fail to excite admiration, that a man ravished from all improvement and reflection at the age of seventeen, to be nursed, perverted, fondled, dazzled in a court, should, notwithstanding, have snatched such opportunities of cultivating his mind and understanding:” In another letter from Ireland, he says movingly, “I provided for this service a breast-plate, but not a cuirass; that is, I am armed on the breast, but not On the back.”

It was as a prose-writer that the earl of Essex excelled, and not as a poet. He is said to have translated one of Ovid’s Epistles; and a few of his sonnets are preserved in the Ashmolean museum. They display, however, no marks of poetic genius. “But if Essex,” says Mr. Warton, “was no poet, few noblemen of his age were more courted by poets. From Spenser to the lowest rhymer he was the subject of numerous sonnets, or popular ballads. I will not except Sydney. I could produce evidence to prove, that he scarcely ever went out of England, or even left London, on the most frivolous enterprize, without a pastoral in his praise, or a panegyric in metre, which were sold and sung in the streets. Having interested himself in the fashionable poetry of the times, he was placed high in the ideal Arcadia now just established; and, among other instances which might be brought, on his return from Portugal in 1589 he was complimented with a poem called” An Egloge gratulatorie entituled to the right honorable and renowned shepherd of Albion’s Arcadia, Robert earl of Essex, and for his returne lately into England.“This is a light in which lord Essex is seldom viewed. I know not if the queen’s fatal partiality, or his own inherent attractions, his love of literature, his heroism, integrity, and generosity, qualities which abundantly overbalance his presumption, his vanity, and impetuosity, had the greater share in dictating these praises. If adulation were any where justifiable, it must be when paid to the man who endeavoured to save Spenser from starving in the streets of Dublin, and who buried him in Westminster-abbey with becoming solemnity. Spenser was persecuted by Burleigh because he was patronised by Essex.”

D‘Ewes (Sir Symonds), an English historian and antiquary, was the son of Paul D’Eues, esq. and born in 1602, at Coxden in Dorsetshire, the seat of Richard Syxnonds, esq. his mother’s father. He was descended from an ancient family in the Low Countries, from whence his ancestors removed hither, and gained a considerable settlement in the county of Suffolk. In 1618, he was entered a fellow- commoner of St. John’s college in Cambridge and about two years after, began to collect materials for forming a correct and complete history of Great Britain. He was no less studious in preserving the history of his own times; setting down carefully the best accounts he was able to obtain of every memorable transaction, at the time it happened. This disposition in a young man of parts recommended him to the acquaintance of persons of the first rank in the republic of letters, such as Cotton, Selden, Spelman, &c. In 1626, he married Anne, daughter to sir William Clopton of Essex, an exquisite beauty, not fourteen years old, with whom he was so sincerely captivated, that his passion for her seems to have increased almost to a degree of extravagance, even after she was his wife. He pursued his studies, however, as usual, with great vigour and diligence, and when little more than thirty years of age, finished that large and accurate work for which he is chiefly memorable. This work he kept by him during his life-time it being written, as he tells us, for his own private use. It was published afterwards with this title “The Journals of all the Parliaments during the reign of queen Elizabeth, both of the House of Lords and House of Commons, collected by sir Symonds D'Ewes, of Stowhall in the county of Suffolk, knt. and bart. revised and published by Paul Bowes, of the Middle Temple, esq. 1682,” folio. In 1633, he resided at Islington in Middlesex. In 1639, he served the office of high sheriff of the county of Suffolk, having been knighted some time before and in the long parliament, which was summoned to meet Nov. 3, 1640, he was elected burgess for Sudbury in that county. July 15, 1641, he was created a baronet; yet upon the breaking out of the civil war, he adhered to the parliament, and took the solemn league and covenant in 1643. He sat in this parliament till Dec. 1648, when he was turned out among those who were thought to have some regard left for the person of the king, and the old constitution in church and state. He died April 18, 1650, and was succeeded in his titles and large estate by his son Willoughby D'Ewes; to whom the above Journals were dedicated, when published, by his cousin Paul Bowes, esq. who was himself a gentleman of worth and learning.

Another thing which hurt his character with some particular writers, was a very foolish speech he made in the long parliament, Jan. 2, 1640, in support of the antiquity of the university of Cambridge. This was afterwards published under the title of “A Speech delivered in parliament by Symonds D'Ewes, touching the antiquity of Cambridge, 1642,” 4to, and exposed him to very severe usage from Wood, Hearne, &c. as it still must to the contempt of every accurate antiquary. Other writers, however, and such as cannot be at all suspected of partiality to him, have spoken much to his honour. Echard, in his History of England, savs, “We shall next mention sir Symonds D'Ewes, a gentleman educated at the university of Cambridge, celebrated for a most curious antiquary, highly esteemed by the great Selden, and particularly remarkable for his Journals of all the parliaments in queen Elizabeth’s reign, and for his admirable ms library he left behind him, now in the hands of one of the greatest geniuses of the age:” meaning the late earl of Oxford. Some curious extracts from the ms journal of his own life (preserved among the Harieian Mss.) are printed in the “Bibliotheca Topographica Britannica, 1783.” In this he has given a minute account of his courtship and marriage. The only love-letter he had occasion to send, and which was accompanied with a present of a diamond carcanet, was as follows:

, protestant minister of Leyden, and professor in the Walloon college of that city, a man of great abilities, and uncommonly versed in the oriental languages, was born April 7, 1590, at Flushing, where his father Daniel de Dieu was minister. Daniel was a man of great merit, and a native of Brussels, where he had been a minister twenty: two years. He removed from thence in 1585, to serve the church at Flushing, after the duke of Parma had taken Brussels. He understood Greek and the oriental languages, and could preach with the applause of his auditors in German, Italian, French, and English. The churches of the Netherlands sent him, in 1588, over to queen Elizabeth, to inform her of the designs of the duke of Parma, who secretly made her proposals of peace, while the king of Spain was equipping a formidable fleet against England. Lewis, his son, studied under Daniel Colonius, his uncle by his mother’s side, who was professor at Leyden in the Walloon college. He was two years minister of the French church at Flushing; and might have been court-minister at the Hague, if his natural aversion to the manners of a court had not restrained him from accepting that place. There are some circumstances relating to that affair which deserve to be remembered. Prince Maurice, being in Zealand, heard Lewis de Dieu preach, who was yet but a student; and some time after sent for him to court. The young man modestly excused himself, declaring, that he designed to satisfy his conscience in the exercise of his ministry, and to censure freely what he should find deserved censure; a liberty, he said, which courts did not care to allow. Besides, he thought the post which was offered him more proper for a man in years than a student. The prince, conscious that he was in the right, commended his modesty and prudence. He was called to Leyden in 1619 to teach, with his uncle Colonius, in the Walloon college; and he discharged the duty of that employment with great diligence till his death, which happened in 1642. He refused the post, which was offered him, of divinity-professor in the new university of Utrecht; but, if he had lived long enough, he would have been advanced to the same post in that of Leyden. He married the daughter of a counsellor of Flushing, by whom he had eleven children.

, an English gentleman, memorable for the share he had in the powder-plot, and his suffering on that account, was descended from an ancient family, and born some time in 1581. His father, Everard Digby, of Drystoke in Rutlandshire, esq. a person of great worth and learning, was educated in St. John’s college, Cambridge, where he took the degree of M. A. and published several treatises, some on learned, others on curious subjects: as, 1. “Theoria analytica viam ad mouarchiam scientiarum demonstrans,” 1579, 4to. 2. “De duplici methodo libri duo, Rami methodum refutantes,” 1580, 8vo. 3. “De arte natandi, libri duo,” 1587. 4. “A dissuasive from taking away the goods and livings of the church,” 4to. His son, the subject of this article, was educated with great care, but unfortunately under the tuition of some popish priests, who gave him those impressions which his father, if he had lived, might probably have prevented; but he died when his son was only eleven years of age. He was introduced very early to the court of queen Elizabeth, where he was much noticed, and received several marks of her majesty’s favour. On the accession of king James, he went likewise to pay his duty, as others of his religion did; was very graciously received; and had the honour of knighthood conferred upon him, being looked on as a man of a fair fortune, pregnant abilities, and a court-like behaviour. He married Mary, daughter and sole heiress of William Mulsho, esq. of Gothurst, in Buckinghamshire, with whom he had a great fortune, which, with his own estate, was settled upon the children of that marriage. One would have imagined that, considering his mild temper and happy situation in the world, this gentleman might have spent his days in honour and peace, without running the smallest hazard of meeting that disgraceful death, which has introduced his name into all our histories: but it happened far otherwise. He was drawn in by the artifices and persuasions of sir Thomas Tresham, a zealous papist, and probably also by those of the notorious Catesby, with whom he was intimate, to be privy to the gunpowder-plot; and though he was not a principal actor in this dreadful affair, or indeed an actor at all, yet he offered 1500l. towards defraying the expences of it; entertained Guy Fawkes, who was to have executed it, in his house; and was taken in open rebellion with other papists after the plot was detected and miscarried. The means by which sir Everard was persuaded to engage in this affair, according to his own account, were these: first, he was told that king James had broke his promises to the catholics; secondly, that severer laws against popery would be made in the next parliament, that husbands would be made obnoxious for their wives’ otte/iees and that it would be made a praemunire only to be a catholic; but the main point was, thirdly, that the restoring of the catholic religion was the duty of every member and that, in consideration of this, he was not to regard any favonjr* received from the crown, the tranquillity of his country, or the hazards that might be run in respect to his life, his family, or his fortune. Upon his commitment to the Tower, he persisted steadily in maintaining his own innocence as to the powder-plot, and refused to discover any who were concerned in it; but when he was brought to his trial at Westminster, Jan. 27, 1606, and indicted for being acquainted with and concealing the powder-treason, taking the double oath of secrecy and constancy, and acting openly with other traitors in rebellion, he pleaded guilty. After this, he endeavoured to extenuate his offence, by explaining the motives before mentioned; and then requested that, as he had been alone in the crime, he might alone bear the punishment, without extending it to his family; and that his debts might be paid, and himself beheaded. When sentence of death was passed, he seemed to be very much affected: for, making a low bow to those on the bench, he said, “If I could hear any of your lordships say you forgave me, I should go the more cheerfully to the gallows.” To this all the lords answered, “God forgive you, and we do.” He was, with other conspirators, upon the 30th of the same month, hanged, drawn, and quartered at the west end of St. Paul’s church in London, where he asked forgiveness of God, the king, the queen, the prince, and all the parliament; and protested, that if he had known this act at first to have been so foul a treason, he would not have concealed it to have gained a world, requiring the people to witness, that he died penitent and sorrowful for it. Wood mentions a most extraordinary circumstance at his death, as a thing generally Itnown, or rather generally reported; namely, that when the executioner plucked out his heart, and according to form held it up, saying, “Here is the heart of a traitor,” sir Everard made answer, “Thou lyest;” a story which will scarcely now obtain belief; yet it is told by Bacon in his “Historia vitae et mortis,” although he does not mention sir Everard’s name.

Sir Everard left at his death two young sons, afterward* sir Kenelm and sir John Digby, and expressed his affection towards them by a well-written and pathetic paper, which he desired might be communicated to them at a fit time, *i> the last advice of their father. While he was in the Tower, he wrote, in juice of lemon, or otherwise, upon slips of paper, as opportunity offered; and got these conveyed to his lady, by such as had permission to see him. These notes, or advertisements, were preserved by the family as precious relics till, in 1675, they were found at the house of Charles Cornwallis, esq. executor to sir Kenelm Digby, by sir Rice Rudd, bart. and William Wogan of Gray’s-inn, esq. They were afterwards annexed to the proceedings against the traitors, and other pieces relating to the popish plot, printed by the orders of secretary Coventry, dated Dec. 12, 1678. In the first of these papers there is the following paragraph “Now for my intention, let me tell you, that if I had thought there had been the least sin in the plot, I would not have been of it for all the world; and no other cause drew me to hazard my fortune and life, but zeal to God’s religion.” Such was the subjugation of sir Everard Digby' s understanding and feelings to his religious principles, and the interest of the church to which he was devoted, that he had no conception of there being the least sin in his engaging in a conspiracy of the most execrable nature, and which involved in it an astonishing complication of murder. It appears, too, that he was surprised and grieved to the last degree, that the plot should be condemned by any catholic. Nor was he singular in these sentiments. The other persons who were concerned in the conspiracy gloried in the design, and they were most of them men of family, estate, and character. Mr. Hume’s observations on the subject are worthy of being recited: “Neither,” says he, “had the desperate fortune of the conspirators urged them to this enterprize, nor had the former profligacy of their lives prepared them for so great a crime. Before that audacious attempt, their conduct seems, in general, liable to no reproach. Catesby’s character had entitled him to such regard, that Rookwood and Digby were seduced by their implicit trust in his judgment; and they declared, that, from the motive alone of friendship to him, they were ready, on any occasion, to have sacrificed their lives. Digby himself was as highly esteemed and beloved as any man in England; and he had been particularly honoured with the good opinion of queen Elizabeth. It was bigoted zeal alone, the most absurd of prejudices masqued with reason, the most criminal of passions covered with the appearance of duty, which seduced them into measures that were fatal to themselves, and had so nearly proved fatal to their country.”

After a long stay in France, where he was highly caressed, he came over to England; and in 1639 was, with sir Walter Montague, employed by the queen to engage the papists to a liberal contribution to the king, which they effected; on which account some styled the forces then raised for his majesty, the popish army. Jan. 1640, the house of commons sent for sir Kenelm in order to know how far, and upon what grounds, he had acted in. this matter; which he opened to them very clearly, without having the least recourse to subterfuges or evasions. Upon the breaking out of the civil war, being at London, he was by the parliament committed prisoner to Winchesterhouse; but at length, in 1643, set at liberty, her majesty the queen dowager of France having condescended to write a letter, with her own hand, in his favour. His liberty was granted upon certain terms; and a very respectful letter written in answer to that of the queen. Hearne has preserved a copy of the letter, directed to the queen regent of France, in the language of that country; of which the following is a translation: “Madam, the two houses of parliament having been informed by the sieur de Gressy, of the desire your majesty has that we should set at liberty sir Kenelm Digby; we are commanded to make known to your majesty, that although the religion, the past behaviour, and the abilities of this gentleman, might give some umbrage of his practising to the prejudice of the constitutions of this realm; nevertheless, having so great a regard to the recommendation of your majesty, they have ordered him to be discharged, and have authorized us farther to assure your majesty, of their being always ready to testify to you their respects upon every occasion, as well as to advance whatever may regard the good correspondence between the two states. We remain your majesty’s most humble servants, &c.” In regard to the terms upon which this gentleman was set at liberty, they will sufficiently appear from the following paper, entirely written, as well as subscribed by his own hand: “Whereas, upon the mediation of her majesty the queen of France, it hath pleased both houses of parliament to permit me to go into that kingdom; in humble acknowledgement of their favour therein, and to preserve and confirm a good opinion of my zeal and honest intentions to the honour and service of my country, I do here, upon the faith of a Christian, and the word of a gentleman, protest and promise, that I will neither directly nor indirectly negociate, promote, consent unto or conceal, any practice or design prejudicial to the honour or safety of the parliament. And, in witness of my reality herein, I have hereunto subscribed my name, this 3d day of August, 1643, Kenelm Digby.” Hovfever, before he quitted the kingdom, he was summoned by a committee of the house of commons, in order to give an account of any transactions he might be privy to between archbishop Laud and the court of Rome; and particularly as to an offer supposed to be made to that prelate from thence of a cardinal’s hat. Sir Kenelm assured the committee that he knew nothing of any such transactions; and that, in his judgment, the archbishop was what he seemed to be, a very sincere and learned protestant. During his confinement at Winchester-house, he was the author of two pieces at the least, which were afterwards made public; namely, 1. “Observations upon Dr. Browne’s Religio Medici,” 1643. 2. “Observations on the 22d stanza in the 9th canto of the 2d book of Spenser’s Fairy Queen,” 1644, containing, says his biographer, “a very deep philosophical commentary upon these most mysterious verses.” His appearance in France was highly agreeable to many of the learned in that kingdom, who had a great opinion of his abilities, and were charmed with the spirit and freedom, of his conversation. It was probably about this time that, having read the writings of Descartes, he resolved to go to Holland on purpose to see him, and found him in his retirement at Egmond. There, after conversing with him. upon philosophical subjects some time, without making himself known, Descartes, who had read some of his works, told him, that “he did not doubt but he was the famous sir Kenelm Digby!” “And if you, sir,” replied the knight, “were not the illustrious M. Descartes, I should not have come here on purpose to see you.” Desmaizeaux, who has preserved this anecdote in his Life of St. Evremond, tells us also of a conversation which then followed between these great men, about lengthening out life to the period of the patriarchs, which we have already noticed in our account of Descartes. He is also said to have had many conferences afterwards with Descartes at Paris, where he spent the best part of the ensuing winter, and employed himself in digesting those philosophical treatises which he had been long meditating; and which he published in his own language, but with a licence or privilege from the French king the year following. Their titles are, J. “A Treatise of the nature of Bodies.” 2. “A Treatise declaring the operations and nature of Man’s Soul, out of which the immortality of reasonable Souls is evinced/' Both printed at Paris in 1644, and often reprinted at London. He published also, 3.” Institutionum peripateticarum libri quinque, curn appendice theologica de origine mundi," Paris, 1651: which piece, joined to the two former, translated into Latin by J. L. together with a preface in the same language by Thomas Albius, \hat is, Thomas White, was printed at London in 4to, 1C69.

After the king’s affairs were totally ruined, sir Kenelm found himself under a necessity of returning into England in order to compound for his estate. The parliament, however, did not judge it proper that he should remain here; and therefore not only ordered him to withdraw, but voted, that if he should afterwards at any time return, without leave of the house first obtained, he should lose both life and estate. Upon this he went again to France, where he was very kindly received by Henrietta Maria, dowager queen of England, to whom he had been for some time chancellor. He was sent by her not long after into Italy, and at first well received by Innocent X. but Wood says, behaved to the pope so haughtily, that he quickly lost his good opinion; and adds farther, that there was a suspicion of his being no faithful steward of the contributions raised in that part of the world for the assistance of the distressed catholics in England. After Cromwell had assumed the supreme power, sir Kenelm, who had then nothing to fear from the parliament, ventured to return home, and continued here a great part of 1655; when it has generally been supposed that he was embarked in the great design of reconciling the papists to the protector.

In 1657 we find him at Montpelier; whither he went, partly for the sake of his health, which began to be impaired by severe fits of the stone, and partly for the sake of enjoying the learned society of several ingenious persons, who had formed themselves into a kind of academy there. To- these he read, in French, his “Discourse of the Cure of Wounds by the Powder of Sympathy,” which, was translated into English, and printed at London; and afterwards into Latin, and reprinted in 1669, with “The Treatise of Bodies, &c.” As to the philosophical arguments in this work, and the manner in which the author accounts for the strange operations of this remedy, however highly admired in those days, they will not now be thought very convincing. He spent the year 1658, and part of 1659, in the Lower Germany; and then returned to Paris, where we find him in 16CO. He returned the year following to England, and was very well received at court; although the ministers were far from being ignorant of the irregularity of his conduct, and the attention he paid to Cromwell while the king was in exile. It does not appear, however, that any other favour was shewn him than seemed to be due to a man of letters. In the first settlement of the royal society we find him appointed one of the council, by the title of sir Kenelm Digby, knight. Chancellor to our dear mother queen Mary. As long as his health permitted, he attended the meetings of this society; and assisted in the improvements that were then made in natural knowledge. One of his discourses, “Concerning the Vegetation of Plants,” was printed in 1661; and it is the only genuine work of our author of which we have not spoken. For though the reader may find in Wood, and other authors, several pieces attributed to him, yet these were published after his decease by one Hartman, who was his operator, and who put his name in the titlepage, with a view of recommending compositions very unworthy of him to the public. It may be proper to observe in this place, that he translated from the Latin of Albertus Magnus, a piece entitled “A treatise of adhering to God,” which was printed at London in 1654; and that he had formed a design of collecting and publishing the works of Roo-er Bacon.

, an English nobleman of great parts, was son of the preceding, and born at Madrid, in October, 1612. In 1626 he was entered of Magdalencollege, in Oxford, where he lived in great familiarity with the well-known Peter Heylin, and gave manifest proofs of those great endowments for which he was afterwards so distinguished. In 1636 he was created M. A. there, just after Charles 1. had left Oxford; where he had been spendidly entertained by the university, and particularly at St. John’s college, by Dr. Laud, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury. In the beginning of the long parliament he was disaffected to the court, and appointed one of the committee to prepare a charge against the earl of Strafford, in 1640 but afterwards would not consent to the bill, “not only,” as he said, “because he was unsatisfied in the matter of law, but for that he was more unsatisfied in the matter of fact.” From that time he became a declared enemy to the parliament, and shewed his dislike of their proceedings in a warm speech against them, which he made at the passing' of the bill of attainder against the said earl, in April 1641. This speech was condemned to be burnt, and himself in June following, expelled the house of commons. In Jan. 1642, he went on a message from his majesty to Kingston-upon-Thames, to certain gentlemen there, with a coach and six horses. This they improved into a warlike appearance; and accordingly he was accused of high treason in parliament, upon pretence of his levying war at Kingston-upon-Thames. Clarendon mentions “this severe prosecution of a young nobleman of admirable parts and eminent hopes, in so implacable a manner, as a most pertinent instance of the tyranny and injustice of those times.” Finding what umbrage he had given to the parliament, and how odious they had made him to the people, he obtained leave, and a licence from his majesty, to transport himself into Holland; whence he wrote several letters to his friends, and one to the queen, which was carried by a perfidious confidant to the parliament, and opened. In a secret expedition afterwards to the king, he was taken by one of the parliament’s ships, and carried to Hull; but being in such a disguise that not his nearest relation could have known him, he brought himself off very dextrously by his artful management of the governor, sir John Hotham. In 1643 he was made one of the secretaries of state to the king, and high steward of the university of Oxford, in the room of William lord Say. In the latter end of 1645 he went into Ireland, and exposed himself to great hazards of his life, for the service of the king; from thence he passed over to Jersey, where the prince of Wales was, and after that into France, in order to transact some important matters with the queen and cardinal Mazarin. Upon the death of the king, he was exempted from pardon by the parliament, and obliged to live in exile till the restoration of Charles II. when he was restored to all he had lost, and made knight of the garter. He became very active in public affairs, spoke frequently in parliament, and distinguished himself by his enmity to Clarendon while chancellor. He died at Chelsea, March 20, 1676, after succeeding his father as earl of Bristol. Many of his speeches and letters are still extant, to he found in our historical collections and he wrote “Elvira,” a comedy, &c. There are also letters of his cousin sir Kenelm Digby, against popery, mentioned in our account of sir Kenelm yet afterwards he became a papist himself; which inconsistencies in his character have been neatly depicted by lord Orford. “He was,” says he, “a singular person, whose life was one contradiction. He wrote against popery, and embraced it; he was a zealous opposer of the court, and a sacrifice for it; was conscientiously converted in the midst of his prosecution of lord Strafford, and was most unconscientiously a prosecutor of lord Clarendon. With great parts he always hurt himself and his friends; with romantic bravery, he was always an unsuccessful commander. He spoke for the test act, though a Roman catholic, and addicted himself to astrology on the birth-day of true philosophy.”

, only son of the preceding Leonard Digges, after a liberal education at home, studied for some time at Oxford; and partly by the improvements he made there, and the previous instructions of his learned father, became one of the greatest mathematicians of his age. Of his history, however, we only know that when queen Elizabeth sent some forces to assist the oppressed inhabitants of the Netherlands, he was appointed muster-­master general, by which he hud an opportunity of becoming skilled in military affairs. The greater part of his life must have been spent in his favourite studies, as besides the revising, correcting, and enlarging some pieces of his father’s, already mentioned, he wrote and published the following learned works himself: 1. “Alæ sive scalæ mathematicæ; or mathematical wings or ladders,” 1573, 4to; containing several demonstrations for finding the parallaxes of any comet or other celestial body; with a correction of the errors in the use of the radius astronomicus. 2. “An arithmetical military treatise, containing so much of arithmetic as is necessary towards military discipline,” 1579, 4to. 3. “A geometrical treatise, named Stratioticos, requisite for the perfection of soldiers,” 1579, 4to. This was begun by his father, but finished by himself. They were both reprinted together in 1590, with several amendments and additions, under this title: “An arithmetical warlike treatise, named Stratioticos; compendiously teaching the science of numbers, as well in fractions as integers, and so much of the rules and equations algebraical, and art of numbers cossical, as are requisite for the profession of a souldier. Together with the moderne militaire discipline, offices, lawes, and orders in every well-governed campe and armie, inviolably to be observed.” At the end of this work there are two pieces; the first entitled “A briefe and true report of the proceedings of the earle of Leycester, for the reliefe of the towne of Sluce, from his arrival at Vlishing, about the end of June 1587, untill the surrendrie thereof, 26 Julii next ensuing. Whereby it shall plainlie appear his excellencie was not in anie fault for the losse of that towne;” the second, “A briefe discourse what orders were best for repulsing of foraine forces, if at any time they should invade us by sea in Kent, or elsesvhere.” 4. “A perfect description of the celestial orbs, according to the most ancient doctrine of the Pythagoreans,” &c. This was placed at the end of his father’s “Prognostication everlasting, &c.” printed in 1592, 4to. 5, “Humble motives for association to maintain the religion established,” 1601, 8vo. To which is added, his “Letter to the same purpose to the archbishops and bishops of England.” 6. “England’s Defence; or a treatise concerning invasion.” This is a tract of the same nature with that printed at the end of his Stratioticos, and called, “A briefe discourse,” &c. It was written in 1599, but not published till 1686. 7. A letter printed before Dr. John Dee’s “Parallaticce commentationis praxeosque nucleus quidam,” 1573, 4to. Besides these and his “Nova Corpora,” he had by him several mathematical treatises ready for the press; but lawsuits, which probably descended upon him with his patrimony, and were productive of pecuniary embarrassments, broke in upon his studies, and embittered his days. He died Aug. 24, 1595, and was buried in the chancel of the church of Aldermanbury, London. Among his unpublished works, was a Plan for the improvement of the Haven and Mole of Dover, in 1582, which was communicated to the Society of Antiquaries, and is printed in the “Archaeologia,” vol. XI. He married Agnes, daughter of sir William St. Leger, knt.

He was a worthy good man, and, as Philipot says, “a great assertor of his country’s liberty in the worst of times, when the sluices of prerogative were opened, and the banks of the law were almost overwhelmed with the inundations of it.” He is now chiefly known as the author of several literary performances, He published, 1. “A Defence of Trade in a letter to sir Thomas Smith, knt. governor of the East India company,” 1615, 4to and after his death there was printed under his name, 2. “A Discourse concerning the Rights and Privilege’s of the Subject in a conference desired by the lords, and had by a committee of both houses April 3, 1628,” 1642, 4to. At this conference, it was, that sir Dudley made the speech above-mentioned which is probably the same given here. 3. He made several speeches upon other occasions, inserted in Raaimorth’s Collections, and “Ephemeris Parliamentarian.” 4. He collected the letters that passed between the lord Burleigh, sir Francis Waisingham, and others, about the intended marriages of queen Elizabeth with the duke of Anjou, in 1570, and with the duke of Alencon in 1581, which were published in 1655, under the title of “The Complete Ambassador, &c.” 1655. folio.

, an eminent French surgeon and writer, was born at Paris, and became surgeon in ordinary to Maria Teresa of Austria, queen of France, and to the dauphinesses and the royal family. These honours were bestowed in consequence of the fame which he acquired as lecturer in surgery and anatomy in the royal gardens at Paris, an office founded by Louis XIV. He retained this and his other offices with increasing reputation, until his death, Dec. 11, 1718. His first publication was “Histoire anatomique d'une matrice extraordinaire,” 1683. In 1690, he published “Anatomic de l'homme suivant la circulation du sang, et les nouvelles decouvertes,” 8vo, an useful epitome, containing all that was then known on the subject. It was well received, frequently reprinted, and was translated in 1718, into the Tartar language, by order of Cam-hi, the emperor of China, for the benefit of his subjects. His next work, which first appeared in 1707, was “Cours d'Operations de Chirurgie demontree, au Jardin Royal de Paris,” 8vo. This has been reprinted still more frequently than the former work, and has been translated into nearly all the modern languages. Heister gave an edition of it in Latin, with notes, and it still retains a certain degree of credit. In 1709, he gave “Dissertation sur la mort subite, avec l‘histoire d’une fille cataleptique,” 12mo; and in 1718, “Traite general des Accouchmens,” 8vo. This also has been translated into most modern languages, though it contains little more than an abridgment of the practice of Mauriceau, and is now almost entirely unnoticed.

Lord Melcombe has some literary claims. Two of his Memorials to the court of Spain may be seen in the Historical Register for 1716, p. 205 207, &c. He was concerned in writing the “Remembrancer,” an anti-ministerial paper, published in 1744; and was the avowed Author of “Occasional observations on a double- titled paper about the clear produceof the Civil List Revenue, from Midsummer 1727 to Midsummer 1761.” A pamphlet on the “Expedition to Rochefort” has also been ascribed to him. His poetical efforts, some of which have been admired, were, “An Epistle to sir Robert Walpole, written on his birth-day, Aug. 26,” printed in Dodsley’s Collection, and afterwards, as we have mentioned, addressed, mutatis mutandis, to lord Bute; “An Epistle from John More, apothecary in Abchurch lane, to lord Carteret, upon the treaty of Worms;” “Verses in his eating-room at Hammersmith;” “Verses to Mrs. Stubbs;” “Verses written a little before his death to Dr. Young;” some “Love Verses,” and other poetry unpublished, and most of which, it is said, is too indelicate for publication; “An Elegy on the Death of queen Caroline” is printed in Coxe’s Life of Walpole. But he will long be best known by his celebrated “Diary,” published in 1784 by Henry Penruddock Wyndham, esq. On a publication so generally read, our remarks may be spared. The public owe much to the editor for thus “unveiling the mysterious intrigues of a court, and for exposing the latent causes of opposition.” The whole proves, that while this publication reflects “some degree of honour on lord Melcombe’s abilities, it shows his political conduct to have been wholly directed by the base motives of avarice, vanity, and selfishness.”

, an eminent English lawyer, the son of Richard Doddridge, of a Devonshire family, was born at Barnstaple in 1555. In 1572 he was entered of Exeter college, Oxford, where he studied four years; after which he was removed to the Middle Temple, London, where he became a great proficient in the law, and a noted counsellor. In the forty-fifth year of the reign of queen Elizabeth he was Lent reader of that house; and on the 20th of January, 1603-4, he was called to the degree of serjeant-at-law, at which time he had the honour of being appointed serjeant to Henry prince of Wales. From this employment he was raised, in the succeeding year, to be solicitor-general to the king, and on the 25th of June 1607, he was constituted his majesty’s principal serjeantat-law, and was knighted on the fifth of July following. In February 1612-13, he was created M. A. at his chambers in Serjeants Inn by the vice-chancellor, the two proctors, and five other members of the university of Oxford. This peculiar honour was conferred upon him in gratitude for the great service he had done to the university in several law-suits depending between the city of Oxford and the university. On the 22d of April 1013, he was appointed one of the judges of the court of king’s bench, in which, office he continued till his death. In this station he appears to have conducted himself with great integrity as well as ability. However, in April, 162, he and the other judges of the court were called upon to assign their reasons in the house of lords, for having given judgment against admitting five gentlemen to bail, who had been imprisoned for refusing the loan which had lately been demanded by the crown. Sir Nicholas Hyde, lord chief justice, sir John Doddridge, Mr. Justice Jones, and Mr. Justice Whitlocke, each of them spoke upon the occasion, and made the best defence which the nature of the case would admit. If they were guilty of a mistake, which cannot now reasonably be doubted, they seem to have been led into it in the sincerity of their hearts, from the notions they entertained of regal power, and probably from their perceiving the drift of parliament in these proceedings. Sir John Doddridge, in his speech, asserts the,

Mr. Dodwell came the same year to England, and resjded at Oxford for the sake of the public library. Thence he returned to his native country, and in 1672 published, at Dublin, in 8vo, a posthumous treatise of his late learned tutor John Steam, M. D. to which he put a preface of his own. He entitled this book, “De Obstinatione: Opus posthumum Pietatem Chrisdano-Stoicam scholastico more suadens:” and his own preface, “prolegomena Apologetica, de usu Dogmatum Philosophicorum,” &c. in which he apologizes for his tutor; who, by quoting so often and setting a high value upon the writings and maxims of the heathen philosophers, might seem to depreciate the Holy Scriptures. Mr. Dodwell therefore premises first, that the author’s design in that work is only to recommend moral duties, and enforce the practice of them by the authority of the ancient philosophers; and that he does not meddle with the great mysteries of Christianity, which are discoverable only by divine revelation. His second work was, “Two letters of advice. 1. For the Susception of Holy Orders. 2. For Studies Theological, especially such as are rational.” To the second edition of which, in 1681, was added, “A Discourse concerning the Phoenician History of Sanchoniathon,” in which he considers Philo-Byblius as the author of that history. In 1673, he wrote a preface, without his name, to “An introduction to a Devout Life,” by Francis de Sales, the last bishop and prince of Geneva; which was published at Dublin, in English, this same year, in 12mo. He came over again to England in 1674, and settled in London; where he became acquainted with several learned men; particularly, in 1675, with Dr. William Lloyd, afterwards successively bishop of St. Asaph, Litchfield and Coventry, and Worcester . With that eminent divine he contracted so great a friendship and intimacy, that he attended him to Holland, when he was appointed chaplain to the princess of Orange. He was also with him at Salisbury, when he kept his residence there as canon of that church; and spent afterwards a good deal of time with him at St. Asaph. In 1675 he published “Some Considerations of present Concernment; how far the Romanists may be trusted by princes of another persuasion,” in 8vo, levelled against the persons concerned in the Irish remonstrance, which occasioned a kind of schism among the Irish Roman catholics. The year following he published “Two short Discourses against the Romanists. 1. An Account of the fundamental Principle of Popery, and of the insufficiency of the proofs which they have for it. 2. An Answer to six Queries proposed to a gentlewoman of the Church of England, by an emissary of the Church of Rome,” 12mo, but reprinted in 1688, 4to, with “A new preface relating to the bishop of Meaux, and other modern complainers of misrepresentation.” In 1679, he published, in 4to, “Separation of Churches from episcopal government, as practised by the present non-conformists, proved schismatical, from such principles as are least controverted, and do withal most popularly explain the sinfulness and mischief of schism.” This, being animadverted upon by R. Baxter, was vindicated, in 1681, by Mr. Dodwell, in “A Reply to Mr. Baxter’s pretended confutation of a book, entitled, Sepafration of Churches,” &c. To which were added, “Three Letters to Mr. Baxter, written in 1673, concerning the Possibility of Discipline under a Diocesan Government,” &c. 8vo. In 1682 came out his “Dissertations on St. Cyprian,” composed at the reqviest of Dr. Fell, bishop of Oxford, when he was about to publish his edition of that father. They were printed in the same size, but reprinted at Oxford in 1684, 8vo, under the title “Dissertationes Cyprianse.” The eleventh dissertation, in which he endeavours to lessen the number of the early Christian martyrs, brought upon him the censure of bishop Burnet, and not altogether unjustly. The year following, he published “A Discovirse concerning the One Altar, and the One Priesthood, insisted on by the ancients in the disputes against Schism ,” Lond. 8vo. In 1684, a dissertation of his on a passage of Lactantius, was inserted in the new edition of that author at Oxford, by Thomas Spark, in 8vo. His treatise “Of the Priesthood of Laicks,” appeared in 1686, in 8vo. The title was “De jure Laicorum,” &c. It was written in answer to a book published by William Baxter, the antiquary, and entitled “AntiDodwellism, being two curious tracts formerly written by H. Grotius, concerning a solution of the question, whether the eucharist may be administered in the absence of, or want of pastors.” About the same time he was preparing for the press the posthumous works of the learned Dr. John Pearson, bishop of Chester, Lond. 1688, 4to. He published also,“Dissertations on Irenseus,” 1689, 8vo. On the 2d of April, 1688, he was elected, by the university of Oxford, Camden’s professor of history, without any application of his own, and when he was at a great distance from Oxford; and the 21st of May was incorporated master of arts in that university. But this beneficial and creditable employment of professor he did not enjoy long; being deprived of it in November, 1691, for refusing to take the oaths of allegiance to king William and queen Mary. When their majesties had suspended those bishops who would not acknowledge their authority, Mr. Dodwell published “A cautionary discourse of Schism, with a particular regard to the case of the bishops, who are suspended for refusing to take the new oath,” London, 8vo. And when those bishops were actually deprived, and others put in their sees, he joined the former, looking upon the new bishops, and their adherents, as schismatics. He wrote likewise “A Vindication of the deprived Bishops:” and “A Defence of the same,” 1692, 4to, being an answer to Dr. Hody’s “Unreasonableness of Separation,” &c. After having lost his professorship, he continued for some time in Oxford, and then retired to Cookham, a village near Maidenhead, about an equal distance between Oxford and London; and therefore convenient to maintain a correspondence in each place, and to consult friends and books, as he should have occasion. While he lived there, he became acquainted with Mr. Francis Cherry of Shottesbrooke, a person of great learning and virtue, for the sake of whose conversation he removed to Shottesbrooke, where he chiefly spent the remainder of his days. In 1692, he published his Camdenian lectures read at Oxford; and, in 1694, “An Invitation to Gentlemen to acquaint themselves with ancient History” being a preface to Degory Whear’s “Method of reading history,” translated into English by Mr. Bohun. About this time having lost one or more of the Dodwells, his kinsmen, whom he designed for his heirs, he married on the 24th of June, 1694, in the 52d year of his age, a person, in whose father’s house at Cookham he had boarded several times, and by her had ten children . In 1696 he drew up the annals of Thucydides and Xenophon, to accompany the editions of those two authors by Dr. John Hudson and Mr. Edward Wells. Having likewise compiled the annals of Velleius Paterculus, and of Quintilian, and Statius, he published them altogether in 1698, in one volume, 8vo. About the same time he wrote an account of tUe lesser Geographers, published by Dr. Hudson; and “A Treatise concerning the lawfulness of instrumental music in holy offices:” occasioned by an organ being set up at Tiverton in 1696: with some other things on chronology, inserted in “Grabe’s Spicilegium.” In 1701, he published his account of the Greek and Roman cycles, which was the most elaborate of all his pieces, and seems to have been the work of the greatest part of his life. The same year was published a letter of his, inserted in Richardson’s “Canon of the New Testament,” &c. concerning Mr. Toland’s disingenuous treatment of him. The year following appeared “A Discourse [of his] concerning the obligation to marry within the true communion, following from their style of being called a Holy Seed;” and “An Apology for the philosophical writings of Cicero,” against the objections of Mr. Petit; prefixed to Tally’s five books De Finibus, or, of Moral Ends, translated into English by Samuel Parker, gent, as also the annals of Thucydides and Xenophon, Oxoa. 4to. In 1703 he published “A Letter concerning the Immortality of the Soul, against Mr. Henry Layton’s Hypothesis,” 4to and, “A Letter to Dr. Tillotson about Schism,” 8vo, written in 1691.The year following came out, his “Chronology of DionX'Sius Halicarnasseus,” in the Oxford edition of that historian by Dr. Hudson, folio; his “Two Dissertations on the age of Phalaris and Pythagoras,” occasioned by the dispute between Bentley and Boyle; and his “Admonition to Foreigners, concerning the late Schism in England.” This, which was written in Latin, regarded the deprivation of the nonjuring bishops. When the bill for preventing occasional conformity was depending in parliament, he wrote a treatise, entitled, “Occasional Communion fundamentally destructive of the discipline of the primitive catholic Church, and contrary to the doctrine of the latest Scriptures concerning Church Communion;” London, 1705, 8vo. About the same time, observing that the deprived bishops were reduced to a small number, he wrote, “A Case in View considered in a Discourse, proving that (in case our present invalidly deprived fathers shall leave all their sees vacant, either by death or resignation) we shall not then be obliged to keep up our separation from those bishops, who are as yet involved in the guilt of the present unhappy schism,” Lond. 1705, 8vo. Some time after, he published “A farther prospect of the Case in View, in answer to some new objections not then considered,” Lond. 1707, 8vo. Hitherto Mr. Dodwell had acted in such a manner as had procured him the applause of all, excepting such as disliked the nonjurors; but, about this time, he published some opinions that drew upon him almost universal censure. For, in order to exalt the powers and dignity of the priesthood, in that one communion, which he imagined to be the pecuHum of God, and to which he had joined himself, he endeavoured to prove, with his usual perplexity of learning, that the doctrine of the soul’s natural mortality was the true and original doctrine; and that immortality was only at baptism conferred upon the soul, by the gift of God, through the hands of one set of regularly-ordained clergy. In support of this opinion, he wrote “An Epistolary Discourse, proving, from the scriptures and the first fathers, that the soul is a principle naturally mortal; but immortalized actually by the pleasure of God, to punishment, or to reward, by its union with the divine baptismal spirit. Wherein is proved, that none have the power of giving this divine immortalizing spirit, since the apostles, but only the bishops,” Lond. 1706, 8vo. At the end of the preface to the reader is a- dissertation, to prove “that Sacerdotal Absolution is necessary for the Remission of Sins, even of those who are truly penitent.” This discourse being attacked by several persons, particularly Chishull, Clarke, Norris, and Mills afterwards bishop of Waterford, our author endeavoured to vindicate himself in the three following pieces: 1. “A Preliminary Defence of the Epistolary Discourse, concerning the distinction between Soul and Spirit: in two parts. I. Against the charge of favouring Impiety. II. Against the charge of favouring Heresy,” Lond. 1707, 8vo. 2. “The Scripture account of the Eternal Rewards or Punishments of all that hear of the Gospel, without an immortality necessarily resulting from the nature of the souls themselves that are concerned in those rewards or punishments. Shewing particularly, I. How much of this account was discovered by the best philosophers. II. How far the accounts of those philosophers were corrected, and improved, by the Hellenistical Jews, assisted by the Revelations of the Old Testament. III. How far the discoveries fore-mentioned were improved by the revelations of the Gospel. Wherein the testimonies also of S. Irenaens and Tertullian are occasionally considered,” Lond. 1708, 8vo. And, 3. “An Explication of a famous passage in the Dialogue of S. Justin Martyr with Tryphon, concerning the immortality of human souls. With an Appendix, consisting of a letter to the rev. Mr. John Norris, of Bemerton; and an expostulation relating to the late insults of Mr. Clarke and Mr. Chishull,” Lond. 1708, 8vo. Upon the death of Dr. William Lloyd, the deprived bishop of Norwich, on the first of January 1710-11, Mr. Dodwell, with some other friends, wrote to Dr. Thomas Kenn, of Bath and Wells, the only surviving deprived bishop, to know, whether he challenged their subjection? He returned for answer, that he did not: and signified his desire that the breach might be closed by their joining with the bishops possessed of their sees; giving his reasons for it. Accordingly, Mr. Dodwell, and several of his friends, joined in communion with them. But others refusing this, Mr. Dodwell was exceedingly concerned, and wrote, “The case in view now in fact. Proving, that the continuance of a separate communion, without substitutes in any of the late invalidlydeprived sees, since the death of William late lord bishop of Norwich, is schismatical. With an Appendix, proving, that our late invalidly-deprived fathers had no right to substitute successors, who might legitimate the separation, after that the schism had been concluded by the decease of the last survivor of those same fathers,” Lond. 1711, 8vo. Our author wrote some few other things, besides what have been already mentioned *. At length, after a

John Dolben, afterwards archbishop, was educated at Westminster-school, where he was admitted a king’s scholar in 1636; and in 1640 was elected to Christ church, Oxford, where he was admitted, in the same year, a student on queen Elizabeth’s foundation. It has been thought worthy of remark, as a strong instance of hereditary attachment to those seminaries, that he was the second in order, of six succeeding generations, which have passed through the same steps of education, and it has been remarked that since his time, Westminster-school has rarely been without a Dolben.

The wife of archbishop Dolben (by whom he had three children, Gilbert and John, and a daughter Catharine, who died an infant), survived him till 1706, when she died at Finedon, in Northamptonshire, in her eightieth year. His eldest son, Gilbert, who furnished Dryden with the various editions of Virgil, when about to translate that poet, was afterwards created a baronet by queen Anne, and for many years represented the city of Peterborough in parliament. He was appointed a justice of the common pleas in Ireland by William III. and held that office for twenty years. He died in 1722. The probity and worth of the present representatives of this family are well known.

After residing for some time at Lyons, Dolet came to Paris in October 1534, and published some new works; and was about to have returned to Lyons in 1536, but was obliged to abscond for a time, having killed a person who had attacked him. He then came to Paris, and presented himself to Francis L who received him graciously, and granted him a pardon, by which he was enabled to return to Lyons. All these incidents he has introduced in his poems. It appears to have been on his return to Lyons at this time that he commenced the business of printer, and the first work which came from his press in 1538, was the four books of his Latin poems. He also married about the same time, and had a son, Claude, born to him in 1539. whose birth he celebrates in a Latin poem printed the same year. From some parts of his poems in his “Second Enfer,” it would appear that the imprisonment we have mentioned, was not all he suffered, and that he was imprisoned twice at Lyons, and once at Paris, before that final imprisonment which ended in his death. For all these we are unable to account; his being confined at Paris appears to have been for his religious opinions, but after fifteen months he was released by the interest of Peter Castellanus, or Du Chatel, then bishop of Tulles. He was not, however, long at large, being arrested at Lyons, Jan. 1, 1544, from which he contrived to make his escape, and took refuge in Piemont, when he wrote the nine epistles which form his “Deuxieme Enfer.” We are not told whether he ever returned to Lyons publicly, but only that he was again apprehended in 1545, and condemned to be burnt as a heretic, or rather as an atheist, which sentence was executed at Paris, Aug. 3, 1516. On this occasion it is said by some that he made profession of the catholic faith by invoking the saints but others doubt this fact. Whether pursuant to his sentence, or as a remission of the most horrible part of it, we know not, but he was first strangled, and then burnt. Authors diii'er much as to the real cause of his death; some attributing it to the frequent attacks he had made on the superstitions and licentious lives of the ecclesiastics; others to his being a heretic, or Lutheran; and others to his impiety, or atheism. Jortin, in his Life of Erasmus, and in his “Tracts,” contends for the latter, and seems disinclined to do justice to Dolec in any respect. Dolet certainly had the art of making enemies; he was presumptuous, indiscreet, and violent in his resentments, but we have no direct proof of the cause for which he suffered. On one occasion a solemn censure was pronounced against him by the assembly of divines at Paris, for having inserted the following words in a translation of Plato VAxiochus, from the Latin version into I'Yench “Apres la mort tu tie seras rien clu tout,” and this is said to have produced his condemnation but, barbarous as the times then were, we should be inclined to doubt whether the persecutors would have condemned a man of acknowledged learning and genius for a single expression, and that merely a translation. On the other hand, we know not how to admit Dolet among the protestant martyrs, as Calvin, and others who lived at the time, and must have known his character, represent him as a man of no religion. Dolet contributed not a little to the restoration of classical literature in France, and particularly to the reformation of the Latin style, to which he, had applied most of his attention. He appears to have known little of Greek literature but through the medium of translations, and his own Latin style is by some thought very laboured, and composed of expressions and half sentences, a sort of cento, borrowed from his favourite Cicero and otber authors. He wrote much, considering that his life was short, and much of it spent in vexatious removals and in active employments. His works are: l.“S. Doleti orationes diue in Tholosam; ejusdem epistolarum hbri duo; ejusdem canninum libri duo; ad eundem epistolarum amicorum liber,” 8vo, without date, but most probably in 1534, when he had been driven from Toulouse and was at Lyons, as mentioned above. 2. “Dialogus de imitutione Ciceroniana, adversus Desiderium Erasmum pro Christophoro Longolio,” Lyons, 1535, 4to. This was an attack on Erasmus in defence of Longolius, in which he had been partly anticipated by Scaliger in his “O ratio pro Cicerone contra Erasmum.” 3. “Commentariorum linguce Latinse tomi duo,” Lyons, 1536 and 1588, fol. This is a kind of Latin dictionary, in the manner of a common-place book, and evidently a work of great labour. He began it in his sixteenth year. An abridgment of it was published at Basil in 1537, 8vo. 4. “De re navali liber ad Lazarum Bayfium,” Lyons, 1537, 4to, and inserted by Gronovius in vol. XL of his Greek antiquities. 5. “S. Doleti Galli Aurelii Carminum libri quatuor,” printed by himself at Lyons, 1538, 4to. Dolet’s Latin verses have been too much undervalued by Jortin and others. 6. “Genethliacon Claudii Doleti, Stephani Doleti nlii; liber vitae communi in primis utilis et necessarius; autore patre, Lugduni, apud eundem Doletum,” 1539, 4to. A French translation was printed by the author in the same year. 7. “Formulas Latinarum locutionum illustriorum in tres partes divisae,” Lyons, 1539, folio, and with additions by Sturmius and Susannasus, Strasburgh, 1596, 4to. 8. “Francisci Valesii, Gallorum regis, fata, ubi rein omnem celebriorem a Gallis gestam noscas, ab anno 1513 ad annum 1539,” Lyons, 1539, 4to. This which is in Latin verse, was translated by the author into French prose, and printed in 1540, 4to, 1543, 8vo, and Paris, 1546, 8vo. 9. “Observationes in Terentii Andriam et Eunuchum,” Lyons, 1540, 8vo. 10. “La maniere de bien traduire d'une langue en une autre de la ponctuation Francoise, &c.” Lyons, 1540, 8vo. 11. “Liber de imitatione Ciceroniana adversus Floridum Sabinum Responsio ad convitia ejusdem Sabini; Epigrammata in eundem,” Lyons, 1540, 4to. Dolet was unfortunately not content with arguing with his antagonists, but more frequently exasperated them by his sarcastic attacks. 12. “Libri tres de legato, de immunitate legatorum, et de Joannis Langiachi Lemovicensis episcopi Legationibus,” Lyons, 1541, 4to. 13. “Les epitres et evangiles des cinquante-deux dimanches, &,c. avec brieve exposition,” Lyons, 1541, 8vo. 14. A translation of Erasmus’s “Miles Christianus,” Lyons, 1542, 16mo. 15, “Claudii Cotersei Turonensis de jure et privilegiismilitum libri tres, et de officio imperatoris liber unus,” Lyons, 1539, folio. 16. “On Confession,” translated from Erasmus, ibid. 1542, 16mo. 17. “Discotirs contenant le seul et vrai moyen, par lequel un serviteur favorise et constitue” au service d'un prince, peut conserver sa felicite eternelle et temporelle, &c.“Lyons, 1542, 8vo. 18.” Exhortation, a la lecture des saintes lettres,“ibid. 1542, 16rno. 19.” La paraphrase de Jean Campensis sur les psalmes de David, &c. faite Frangoise,“ibid. 1542. 20.” Bref discours de la republique Fran^oise, desirant la lecture des livres de la sainte ecriture lui etre loisible en sa langue vulgaire,“in verse, Lyons, 1544, 16mo. 21. A translation of Plato’s Axiochus and Hipparchus, Lyons, 1544, I6mo. This was addressed to Francis I. in a prose epistle, in which the author promises a translation of all the works of Plato, accuses his country of ingratitude, and supplicates the king to permit him to return to Lyons, being now imprisoned. 22.” Second Enfer d'Etienne Dolet,“in French verse, Lyons, 1544, 8vo. This consists of nine poetical letters addressed to Francis I. the duke of Orleans, the duchess d'Estampes, the queen of Navarre, the cardinal Lorraine, cardinal Tournon, the parliament of Paris, the judges of Lyons, and his friends. The whole is a defence of the conduct for which he was imprisoned at Lyons in the beginning of 1544. He had written a first” Enfer," consisting of memorials respecting his imprisonment at Paris, and was about to have published it when he was arrested at Lyons, but it never appeared. Besides these, he published translations into French of Cicero’s Tusculan Questions and his Familiar Epistles, which went through several editions. Almost all Dolet’s works are scarce, owing to

, was born in 1596, of a noble family, originally of Florence, and entered himself of the Minims. Cardinal Richelieu, who became acquainted with him during his retirement at Avignon, was so struck with his modesty and learning, that he gave him the bishopric of Itiez, in which diocese he did much good. From the see of Uiez he was translated to that of Autun, and died in 1664, at the age of sixty-eight. He published, 1. “A History of the Minims,” 4to.' 2. “The Life of queen Joan, foundress of the Annonciades,” 8vo. 3. “The Life of cardinal de Berulle,” in Latin, 8vo. 4. “The History of the Cardinals,” in Latin, 1660, 2 vols. folio, &c. His Latin works are more tolerable in regard to style than those in French, the diction of which is become obsolete.

court in the queen’s household. This the place of one of his majesty’s secremay have been soon after his release, taries in Ireland, but this has no date,

His prose works are numerous, but except the “PseudoMartyr,” and a small volume of devotions, none of them, were published during his life. The others are, 1. “Paradoxes, problems, essays, characters,” &c. 1653, 12mo. Part of this collection was published at different times before. 2. Three volumes of “Sermons,” in folio the first printed in 1640, the second in 1649, the third in 1660. Lord Falkland styles Donne “one of the most witty and most eloquent of our modern divines.” 3. “Essays in divinity,” &c. 1651, 12mo. 4. “Letters to several persons of honour,” 1654, 4to. Both these published by his son. There are several of Donne’s letters, and others to him from the queen of Bohemia, the earl of Carlisle, archbishop Abbot, and Ben Jonson; printed in a book, entitled, “A collection of Letters made by sir Tobie Matthews, knt. 1660,” 8vo. 5. “The ancient History of the Septuagint; translated from the Greek of Aristeas,” 1633, in 12mo. This translation was revised and corrected by another hand, and published in 1635, 8vo. His sermons have not a little of the character of his poems. They are not, indeed, so rugged in style, but they abound with quaint allusions, which now appear ludicrous although they probably produced no such effect in his days. With this exception, they contain much good sense, much acquaintance with human nature, many striking thoughts, and some very just biblical criticism.

Dr. Donne’s reputation as a poet, was higher in his own time than it has been since. Dryden fixed his character with his usual judgment; as “the greatest wit, though not the best poet of our nation.” He says afterwards , that “he affects the metaphysics, not only in his satires, but in his amorous verses, where Nature only should reign, and perplexes the minds of the fair sex with nice speculations of philosophy, when he should engage their hearts, and entertain them with the softnesses of love.” Dryden has also pronounced that if his satires were to be translated into numbers, they would yet be wanting in dignity of expression. From comparing the originals and translations in Pope’s works, the reader will probably think that Pope has made them so much his own, as to throw very little lighten Donne’s powers. He every where elevates the expression, and in very few instances retains a whole line. Pope, in his classification of poets, places Donne at the head of a school, that school from which Dr. Johnson has given so many remarkable specimens of absurdity, in his life of Covyley, and which, following Dryden, he terms the metaphysical school. Gray, in the sketch which he sent to Mr. Warton, considers it as a third Italian school, full of conceit, begun in queen Elizabeth’s reign, continued under James and Charles I. by Donne, Crashaw, Cleiveland, carried to its height by CowJey, and ending perhaps in Sprat. Donne’s numbers, if they may be so called, are certainly the most rugged and uncouth of any of our poets. He appears either to have had no ear, or to have been utterly regardless of harmony. Yet Spenser preceded him, and Drummond, the first polished versifier, was his contemporary; but it must be allowed that before Drummond appeared, Donne had relinquished his pursuit of the Muses, nor would it be just to include the whole of his poetry under the general censure which has been usually passed. Dr. Warton seems to think that if he had taken pains, he might not have proved so inferior to his contemporaries; but what inducement could he have to take pains, as he published nothing, and seems not desirous of public fame? He was certainly not ignorant or unskilled in the higher attributes of style, for he wrote elegantly in Latin, and displays considerable taste in some of his smaller pieces and epigrams. At what time he wrote his poems has not been ascertained; but of a few the dates may be recovered by the corresponding events of his life. Ben Jonson affirmed that he wrote all his best pieces before he was twenty-five years of age. His satires, in which there are some strokes levelled at the reformation, must have been written very early, as he was but a young man when he renounced the errors of popery. His poems were first published in 4to, 1633, and 12mo, 1635, 1651, 1669, and 1719. His son was the editor of the early editions.

, an eminent engraver, the brother of the preceding, was born in France in 1G57. His father dying when he was very young, he was brought up to the study of the law, which he pursued till about thirty years of age: when being examined, in order to being admitted to plead, the judge, finding him very deaf, advised him to relinquish a profession to which one of his senses was so ill adapted. He took the advice, and shut himself up for a year to practise drawing, for which he had probably better talents than for the law, sinee he could sufficiently ground himself in the former in a twelvemonth. Repairing to Rome, and receiving instructions from his brother Lewis, he followed painting for some years, and having acquired great freedom of hand, he was advised to try etching. Being of a flexile disposition, or uncommonly observant of advice, he accordingly turned to etching, and practised that for some more years; but happening to look into the works of Audran, he found he had been in a wrong method, and took up Audran’s manner, which he pursued for ten years. He was now about fifty years of age, had done many plates, and lastly the gallery of Cupid and Psyche, after Raphael, when a new difficulty struck him. Not having learned the handling and ri-rht use of the graver, he despaired of attaining the harmony and perfection at whicn he aimed, and at once abandoning engraving, he returned to his pencil a word from a friend, says lord Orford, would have thrown him back to the law. However, after two months, he was persuaded to apply to the graver; and receiving some hints from one that used to engrave the writing under his plates, he conquered that difficulty too, and began the seven planets from Raphael. Mercury, his first, succeeded so well, that he engraved four large pictures with oval tops, and from thence proceeded to Raphael’s “Transfiguration,” which raised his reputation above all the masters of that time. At Rome he became known to several Englishmen of rank, who persuaded him to come to England and engrave the Cartoons, then at Hampton Court. He arrived in June 1711, but did not begin his drawings till Easter following, the intervening time being spent in raising a fund for his work. At first it was proposed that the plates should be engraved at the queen’s expence, and to be given as presents tothe nobility, foreign princes, and ministers. Lord-treasurer Oxford was much his friend but Dorigny demanding 4000l. or 5000l. put a stop to that plan; yet the queen gave him an apartment at Hampton Court, with necessary perquisites. The work, however, was undertaken by subscription , at four guineas a set, and Dorigny sent for Dupuis and Dubosc from Paris to assist him; but from some disagreement that occurred, they left him before the work was half completed. In 1719 he presented two complete sets to king George I. and a set a-piece to the prince and princess; for which the king gave him 100 guineas, and the prince a gold medal. The duke of Devonshire, who had assisted him, procured for him, in 1720, the honour of knighthood. His eyes afterwards failing him, he returned to Paris, where, in 1725, he was made a member of the royal academy of painting, and died in 1746, aged eighty-nine.

, bishop of Dunkeld, eminent for his poetical talents, was descended from a noble family, being the third son of Archibald, earl of Angus, and was born in Scotland at the close of the year 1474, or the Beginning of 1475. His father was very careful of his education, and caused him to be early instructed in literature and the sciences. He was intended by him for the church; and after having passed through a course of liberal education in Scotland, is supposed to have travelled into foreign countries, for his farther improvement in literature, particularly to Paris, where he finished his education. Alter his return to Scotland, he obtained the office of provost of the collegiate church of St. Giles in Edinburgh, a post of considerable dignity and revenue; and was also made rector of Heriot church. He was likewise appointed abbot of the opulent convent of Aberbrothick; and the queenmother, who was then regent of Scotland, and about this time married his nephew the earl of Angus, nominated him to the archbishopric of St. Andrew’s. But he was prevented from obtaining this dignity by a violent opposition made to him at home, and by the refusal of the pope to confirm his appointment. The queen-mother afterwards promoted him to the bishopric of Dunkeld; and for this preferment obtained a bull in his favour from pope Leo X. by the interest of her brother, Henry VIII. king of England. But so strong an opposition was again made to him, that he could not, for a considerable time, obtain peaceable possession of this new preferment; and was even imprisoned for more than a year, under pretence of having acted illegally, in procuring a bull from the pope. He was afterwards set at liberty, and consecrated bishop of Dunkeld, by James Beaton, chancellor of Scotland, and archbishop of Glasgow. After his consecration he went to St. Andrew’s, and thence to his own church at Dunkeld; where the first day, we are told, “he was most kindly received by his clergy and people, all of them blessing God for so worthy and learned a bishop.” He still, however, met with many obstructions; and, for some time, was forcibly kept out of the palace belonging to his diocese; but he at length obtained peaceable possession. He soon after accompanied the duke of Albany, regent of Scotland, to Paris, when that nobleman was sent to renew the ancient league between Scotland and France. After his return to Scotland, he made a short stay at Edinburgh, and then repaired to his diocese, where he applied himself diligently to the duties of his episcopal office. He was also a promoter of public-spirited works, and particularly finished the stone bridge over the river Tay, opposite to his own palace, which had been begun by his predecessor. We meet with no farther particulars concerning him till some years after, when he was at Edinburgh, during the disputes between the earls of Arran and Angus. On that occasion bishop Douglas reproved archbishop Beaton for wearing armour, as inconsistent with the clerical character, but was afterwards instrumental in saving his life. During all these disorders in Scotland, it is said, that bishop Douglas behaved “with that moderation and peaceableness, which became a wise man and a religious prelate;” but the violence and animosity which then prevailed among the different parties in Scotland, induced him to retire to England. After his departure, a prosecution was commenced against him in Scotland; but he was well received in England, where he was treated with particular respect, on account of the excellency of his character, and his great abilities and learning. King Henry VII I. allowed him a liberal pension; and he became particularly intimate with Polydore Vergil. He died of the plague, at London, in 1521, or 1522, and was interred in the Savoy church, on the left side of the tomb-stone of Thomas Halsay, bishop of Laghlin, in Ireland; on whose tomb-stone a short epitaph for bishop Douglas is inscribed. Hume, of Godscroft, in his “History of the Douglases,” says, “Gawin Douglas, bishop of Dunkeld, left behind him great approbation of his virtues and love of his person in the hearts of all good men; for besides the nobility of his birth, the dignity and comeliness of his personage, he was learned, temperate, and of singular moderation of mind; and in these turbulent times had always carried himself among the factions of the nobility equally, and with a mind to make peace, and not to stir up parties; which qualities were very rare in a clergyman of those days.”

In 1786 he was elected one of the vice-presidents of the Society of Antiquaries, and framed their address on the king’s recovery, 1789, both to his majesty and the queen. In March 1787 he was elected one of the trustees of the British Museum, and in September of the same year, was appointed bishop of Carlisle. In 1788 he succeeded to the deanery of Windsor, for which he vacated his residentiaryship of St. Paul’s. In 1789 he preached before the house of lords, and of course published, the sermon on the anniversary of king Charles’s martyrdom. In June 1791, he was translated to the see of Salisbury. In 1793 he preached, which is also published, the anniversary sermon before the society for propagating the Gospel. Having been often and very urgently requested, by many of his literary friends, to publish a new edition of the “Criterion,” which had been many years out of print, he undertook to revise that excellent work. He had a long time before collected materials for a new and enlarged edition; but unfortunately they had been either mislaid or lost; or, more probably, destroyed, by mistake, with some other manuscripts. This circumstance, and his very advanced ago, sufficiently accounts for his not having attempted to alter materially the original work. In this statement, all the avowed publications of the bishop are enumerated, but he was concerned in many others, in which he was never supposed to have had any part, and in some of no trifling celebrity, whose nominal and reputed authors he permitted to retain and enjoy exclusively all that credit of which he could have justly laid claim to no inconsiderable share. During a great part of his life, he was in correspondence with some of the most eminent literary and political characters of the age. Few could have read more, if indeed any one so much as, with such habits of incessant application as those in which he persevered, almost to the last hour of his long protracted life, he must necessarily have read. In the strictest sense of the expression, he never let one minute pass unimproved; for he never deemed any space of time too short to be employed in reading; nor was he ever seen by any of his family, when not in company with strangers, without having a book or a pen in his hand. He retained his faculties to the last, and without any specific complaint, died on Monday, May 18, 1807, without a struggle,in the arms of his son, to whom, the public are indebted for the principal part of the preceding memoir. Bishop Douglas was interred on Monday the 25th in a vault in St. George’s chapel, Windsor.

, a learned French advocate and classical scholar, was born in 1609 at Toulouse, of a family distinguished by their talents. After having studied classics and philosophy with great success, he went through a course of law, and was admitted an advocate of the parliament of Toulouse in 1637. Removing afterwards with a view to settle in Paris, he was admitted to the same rank in the parliament of that city in 1639. Here his reputation for knowledge and eloquence became soon acknowledged, and in 1650, on the death of Balthazar Baro, he was chosen into the French academy in his place. The following year, according to the “Menagiana,” he went to Bourges as candidate for a law professorship, but we are not told whether he succeeded; in the same year, however, he was appointed professor of the canon law in the royal college; and four years after, in 1655, had the appointment of regent doctor of the faculty of the law, and filled both offices with the highest reputation, nor did their laborious duties prevent him from finding sufficient leisure to write many of his published works. He was also appointed preceptor to the dauphin in history, and became one of the learned editors of the Dauphin classics. He died Oct. 27, 1688, in his 79th year, being then dean of the French academy, of the royal college, and of the faculty of law. He had an extensive knowledge of languages, wrote fluently in Latin and French, and spoke Italian, Spanish, Greek, Hebrew, and even the Turkish, and understood English, German, and Sclavonic. With all these accomplishments, he was a man of singular modesty, probity, and disinterestedness. His talents having procured him what he thought a competent maintenance, he had no ambition for riches, and employed what was not necessary for his own moderate wants, upon the poor. His works are numerous, and justify the fame he acquired. 1. “Dictionnaire de la' langue Toulousaine,” lt)38, 8vo. This, which is without Doujat’s name, was printed at the end of Goudelin’s works, which are in that language. 2. “Grammaire Espagnole abregee,” Paris, 1644, 12mo, also without his name. 3. “Moyen aise d'apprendre les langues mis en pratique sur la langue Espagnole,” ibid. 1646, 12rao. 4. “Joannis Dartis opera Canonica, edente J. Doujatio,” ibid. 1656, fol. 5. “De Pace a Ludovico XIV. constituta, oratio panegyrica,” ibid. 1660, 12mo. 6. “Historica juris Pontificii Synopsis,” added afterwards to his edition of Lancelot’s Institutions, ibid. 1670, 12mo. 7. “Synopsis Conciliorum et Chrono* logia Patrum, Pontificum, Imperatorum,” &c. ibid. 1671, 12mo. 8. A Latin translation of the “Panegyrique duRoy,” by M. Pellison, ibid. 1671, 4to. 9. “La Clef du grand Pouille de France,” ibid. 1671, 2 volumes, 12mo. 10. “Specimen Juris Canonici apud Gallos usu recepti,” &c. ibid. 1671, 2 vols. 12mo, often reprinted. 11. A French translation of Velleius Paterculus, with notes, ibid. 1672 and 1708, 12mo. 12. “Histoire du droit Canonique,” ibid. 1675, 12mo. 13. “Historia Juris Civilis Romanorum,” ibid. 1678, 12mo. 14. “Francisci Florentii opera Canonica et Juridica,” with additions, ibid. 1679, 2 vols. 4to. 15. The Delphin “Livy,” ibid. 1679, 6 vols. 4to. 16. “Theophili Antecessoris Institutionum lib. quatuor,” with notes, &c. ibid. 1681, 2 vols. 12mo. 17. “Institutiones Juris Canonici a J. P. Lancelotto Perusino conscriptae,” with notes, ibid. 1685, 2 vols. 12mo. Inconsequence of a new statute of the university of Paris, every regent doctor was obliged to lecture for three years on some branch of jurisprudence, and Doujat in obedience to this statute lectured on the subject of this work. 18. “Pra?­notionum canonicarum libri quinque,” ibid. Paris, 1687, 4to. 19. “Eloges des personnes illustres de l‘Ancient Testament^ pour donner quelque teinture de l’Histoire Sacree, a I‘usage de monseigneur le due de Bourgogne,’” ibid. 1688, 8vo, in verse, but not of the best sort. 20. “Reponse a M. Furetiere,” Hague, 1688, 4to. 21. “Lettre touchant un passage conteste de Tite Live,” printed in the Journal des Savans, Dec. 1685. 22. “Martini Bracarensis episcopi Collectio Canonum Orientalium.” This Doujat revised and corrected, for insertion in the “Bibl. Juris Canon, veteris,” by Justell, Paris, 1661, 2 vols. fol. Doujat wrote also several shorter pieces in the literary journals, some prefaces, &c. and had made some progress in a history of the regency of queen Anne of Austria, in consequence of the king’s having appointed him historiographer; but before a sheet had been printed, it was thought proper to suppress it. In the British Museum catalogue we find an article attributed to him under the title “Supplementa Lacunarum Livianarum,” 4to, without date, and probably part of his edition of Livy.

His success in this expedition, joined to his honourable behaviour towards his owners, gained him high reputation, which was increased by the use he made of his riches. For, fitting out three stout frigates at his own expence, he sailed with them into Ireland, where, under Walter earl of Essex, the father of the famous unfortunate earl, he served as a volunteer, and performed many gallant exploits. After the death of his noble patron, he returned into England; where sir Christopher Hatton, vice-chamberlain to queen Elizabeth, and privy-counsellor, introduced him to her majesty, and procured him countenance and protection at court. By this means he acquired a capacity of undertaking that grand expedition, which will render his name immortal. The first thing he proposed was a voyage into the South-seas, through the Straits of Magellan, which hitherto no Englishman had ever attempted. The project was well received at court; the queen furnished him with means; and his own fame quickly drew together a force sufficient. The fleet with which he sailed on this extraordinary undertaking, consisted only of five small vessels, compared with modern ships, and no more than 164 able men. He sailed from England, Dec. 13, 1577; on the 25th fell in with the coast of Barbary, and on the 29th with Cape Verd. March 13, he passed the equinoctial, made the coast of Brazil April 5, 1578, and entered the river de la Plata, where he lost the company of two of his ships; but meeting them again, and taking out their provisions, he turned them adrift. May 29, he entered the port of St. Julian, where he continued two months, for the sake of laying in provisions; Aug. 20> he entered the Straits of Magellan; and Sept. 25 passed them, having then only his own ship. Nov. 25, he came to Machao, which he had appointed for a place of rendezvous, in case his ships separated: but captain Winter, his vice-admiral, having repassed the Straits, was returned to England. Thence he continued his voyage along the coasts of Chili and Peru, taking all opportunities of seizing Spanish ships, and attacking them on shore, till his crew were sated with plunder; and then coasting North-America to the height of 48 degrees, he endeavoured, but in vain, to find a passage back into our seas on that side. He landed, however, and called the country New Albion, taking possession of it in the name and for the use of queen Elizabeth; and, having careened his ship, set sail from thence Sept. 29, 1579, for the Moluccas. He is supposed to have chosen this passage round, partly to avoid being attacked by the Spaniards at a disadvantage, and partly from the lateness of the season, when dangerous storms and hurricanes were to be apprehended. Oct. 13, he fell in with certain islands, inhabited by the most barbarous people he had met with in all his voyage; and, Nov. 4, he had sight of the Moluccas, and, coming to Ternate, was extremely well received by the king thereof, who appears, from the most authentic relations of this voyage, to have been a wise and polite prince. Dec. 10, he made Celebes, where his ship unfortunately ran upon a rock Jan. 9th following; from which, beyond all expectation, and in a manner miraculously, they got off, and continued their course. March 16, he arrived at Java Major, and from thence intended to have directed his course to Malacca; but founrf himself obliged to alter his purpose, and to think of returning home. March 25, 1580, he put this design in execution; and June 15, doubled the cape of Good Hope, having then on board 57 men, and but three casks of water. July 12, he passed the Line, reached the coast of Guinea the 16th, and there watered. Sept. 11, he made the island of Tercera; and Nov. 3, entered the harbour of Plymouth. This voyage round the globe was performed in two years and about ten months. His success in this voyage, and the immense mass of wealth he brought home, raised much discourse throughout the kingdom; some highly commending-, and some as loudly decrying him. The former alleged, that his exploit >vas not only honourable to himself, but to his country that it would establish our reputation for maritime skill in foreign nations, and raise an useful spirit of emulation at home; and that, as to the money, our merchants having suffered much from the faithless practices of the Spaniards, there was nothing more just, than that the nation should receive the benefit of Drake’s reprisals. The other party alleged, that in fact he was no better than a pirate; that, of all others, it least became a trading nation to encourage such practices; that it was not only a direct breach of all our late treaties with Spain, but likewise of our old leagues with the house of Burgundy; and that the consequences would be much more fatal than the benefits reaped from it could be advantageous. This difference of opinion continued during the remainder of 1580, and the spring of the succeeding year; but at length justice was done to Drake’s services; for, April 4, 1581, her majesty, going to Deptford, went on board his ship; where, after dinner, she conferred on him the honour of knighthood, and declared her absolute approbation of all he had done. She likewise gave directions for the preservation of his ship, that it might remain a monument of his own and his country’s glory. Camden, in his Britannia, has taken notice of an extraordinary circumstance relating to this ship of Drake’s, where, speaking of the shire of Buchan, in Scotland, he says, “It is hardly worth while to mention the clayks, a sort of geese, which are believed by some with great admiration, to grow upon trees on this coast, and in other places, and when they are ripe, they fall down into the sea, because neither their nests nor eggs can any where be found. But they who saw the ship in which sir Francis Drake sailed round the world, when it was laid up in the river Thames, could testify that little birds breed in the old rotten keels of ships, since a great number of such, without life and feathers, stuck close to the outside of the keel of that ship.” This celebrated ship, which had been contemplated many years at Deptford, at length decaying, it was broke p; and a chair made out of the planks was presented to the* university of Oxford. In 1585 he sailed with a fleet to the West Indies, and took the cities of St. Jago, St. Domingo, Carthagena, and St. Augustin. In 1587 he went to Lisbon with a fleet of 30 sail; and, having intelligence of a great fleet assembled in the bay of Cadiz, which was to have made part of the armada, he with great courage entered that port, and burnt there upwards of 10,000 tons of shipping: which he afterwards merrily called, “burning the king of Spain’s beard.” In 1558, when the armada from Spain was approaching our coasts, he was appointed vice-admiral under Charles lord Howard of Efringham, high-admiral of England, where fortune favoured him as remarkably as ever: for he made prize of a very large galleon, commanded by don Pedro de Valdez, who was reputed the projector of this invasion. This affair happened in the following manner July 22, sir Francis, observing a great Spanish ship floating at a distance from both fleets, sent his pinnace to summon the commander to yield. Valdez replied, with much Spanish solemnity, that they were 450 strong, that he himself was don Pedro, and stood much upon his honour, and propounded several conditions, upon which he was willing to yield: but the vice-admiral replied, that he had no leisure to parley, but if he thought fit instantly to yield he might; if not, he should soon find that Drake was no coward. Pedro, hearing the name of Drake, immediately yielded, and with 46 of his attendants came aboard Drake’s ship. This don Pedro remained above two years his prisoner in England; and, when he was released, paid him. for his own and his captain’s liberties, a ransom of 3500l. Drake’s soldiers were well recompensed with the plunder of this ship: for they found in it 55,000 ducats of gold, which was divided among them.

In the mean time it must not be dissembled, concerning the expedition in general, that, through an oversight of Drake, the admiral ran the utmost hazard of being taken by the enemy. For Drake being appointed, the first night of the engagement, to carry lights for the direction of the English fleet, was led to pursue some hulks belonging to the Hansetowns, and so neglected this orh'ce; which occasioned the admiral’s following the Spanish lights, and remaining almost in the centre of their fleet till morning. However, his succeeding services sufficiently atoned for this mistake, the greatest execution done on the flying Spaniards being performed by the squadron under his command. It is remarkable, that the Spaniards, notwithstanding their loss was so great, and their defeat so notorious, took great pains to propagate false stories, which in some places gained so much credit as to hide their shame. A little before this formidable Spanish armament put to sea, the ambassador of his catholic majesty had the confidence to propound to queen Elizabeth, in Latin verse, the terms iipon which she might hope for peace; which, with an English translation of a very homely kind, by Dr. Fuller, we will insert in this place, because Drake’s expedition to the West Indies makes a part of this message. The verses are these:

The queen’s extempore return:

Sir Francis Drake was low of stature, but well formed, had a broad open chest, a very round head, his hair of a line brown, his beard full and comely, his eyes large and clear, of a fair complexion, with a fresh, cheerful, and very engaging countenance. As navigation had been his whole study, so he understood it thoroughly, and was a perfect master in every branch, especially in astronomy, and in the application of it to the art of sailing. He had the happiness to live under the reign of a princess, who never failed to distinguish merit, and to reward it. He was always her favourite; and she gave an uncommon proof of it, in regard to a quarrel he had with his countryman sir Bernard Drake, whose arms sir Francis assuming, the other was so provoked at it, that he gave him a box on the ear. Upon this, the queen took up the quarrel, and gave sir Francis a new coat, which is thus emblazoned “Sable, a fess wavy between two pole stars Argent,” and for his crest, “a. ship on a globe under ruff,” held by a cable, with a hand out of the clouds, over it this motto, “auxilio divino” underneath, “sic parvis nriagna” in the rigging of which is hung up by the heels a wivern Gules which was the arms of sir Bernard Drake. Her majesty’s kindness, however, did not extend beyond the grave; for she suffered his brother Thomas Drake, whom he made his heir, to be prosecuted for a pretended debt to the crown; which prosecution hurt him a good deal. It is indeed true, that sir Francis died without issue, but not a bachelor, as some authors have written; for ije left behind him a widow, Elizabeth, daughter and sole heiress of sir George Sydenham, in the county of Devon, knt. who afterwards was married to William Courtenay, esq. of Powderham castle in the same county, the ancestor of the noble family of Courtenay.

In 1704, being dissatisfied with the rejection of the bill to prevent occasional conformity, and with the disgrace of some of his friends who were sticklers for it, he wrote, in concert with Mr. Poley, member of parliament for Ipswich, “The Memorial of the Church of England humbly offered to the consideration of all true lovers of our Church and Constitution,” 8vo. The treasurer Godolphin, and the other great officers of the crown in the whig interest, severely reflected on in this work, were so highly offended, that they represented it to the queen as an insult upon her honour, and an intimation that the church was in danger under her administration. Accordingly her majesty took notice-of it in her speech to the ensuing parliament, Oct. 27, 1705; and was addressed by both houses upon that occasion. Soon after, the queen, at the petition of the house of commons, issued a proclamation for discovering the author of the “Memorial;” but no discovery could be made. The parliament was not the only body that shewed their resentment to this book; for the grand jury of the city of London having presented it at the sessions, as a false, scandalous, and traitorous libel, it wa*s immediately burnt in the sight of the court then sitting, and afterwards before the Royal Exchange, by the hands of the common hangman. But though Drake then escaped, yet as he was very much suspected of being the author of that book, and had rendered himself obnoxious upon other accounts to persons then in power, occasions were sought to ruin him if possible; and a newspaper he was publishing at that time under the title of “Mercurius Politicus,” afforded his enemies the pretence they wanted. For, taking exception at some passages in it, they prosecuted him in the queen’s-bench in 1706. His case was argued at the bar of that court, April 30 when, upon a flaw in the information (the simple change of an r for a t, or nor for not) the trial was adjourned, and in November following the doctor was acquitted but the government brought a writ of error. The severity of this prosecution, joined to repeated disappointments and ill-usage from some of his party, is supposed to have flung him into a fever, of which he died at Westminster, March 2, 1707, not without violent exclamations against the rigour of his prosecutors.

Mr. D'Israeli, who has introduced Dr. Drake in his interesting work, “The Calamities of Authors,” informs us that Drake, in one instance at least, condescended to practise literary imposition. He reprinted father Parsons’s famous libel against the earl of Leicester in queen Elizabeth’s reign, under the title of “Secret Memoirs of Robert Dudley, earl of Leicester,” 1706, 8vo, with a preface pretending it was printed from an old manuscript, instead of being literally taken from “Leycester’s Commonwealth.”

, an English poet, was born at HarshuU, in the parish of Atherston, in the county of Warwick, in 1563. His family was ancient, and originally descended from the town of Drayton in Leicestershire, which gave name to his progenitors, as a learned antiquary of his acquaintance has recorded; but his parents removing into Warwickshire, our poet was born there. When he was but ten years of age, he seems to have been page to some person of honour, as we collect from his own words: and, for his learning at that time, it appears evidently in the same place, that he could then construe his Cato, and some other little collection of sentences. It appears too, that he was then anxious to know, “what kind of strange creatures poets were r” and desired his tutor of all things, that if possible “he would make him a poet.” He was some time a student in the university of Oxford: though we do not find that he took any degree there. In 1588, he seems, from his own description of the Spanish invasion, to have been a spectator at Dover of its defeat; and might possibly be engaged in some military post or employment there, as we find mention of his being well spoken of by the gentlemen of the army. He took delight very early, as we have seen, in the study of poetry; and was eminent for his poetical efforts, nine or ten years before the death of queen Elizabeth, if not sooaer. In 1593 he published a collection of pastorals, under the title of “Idea: the Shepherd’s Garland, fashioned in nine eclogues; with Rowland’s sacrifice to the nine Muses,” 4to, dedicated to Mr. Robert Dudley. This “Shepherd’s Garland” is the same with what was afterwards reprinted with emendations by our author in 1619, folio, under the title of “Pastorals,” containing eclogues; with the “Man in the Moon;” but the folio edition of Drayton’s works, printed in 1748, though the title-page professes to give them all, does not contain this part of them. Soon after he published his “Barons’ Wars,” and “England’s heroical Epistles;” his “Downfalls of Robert of Normandy, Matilda and Gaveston;” which were all written before 1598; and caused him to be highly celebrated at that time, when he was distinguished not only as a great genius, but as a good man. He was exceedingly esteemed by his contemporaries; and Burton, the antiquary of Leicestershire, after calling him his “near countryman and old acquaintance,” adds further of him, that, “though those transalpines account us tramontani, rude, and barbarous, holding our brains so frozen, dull, and barren, that they can afford no inventions or conceits, yet may he compare either with their old Dante, Petrarch, or Boccace, or their neoteric Marinella, Pignatello, or Stigliano. But why,” says Burton, “sould I go about to commend him, whom his own works and worthiness have sufficiently extolled to the world?”

In 1626 we find him styled poet laureat, in a copy of his own verses written in commendation of Abraham Holland, and prefixed to the posthumous poems of that author. It is probable, that the appellation of poet laureat was not formerly confined so strictly, as it is now, to the person on whom this title is conferred by the crown, who is presumed to have been at that time Ben Jonson; because we find it given to others only as a distinction of their excellency in the art of poetry; to Mr. George Sandys particularly, who was our author’s friend. The print of Drayton, before the first volume of his works in folio, has a wreath of bays above his head, and so has his bust in Westminster-abbey; yet when we find that the portraits of Joshua Sylvester, John Owen, and others, who never had any grant of the laureat’s place, are as formally crowned with laurel as those who really possessed it, we have reason to believe, that nothing more was meant by it, than merely a compliment. Besides, as to Drayton, he tells us himself, in his dedication to sir William Aston of “The Owl,” that he leaves the iaurel to those who may look after it. In 1627 was published the second volume of his poems, containing his “Battle of Agincourt, Miseries of queen Margaret, Court of Fairies, Quest of Cynthia, Shepherd’s Syrena, elegies, also, the Moon-Calf,” which is a strong satire upon the masculine affectations of women, and the effeminate disguises of the men, in those times. The elegies are 12 in number, though there are but eight reprinted in the edition of 1748. In 1630 he published another volume of poems in 4to, entitled, the “Muses’ Elyzium:” with three divine poems, on Noah’s flood, Moses’s birth and miracles, and David and Goliath. Draytori died in 1631, and was buried in Westminster-abbey amongst the poets.

, minister of the Calvinist church of Paris, was born July 1595, at Sedan; where his father had a considerable post. He passed through the study of polite literature and divinity at Sedan, but was sent to Saumur, to go through a course of philosophy there under professor Duncan. He was admitted minister in 1618, and discharged his function near Langres, till he was called by the church of Paris in 1620. He had all the qualifications requisite to a great minister. His sermons were very edifying; he was assiduous and successful in comforting the sick; and he managed the atTairs of the church with such skill, that he never failed of being consulted upon every important occasion. His first essay was a “Treatise of Preparation for the Lord’s Supper.” This, and his “Catechism,” the “Short View of Controversies,” and “Consolations against the fears of Death,” have, of all his works, been the most frequently reprinted. Some of them, his book upon death in particular, have passed through above forty editions; and have been translated into several languages, as German, Dutch, Italian, and English. His “Charitable Visits,” in 5 volumes, have served for a continual consolation to private persons, and for a source of materials and models to ministers. He published three volumes of sermons, in which, as in all the forementioned pieces, there is a vein of piety very affecting to religious minds. His controversial works are 1. “The Jubilee” 2. “The Roman Combat” 3. “The Jesuit’s Owl” 4. “An Answer to father Coussin” 5. “Disputes with the bishop of Bellai, concerning the honour due to the Holy Virgin” 6. “An answer to La Milletierre” 7. “Dialogues, against the Missionaries,” in several volumes 8. “The False Pastor Convicted,” 9. ; 'The False Face of Antiquity;“10.” The Pretended Nullities of the Reformation;“11.” An Answer to prince Ernest of Hesse;“12.” An Answer to the speech of the clergy spoken by the archbishop of Sens;“13.” A Defence of Calvin." He wrote some letters, which have been printed; one to the duchess of Tremouille, upon her husband’s departure from the protestant religion; one of consolation, addressed to Madam de la Tabariere; one upon the restoration of Charles II. king of Great Britain; some upon the English episcopacy, &c. He published also certain prayers, some of which were made for the king, others for the queen, and others for the dauphin. Bayle tells us, that what he wrote against the church of Rome, confirmed the protestants more than can be expressed; for with the arms with which he furnished them, such as wanted the advantage of learning, were enabled to oppose the monks and parish priests, and to contend with the missionaries. His writings made him considered as the scourge of the papists; yet, like mons. Claude, he was much esteemed, and even beloved by them. For it was well known that he had an easy access to the secretaries of state, the first president, the king’s advocate, and the civil lieutenant; though he never made any other use of his interest with them than to assist the afflicted churches. He was highly esteemed by the great persons of his own religion; by the duke de la Force, the marshals Chatillon, Gascon, Turenne, and by the duchess of Tremouille. They sent for him to their palaces, and honoured him from time to time with their visits. Foreign princes and noblemen, the ambassadors of England and France, did the same; and he was particularly esteemed by the house of Hesse, as appears from the books he dedicated to the princes and princesses of that name. He died Nov. 3, 1669.

, an eminently patriotic and public-spirited magistrate of Edinburgh, was born June 27, 1687, and educated in that city, principally with a view to active life, in which he very soon maue a distinguished figure. On the accession of queen Anne, when he was of course very young, he assisted the committee appointed by the parliament of Scotland to settle the public accounts of the kingdom. Tn 1707 he was appointed accountant-general of the excise, and assisted, with indefatigable diligence, in putting the accounts of that important branch of the revenue into the same form and method with those in England. In 1710, the then total change of the ministry alarmed the friends of the house of Hanover, and these alarms increasing, in 1713, at a meeting of gentlemen who had formed a society for guarding the country against the designs of the pretender, Mr. Drummond proposed a plan, which was unanimously approved and carried into execution, by which a correspondence was established with every county in the kingdom, and arms imported from Holland, and put into the hands of the friends of liberty every where. In 1715, he gave the first notice to the ministry of the arrival of the earl of Mar, was honoured with the command of a company of volunteers that was raised by the friends of government on that occasion, and was attendant on the duke of Argyle, during his residence in Scotland till the rebellion was extinguished. He assisted at the battle of Sheriffmuir, and dispatched to the magistrates of Edinburgh the earliest notice of Argyle’s victory, in a letter which he dated from the field on horseback. In 1717 he was elected a member of the corporation of Edinburgh, and discharged all the intermediate offices of magistracy until 1725, when he was elected lord provost, an office which he filled with the highest reputation and true dignity. To his indefatigable industry and perseverance it was chiefly owing, that the several professorships in the university were filled with men of the first abilities, and several new ones were founded, as that of chemistry, the theory and practice of physic, midwifery, the belles lettres, and rhetoric, by which means Edinburgh arrived at the rank of one of the first schools in the kingdom, particularly for medicine.

, an English prelate, was the second son of George Henry, seventh earl of Kinnoul, and Abigail, youngest daughter of Robert Harley, earl of Oxford and Mortimer, lord high treasurer of Great Britain. He was born in London, Nov. 10, 1711, and after being educated at Westminster school, was admitted student of Christ church, Oxford, where he prosecuted his studies with great diligence and credit. When he had taken his first degree in arts, he accompanied his cousingerman, Thomas duke of Leeds, on a tour to the continent. From that he returned in 1735 to college, to pursue the study of divinity; the same year, June 13, he was admitted M. A. and soon after entered into holy orders, and was presented by the Oxford family to the rectory of Bothall in Northumberland; and in 1737, by the recommendation of queen Caroline, was appointed chaplain in ordinary to his majesty. In 1739 he assumed the name and arms of Drummond, as heir in entail of his great grandfather William, first viscount of Strathallan. In 1743, he attended the king abroad, and on his return was installed prebendary of Westminster, and in 1745 was admitted B. D. and D. D. In 1748 he was promoted to the see of St. Asaph; a diocese where his name will ever be revered, and which he constantly mentioned with peculiar affection and delight, as having enjoyed there for thirteen years, a situation most congenial to his feelings, and an extent of patronage most gratifying to his benevolent heart.

Of all the honours Dr. Ducarel enjoyed, none gave him greater satisfaction than the commissariate of St. Katharine’s, a place to which he has done due honour in “The History of the Koyal Hospital and Collegiate church of St. Katharine, near the Tower of London, from its foundation, in 1273, to the present time, 1782,” 4to, with seventeen plates. This history was originally compiled by the doctor for the use of her present majesty, to whom a copy of it was presented in ms. a short time after her accession to the patronage of this collegiate church, the only ecclesiastical preferment in the gift of the queen consort of England. On a thorough repair of this curious old church in 1778, an empty vault was discovered in the chance.1, of a size that would hold two coffins, and no more. This spot the doctor claimed in virtue of his office; and has often pointed out to his friends, as a resting-place for his ashes and those of his lady; and the remains of both have been actually there deposited. Two additional plates to the history of St. Katharine’s, representing the curious grotesque carvings under the old stalls there, were engraved a little before his death, at his particular request, and were given to the public in 1790, with a short appendix to that history, in, the “Bibliotheca Topographica Britannica, No. LII.” In 1783, he published, as No. XII. of Bibliotheca Topograpica Britannica, “Some account of the Town, Church, and Archiepiscopal Palace of Croydon, in the county of Surrey, from its foundation to 1783,” 4to r originally drawn up by him in 1754, at the request of archbishop Herring. He also drew up in the “Bibliotheca Topographica Britannica, No. XXVII,” “The History and Antiquities of the Archiepiscopal Palace of Lambeth, from its foundation to the present time, 1785, 4to,” which was dedicated, by permission, to archbishop Moore; and, in 1786, he contributed largely to “The History and Antiquities of the parish of Lambeth, in the county of Surrey; including biographical anecdotes of several eminent persons; compiled from original records, and other authentic sources of information.” Some additions to this history were also, in 1790, printed in the same collection.

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

The thresher Duck could o'er the queen prevail

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

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

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

Edward died the 6th of July, 1553. It is said that the duke of Northumberland was very desirous of concealing his death for some time; but this being found impossible, he carried his daughter-in-law, the lady Jane, from Durham-house to the Tower, for the greater security, and on the 10th of July proclaimed her queen. The council also wrote to lady Mary, requiring her submission; but they were soon informed that she was retired into Norfolk, where many of the nobility and multitudes of people resorted to her. It was then resolved to send forces against her, under the command of the duke of Suffolk; but queen Jane, as she was then styled, would by no means part with her father; and the council earnestly pressed the duke of Northumberland to go in person, to which he was little inclined, as doubting their fidelity. However, on the 14th of July he went, accompanied by some others; but, as they marched through Bishopsgate with two thousand horse and six thousand foot, he could not forbear saying to lord Grey, “The people press to see us, but not one says, God speed us.” His activity and courage, for which he had been so famous, seem from this time to have deserted him; for, though he advanced to St. Edmund’sbury, in Suffolk, yet, finding his troops diminish, the people little affected to him, and no supplies coming from London, though he had written to the lords in the most pressing terms, he retired back to Cambridge. The council in the mean time having escaped from the Tower, had queen Mary proclaimed. The duke of Northumberland, having immediate advice of this, caused her to be proclaimed at Cambridge, throwing up his cap, and crying, “God save queen Mary!” but all this affected loyalty stood him in no stead; for he was soon after arrested, arraigned, tried, and condemned. August the 2 1st was the day fixed for his execution; when a vast concourse of people assembled upon Tower-hill, all the usual preparations being made, and the executioner ready; but, after waiting some hours, the people were ordered to depart. This delay was to afford time for his making an open show of the change of his- religion since that very day, in the presence of the mayor and aldermen of London, as well as some of the privy-council, he heard mass in the Tower. The next day he was executed, after making a very long speech to the people, of which there remains nothing but what relates to his religion; which he not only professed to be then that of the church of Rome, but to have been always so. Fox affirms that he had a promise of pardon^ even if his head was upon the block, if he would recant and hear mass; and some have believed that he entertained such a hope to the last. Whatever truth there may be in this, it is allowed that he behaved with proper courage and composure.

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

Some historians have affected much amazement at the great honours bestowed by queen Elizabeth upon this noble person and his brother Robert: but it is easy to conceive, that she always intended to raise them from the very beginning of her reign. In her youth she had conversed very intimately with them, saw them high in her brother Edward’s favour, and probably had made use of their interest in those times of their prosperity. They had been also, making allowance for their distance in rank, companions in adversity under queen Mary; nor is it at all improbable that they might do the princess Elizabeth some considerable services during the latter part of that reign, when both the brothers had recovered some degree of favour.

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

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

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

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

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

was son of Robert earl of Leicester by the lady Douglas Sheffield, and born at Sheen in Surrey, in 1573. His birth, it is said, was carefully concealed, as well to prevent the queen’s knowledge of the earl’s engagements with his mother, as to hide it from the countess of Essex, to whom he was then contracted, if not married; but this latter assertion is surely doubtful, as the countess of Essex was not a widow until 1576 (See Devereux, Walter.) Sir Robert, however, was considered and treated as his lawful son till the earl’s marriage with the lady Essex, which was about 1578: and then he was declared to be only his natural issue by lady Douglas. Out of her hands the earl was very desirous to get him, in order to put him under the care of sir Edward Horsey, governor of the Isle of Wight; which some have imagined to have been, not with any view to the child’s disadvantage, for he always loved him tenderly, but with a thought of bringing him upon the stage at some proper time, as his natural son by another lady. He was not able to get him for some time: but at last effecting it, he sent him to school at Offingham in Sussex, in 1583, and four years after to Christ Church in Oxford. In 1588 his father died, and left him, after the decease of his uncle Ambrose, his castle of Kenilworth, the lordships of Denbigh and Chirk, and the bulk of his estate, which before he was of age he in a great measure enjoyed, notwithstanding the enmity borne him by the countess dowager of Leicester. He was now reckoned one of the finest gentlemen in England, in his person tall, well-­shaped, having a fresh and fine complexion, but red-haired; learned beyond his age, more especially in the mathematics; and of parts equal if not superior to any of his family. Add to all this, that he was very expert in his exercises, and particularly in riding the great horse, in which he was allowed to excel any man of his time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

, 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.

, 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.”

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.

, 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.

, 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.

, 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.

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.

, 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.”

, 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.

The queen confers her titles and degrees.

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.

, 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.

, 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.

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.

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.

, 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.

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.

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.

In the midst of all this danger the queen appeared undismayed, issued her orders with tranquillity, animated her people to a steady resistance; and the more to excite the martial spirit of the nation, appeared on horseback at Tilbury, exhorting the soldiersto their duty, and promising to share with them the same dangers and the same fate. On this occasion the words of her address are said to have been these: “My loving people, we have been persuaded by some that are careful of our safety, to take heed how we commit ourselves to armed multitudes, for fear of treachery; but assure you, I do not desire to live to distrust my faithful and loving people. Let tyrants fear I have always so behaved myself, that, under God, I have placed my chief strength and safeguard in the loyal hearts and good-will of my subjects. And therefore I am coma amongst you at this time; not as for my recreation or sport, but being resolved, in the midst and heat of the battle, to live or die amongst you all; to lay down, for my God, and for my kingdom, and for my people, my honour and my blood, even in the dust. I know I have but the body of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the heart of a king, and of a king: of England too and think foul scorn that Parma, or Spain, or any prince of Europe, should dare to invade the borders of my realms. To which, rather than any dishonour should grow by me, I myself will take up arms; I myself will be your general, judge, and rewarder of every one of your virtues in the field. I know already, by your forwardness, that you have deserved rewards and crowns; and we do assure you, on the word of a prince, they shall be duly paid you. In the mean time, my lieutenant-general shall be in my stead, than whom, never prince commanded a more, noble and worthy subject; not doubting by your obedience to my general, by your concord in the camp, and your valour in the field, we shall shortly have a famous victory over these enemies of my God, of my kingdom, and of my people.” On hearing this, an attachment to her person became a kind of enthusiasm among the soldiery; and they asked one another, whether it were possible that Englishmen could abandon the glorious cause, could display less fortitude than appeared in the female sex, or could ever by any dangers be induced to relinquish the defence of their heroic princess.

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.

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.

, 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.

, 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.

, a divine and antiquary, descended from a very ancient family in the bishopric of Durham, was born at Newcastle upon Tyne, Jan. 1, 1673, and was the son of Mr. Ralph Elstob, a merchant of that place. Being intended for the church, he received his grammatical education, first at Newcastle, and afterwards at Eton after which he was admitted of Catharine-hall, in Cambridge but the air of the country not agreeing with him, he removed to Queen’s college, Oxford. Here his studious turn acquired him so much reputation, that in 1696 he was chosen fellow of University college, and was appointed joint tutor with Dr. C layering, afterwards bishop of Peterborough. At this college Mr. Elstob took the degree of master of arts, June 8, 1697. In 1701, he translated into Latin the Saxon homily of Lupus, with notes, for Dr. Jiickes. About the same time he translated into English sir John Cheke’s Latin version of Plutarch, “De Superstitione,” which is printed at the end of Strype’s Life of Cheke. The copy made use of by Mr. Elstob was a manuscript in University college, out of which Obadiah Walker, when master of that college, had cut several leaves, containing Cheke’s remarks against popery. In 1702, Mr. Elstob was appointed rector of the united parishes of St. Swithin and St. Mary Bothaw, London, where be continued to his death, and which appears to be the only eqclesiastical preferment he ever obtained. In 1703, he published, at Oxford, an edition of Ascham’s Latin Letters. He was the author, likewise, of an “Essay on the great affinity and mutual agreement between the two professions of Law and Divinity,” printed at London, with a preface, by Dr. Hickes. This book, in process of time, became so little known, that Mr. Philip Carteret Webbe insisted upon it that there was no such work, until convinced, by an abstract or view of it, which was sent to Mr. Pegge, from a copy in the library of St. John’s college, Cambridge. It is a thin octavo, and not very scarce. In 1704, Mr Elstob published two sermons; one, a thanksgiving sermon, from Psalm ciii. 10, for the victory at Hochstet; and, the other, from 1 Timothy i. 1, 2, on the anniversary of the queen’s accession. Besides the works already mentioned, our author, who was a great proficient in the Latin tongue, compiled an essay on its history and use collected materials for an account of Newcastle and, also, the various proper names formerly used in the north but what is become of these manuscripts is not known. In 1709, he published, in the Saxon language, with a Latin translation, the homily on St. Gregory’s day. Mr. Elstob bad formed several literary designs, the execution of which was prevented by his death, in 1714, when he was only forty-one years of age. The most considerable of his designs was an edition of the Saxon laws, with great additions, and a new Latin version by Somner, together with notes of various learned men, and a prefatory history of the origin and progress of the English laws, down to the conqueror, and to Magna Charta. This great plan was completed in 1721, by Dr. David Wilkins, who, in his preface, thus speaks concerning our author “Hoc Gulielmus Elstob, in literis Anglo-Saxonicis versatissimus præstare instituerat. Hinc Wheloci vestigia premens, Leges quas editio ejus exhibet, cum Mss. Cantabrigiensibus, Bodleiano, Roffensi, et Cottonianis contulerat, versioneque nova adornare proposuerat, ut sic Leges, antea jam publici juris factae, ejus opera et studio emendatiores prodiissent. Veruin morte immatura præreptus, propositum exequi non potuit.” Whilst Mr. Elstob was engaged in this design, Dr. Hickes recommended him to Mr. Harley, as a man whose modesty had made him an obscure person, and which would ever make him so, unless some kind patron of good learning should bring him into light. The doctor added his testimony to Mr. Elstob’s literature, his great diligence and application, and his capacity for the work he had undertaken. Mr. Harley so far attended to Dr. Hickes’s recommendation as to grant to Mr. Elstob the use of the books and manuscripts in his library, which our author acknowledged in a very humble letter. A specimen of Mr. Elstob’s design was actually printed at Oxford, in 1699, under the title of “Hormesta Pauli Orosii, &c. ad exemplar Junianum, &c.” He intended, also, a translation with notes, of Alfred’s Paraphrastic Version of Orosins; his transcript of which, with collations, was in Dr. Pegge’s hands. Another transcript, by Mr. Ballard, with a large preface on the use of Anglo-Saxon literature, was left by Dr. Charles Lyltelton, bishop of Carlisle, to the library of the Society of Antiquaries. Alfred’s Version of Orosius has since been given to the public, with an English translation, by the honourable Daines Barrington. In his publication, Mr. Barrington observes, that he has made use of Mr. Elstob’s transcript, and that he has adopted from it the whimsical title of Hormesta. When it is considered that Mr. Elstob died in early life, it will be regretted, by the lovers of antiquarian learning, that he was prevented from acquiring that name and value in the literary world, to which he would otherwise probably have arisen.

, sister of Mr. William Elstob, and engaged in the same learned pursuits, was born at Newcastle, Sept. 29, 1683. It is said, that she owed the rudiments of her extraordinary education to her mother; of which advantage, however, she was soon deprived; for at the age of eight years she had the misfortune of losing this intelligent parent. Her guardians, who entertained different sentiments, discouraged as much as they were able her progress in literature, as improper for her sex; but she had contracted too great a fondness for literary studies to be diverted from the prosecution of them. During her brother’s continuance at Oxford, she appears to have resided in that city, where she was esteemed and respected by Dr. Hudson and other Oxonians. Upon her brother’s removal to London, she probably removed with him; and, it is certain, that she assisted him in his antiquarian undertakings. The first public proof which she gave of it was in 1709, when, upon Mr. Elstob’s printing the homily on St. Gregory’s day, she accompanied it with an English translation. The preface, too, was written by her, in which she answers the objections made to female learning, by producing that glory of her sex, as she calls her, Mrs. Anna Maria Schurman. Mrs. Elstob’s next publication was a translation of madame Seudery’s “t-ssay on Glory.” She assisted, also, her brother in an edition of Gregory’s pastoral, which was probably intended to have included both the original and Saxon version; and she had transcribed all the hymns, from an ancient manuscript in Salisbury cathedral. By the encouragement of Dr. Hickes, she undertook a Saxon Homilarium, with an English translation, notes, and various readings. To promote this design, Mr. Bowyer printed for her, in 1713, “Some testimonies of learned men, in favour of the intended edition of the Saxon Homilies, concerning the learning of the author of those homilies, and the advantages to be hoped for from an edition of them. In a letter from the publisher to a doctor in divinity.” About the same time she wrote three letters to the lord treasurer, from which it appears, that he solicited and obtained for her queen Anne’s bounty towards printing the homilies in question. Her majesty’s decease soon deprived Mrs. Elstob of this benefit; and she was not otherwise sufficiently patronized, so as to be able to complete the work. A lew only of the homilies were actually printed at Oxford, in folio. Mrs. Elstob’s portrait was given in the initial letter G of “The English. Saxon Homily on the Birth-day of St, George.” In 1715, she published a Saxon grammar, the types for which had been cut at the expence of the lord chief justice Parker, afterwards earl of Macclesfield. Mrs. Elstob had other literary designs in view, but was prevented from the prosecution of them, by her distressed circumstances, and the want of due encouragement. After her brother’s death, she was so far reduced, that she was obliged to retire to Evesham in Worcestershire, where she subsisted with difficulty by keeping a small school. In this situation she experienced the friendship of Mr. George Ballard, and of Mrs. Capon, wife of the rev. Mr. Capon, who kept a boarding-school at Sianton, in Gloucestershire. These worthy persons exerted themselves among their acquaintance, to obtain for Mrs. Elstub some annual provision. At length she was recoiflmended to queen Caroline, who granted her a pension of twenty guineas a year. This being discontinued on the queen’s decease, Mrs. Elstob was again brought into difficulties, and, though mistress of eight languages, besides her own, was obliged to seek for employment as a preceptress of children. She may, however, be considered as having been very fortunate in the situation which she obtained in this capacity; for, in 1739, she was taken into the family of the duchess Dowager of Portland, where she continued till her death, which happened on the 30th of May 1756. She was buried at St. Margaret’s, Westminster. Mr. Rowe Mores describes her as having been the indefessa comes of her brother’s studies, and a female student of the university; and as having originally possessed a genteel fortune, which, by pursuing too much the drug called learning, she did not know how to manage. He adds, that upon visiting her in her sleeping-room at Bulstrode, he found her surrounded with books and dirtiness. She was, however, one of the most extraordinary women of her age, the first, and as far as we know, the last of her sex, who was a Saxon scholar. A more particular account of her Mss. and other productions is given in our first authority.

, a gentleman of eminent learning in the reign of king Henry Vlil. and author of several works, was son of sir Richard Eiyot, of the county of Suffolk, and educated in academical learning at St. Mary’s hall in Oxford, where he made a considerable progress in logic and philosophy. After some time spent at the university, he travelled into foreign countries, and upon his return was introduced to the court of kiiag Henry, who, being a great patron of learned men, conferred on him the honour of knighthood, and employed him in several embassies, particularly to Rome in 1532, about the affair of the divorce of queen Catharine, and afterwards, about 1536, to the emperor Charles V. Sir Thomas was an excellent grammarian, rhetorician, philosopher, physician, cosmographer, and historian; and no less distinguished for his candour, and the innocence and integrity of his life. He was courted and celebrated by all the learned men of his time, particularly the famous antiquary Leland, who addressed a copy of Latin verses to him in his “Encomia illustrium virorum.” A similitude of manners, and sameness of studies, recommended him to the intimacy and friendship of sir Thomas More. He died in 1546, and was buried the 25th of March, in the church of Carleton, in Cambridgeshire, of which county he had been sheriff. His widow afterwards was married to sir James Dyer.

After about ten weeks’ absence, though Mr. Emlyn received discouraging accounts of the rage that prevailed against him in Dublin, he thought it necessary to return, to his family. Finding that both his opinions and his person lay under a great odium among many who knew little of the subject in dispute, he wrote his “Humble Inquiry into the Scripture account of Jesus Christ: or, a short argument concerning his Deity and Glory, according to the Gospel.” A few days after this work was prinjted, our author intended to return to England; but some zealous dissenters, getting notice of his design, resolved to have him prosecuted. Two of them, one of whom was a presbyterian, and the other a baptist-church officer, were for presenting Mr. Emlyn; but, upon reflection, this method was judged to be too slow, and too uncertain in its operation. Mr. Caleb Thomas, therefore, the latter of the two dissenters, immediately obtained a special warrant from the lord chief justice (sir Richard Pyne) to seize our author and his books. Our author, with part of the impression of his work, being thus seized, was carried before the lord chief justice, who at first refused bail, but afterwards said that it might be allowed with the attorney-general’s consent; which being obtained, two sufficient persons were bound in a recognizance of eight hundred pounds for Mr. Emlyn’s appearance. This was in Hilary term, February 1703, at the end of which he was bound over to Easter term, when the grand jury found the bill, wherein he was indicted of blasphemy. To such a charge he chose to traverse. The indictment was altered three times before it was finally settled, which occasioned the trial to be deferred till June 14, 1703. On that day, Mr. Emlyn was informed, by an eminent gentleman of the long robe, sir Richard Levins, afterwards lord chief justice of the common pleas, that he would not be permitted to speak freely, but that it was designed to run him down like a wolf, without law or game; and he was soon convinced that this was not a groundless assertion. The indictment was for writing and publishing a book, wherein he had blasphemously and maliciously asserted, that Jesus Christ was not equal to God the father, to whom he was subject; and this with a seditious intention. As Mr. Emlyn knew that it would be difficult to convict him of being the author of the work, he did not think himself bound to be his own accuser, and the prosecutor not being able to produce sufficient evidence of the fact, at length sent for Mr. Boyse. This gentleman, being examined as to what Mr. K.mlyn had preached of the matters contained in the book, acknowledged that he had said nothing of tlu-tn in the pulpit directly, but only some things that gave ground of suspicion. Mr. Boyse being farther asked, what our author had said in private conference with the ministers, answered, “that what he had declared there was judged by his brethren to be near to Arianism.” Though this only proved the agreement of the book with Mr. Emlyn’s sentiment, it yet had a great effect upon the minds of the jury, and tended more than any other consideration to produce a verdict against him. The queen’s counsel, having thus only presumption to allege, contended,that strong presumption was as good as evidence; which doctrine was seconded by the lord chief justice, who repeated it to the jury, who brought him in guilty, without considering the contents of the book whether blasphemy or not, confining themselves, as it would appear, to the fact of publishing: for which some of them afterwards expressed their concern. The verdict being pronounced, the passing of the sentence was deferred to June 16, being the last day of the term. In the mean time Mr. Emlyn was committed to the common jail. During this interval, Mr. Boyse shewed great concern for our author, and used all his interest to prevent the rigorous sentence for which the attorney-general (Robert Kochford, esq.) had moved, viz. the pillory. It being thought proper that Mr. Emlyn should write to the lord chief justice, he accordingly did so; but with what effect we are not told. When he appeared to have judgment given against him, it was moved by one of the queen’s counsel (Mr. Brodrick) that he should retract: but to this our author could not consent. The lord chief justice, therefore, proceeded to pass sentence on him; which was, that he should suffer a year’s imprisonment, pay a thousand pounds fine to the queen, and lie in prison till paid; and that he should find security for good behaviour during life. The pillory, he was told, was the punishment due; but, on account of his being a man of letters, it was not inflicted. Then, with a paper on his breast, he was led round the four courts to l>e exposed. After judgment had been passed, Mr. Emlyn was committed to the sheriffs of Dublin, and was a close prisoner, for something more than a quarter of a year, in the house of the under-sheriff. On the 6th of October he was hastily hurried away to the common jail, where he lay among the prisoners in a close room filled with six beds, for about five or six weeks; and then, by an habeas corpus, he was upon his petition removed into the Marshalsea for his health. Having here greater conveniences, he wrote, in 1704, a tract, entitled “General Remarks on Mr. Boyse’s Vindication of the true Deity of our blessed Saviour.” In the Marshalsea our author remained till July 21, 1705, during the whole of which time his former acquaintances were estranged from him, and all offices of friendship or.civility in a manner ceased; especially among persons of a superior rank. A few, indeed, of the plainer tradesmen belonging to his late congregation were more compassionate; but not one of the dissenting ministers of Dublin, Mr. Boyse excepted, paid him any visit or attention. At length, through the zealous and repeated solicitations of Mr. Boyse, the generous interference of Thomas Medlicote, esq. the humane interposition of the duke of Ormond, and the favourable report of the lord chancellor (sir Richard Cox, to whom a petition of Mr. Emlyn had been preferred), and whose report was, that such exorbitant fines were against law, the fine was reduced to seventy pounds, and it was accordingly paid into her majesty’s exchequer. Twenty pounds more were paid, by way of composition, to Dr. Narcissus March, archbishop of Armagh, who, as queen’s almoner, had a claim of one shilling a pound upon the whole fine. During Mr. Emlyn’s confinement in the Marshalsea, he regularly preached there. He had hired a pretty large room to himself; whither, on the Sundays, some of the imprisoned debtors resorted; and from without doors there came several of the lower sort of his former people and usual hearers. Soon after his release Mr. Emlyn returned to London, where a small congregation was found for him, consisting of a few friends, to whom he preached once every Sunday. This he did without salary or stipend; although, in consequence of his wife’s jointure having devolved to her children, his fortune was reduced to a narrow income. The liberty of preaching which our author enjoyed, gave great offence to several persons, and especially to Mr. Charles Leslie, the famous nonjuror, and Mr. Francis Higgins, the rector of Balruddery, in the county of Dublin. Complaint was made upon the subject to Dr. Teniaon, archbishop of Canterbury, who was not inclined to molest him. Nevertheless, in the representation of the lower house of convocation to the queen in 1711, it was asserted, that weekly sermons were preached in defence of the Unitarian principles, an assertion which Mr. Emlyn thought proper to deny in a paper containing some observations upon it. After a few years, his congregation was dissolved by the death of the principal persons who had attended upon his ministry, and he retired into silent obscurity, but not into idleness; for the greater part of his life was diligently spent in endeavouring to support, by various works, the principles he had embraced, and the cause for which he had suffered. The first performance published by him, after his release from prison, was “A Letter to the Rev. Dr. Willis, 'dean of Lincoln; being some friendly remarks on his sermon before the honourable house of commons, Nov. 5, 1705.” The intention of this letter was to shew that the punishment even of papists for religion was not warranted by the Jewish laws; and that Christians had been more cruel persecutors than Jews. In 1706 Mr. Emlyn published what his party considered as one of his most elaborate productions, “A Vindication of the worship of the Lord Jesus Christ, on Unitarian principles. In anMver to what is said, on that head, by Mr. Joseph Boyse, in his Vindication of” the Deity of Jesus Christ. To which is annexed, an answer to Dr. Walerland on the same head.“Two publications came from our author in 1707, the first of which was entitled” The supreme Deity of God the Father demonstrated. In answer to Dr. Sherlock’s arguments fur the supreme Divinity of Jesus Christ, or whatever can be urged against the supremacy of the first person of the Holy Trinity.“The other was” A brief Vindication of the Bishop of Gloucester’s (Dr. Fowler) Discourses concerning the descent of the man Christ Jesus from Heaven, from Dr. Sherlock the dean of St. Paul’s charge of heresy. With a confutation of his new notion in his late book of The Scripture proofs of our Saviour’s divinity.“In 1708 Mr. Emlyn printed three tracts, all of them directed against Mr. Leslie. The titles of them are as follow: 1. Remarks on Mr. Charles Leslie’s first Dialogue on the Socinian controversy. 2. A Vindication of the Remarks on Mr. Charles Leslie’s first Dialogue on the Socinian controversy. 3. An Examination of Mr. Leslie’s last Dialogue relating to the satisfaction of Jesus Christ. Together with some remarks on Dr. Stillingfleet’s True reasons of Christ’s Sufferings. In the year 1710 he published” The previous question to the several questions about valid and invalid Baptism, Lay-baptism, &c. considered viz. whether there be any necessity (upon the principles of Mr. Wall’s History of infant baptism) for the continual use of baptism among the posterity of baptised Christians.“But this hypothesis, though supported with ingenuity and learning, has not obtained many converts. Our author did not again appear from the press till 1715, when he published” A full Inquiry into the original authority of that text, 1 John v. 7. There are three that bear record in heaven, &c. containing an account of Dr. Mill’s evidence, from antiquity, for and against its being genuine; with an examination of his judgment thereupon.“This piece was addressed to Dr. William Wake, lord archbishop of Canterbury, president, to the bishops of the same province, his grace’s suffragans, and to the clergy of the lower house of convocation, then assembled. The disputed text found an advocate in Mr. Martin, pastor of the French church at the Hague, who published a critical dissertation on the subject, in opposition to Mr. Emlyn’s Inquiry. In 1718 our author again considered the question, in” An Answer to Mr. Martin’s critical dissertation on 1 John v. 7; shewing the insufficiency of his proofs, and the errors of his suppositions, by which he attempts to establish the authority of that text from supposed manuscripts." Mr. Martin having published an examination of this answer, Mr. Emlyn printed a reply to it in 1720, which produced a third tract upon the subject by Mr. Martin, and there the controversy ended; nor, we believe, was it revived in a separate form, until within these few years by Mr. archdeacon Travis and professor Person.

, a French woman by extraction, was eminent for her fine writing in the time of queen Elizabeth and James I. Many of her performances are still extant both in our libraries and private hands; particularly one in the Harcourt family, entitled “Histories memorabiles Genesis per Esteram Inglis Gallam,” Edenburgi, ann. 1600. It appears by Hearne’s spicilegium to Gul. Neubrigensis, vol. III. p. 751, 752, that she was the most exquisite scribe of her age. A curious piece of her performance was in the possession of Mr. Cripps, surgeon in Budge- row, London, entitled “Octonaries upon the vanitie and inconstancie of the world. Writin by Ester Inglis. The firste of Januarie, 1600.” It is done, on an oblong 8vo, in French and English verse; the French is all in print hand, and the English mostly Italian or secretary, and is curiously ornamented with flowers and fruits painted in water-colours, and on the first leaf is her own picture, in a small form, with this motto,

He was invited down to Cambridge by Fisher, bishop of Rochester, chancellor of the university, and head of Queen’s college, accommodated by him in his own lodge, and promoted by his means to the lady Margaret’s professorship in divinity, and afterwards to the Greek professor’s chair but how long he held these places we know not and his necessities were still very scantily supplied. In a letter to Colet, dean of St. Paul’s, he earnestly importunes him for fifteen angels, which he had promised him long ago, on condition that he would dedicate to him his book “De copia verborum;” which, however, was not published till the following year, 1512. It has indeed been alleged, in excuse for this apparent neglect of a man of so much merit, that Erasmus was of a very rambling disposition, and hardly staid long enough in a place to rise regularly to preferment; and that though he received frequent and considerable presents from his friends and patrons, yet he was forced to live expensively because of his bad health. Thus he had a horse to maintain, and probably a servant to take care of him: he was obliged to drink wine because malt liquor gave him fits of the gravel. Add to this, that, though a very able and learned man, yet, like many others of his order, he was by no means versed in ceconomics.

The rise of the reformation was a very interesting period to Erasmus. Luther had preached against indulgences in 1517, and the contest between the Romanists and the reformed was begun and agitated with great warmth on both sides. Erasmus, who was of a pacific temper, and abhorred, of all things, dissensions and tumults, was much alarmed and afflicted at this state of affairs; and he often complained afterwards, that his endeavours to compose and reconcile the two parties only drew upon him the resentment and indignation of both. From this time he was exposed to a persecution so painful, that he had much difficulty to support it with equanimity; and invectives were aimed at him by the rancorous churchmen, who loudly complained that his bold and free censures of the monks, and of their pious grimaces and superstitions, had paved the way for Luther. “Erasmus,” they used to say, “laid the egg, and Luther hatched it.” Erasmus seems afterwards to have been considered as really a coadjutor in the business of the reformation; for in the reign of Mary queen of England, when a proclamation was issued against importing, printing, reading, selling, or keeping heretical books, his works are comprehended amongst them.

About 1520, a clamour was raised against Erasmus in England, although he had many friends there; and, among them, even persons of the first quality, and the king himself. He gives a remarkable instance of this in the behaviour of one Standish, who had been a monk, and was bishop of St. Asaph; and whom Erasmus sometimes calls, by way of derision, “Episcopum a sancto asino.” Standish had censured Erasmus, in a sermon preached at St. Paul’s, for translating the beginning of St. John’s gospel, “In principle erat sermo,” and not “verbum.” He also accused Erasmus of heresy before the king and queen but this charge was repelled by two learned friends, who are supposed to have been Pace, dean of St. Paul’s, and sir Thomas More. This year, Jerome Aleander, the pope’s nuncio, solicited the emperor, and Frederic elector of Saxony, to punish Luther. Frederic was then at Cologn, and Erasmus came there, and was consulted by him upon this occasion. Erasmus replied, ludicrously at first, saying, “Luther has committed two unpardonable crimes: he touched the pope upon the crown, and the monks upon the belly.” He then told the elector seriously, that “Luther had justly censured many abuses and errors, and that the welfare of the church required a reformation of them; that Luther’s doctrine was right in the main, but that it had not been delivered by him with a proper temper, and with due moderation.” The pope’s agents, finding Erasmus thus obstinately bent to favour, at least not to condemn and write against Luther, as they often solicited him to do, endeavoured to win him over by the offer of bishoprics or abbeys. “I know,” says he, “that a bishopric is at my service, if I would but write against Luther: but Luther is a man of too great abilities for me to encounter; and, to say the truth, I learn more from one page of his, than from all the volumes of Thomas Aquinas.”

The parliament, which met Dec. 14, 1537, appointed him by the title of “John Erskine of Dun, knight and provost of Montrose,” to go to the court of France, as one of the commissioners from Scotland, to witness the young queen’s (Mary) marriage with the dauphin, and to settle the terms of the marriage contract; and on his return he was surprised to find that the reformation was likely to be forwarded by the very means taken to suppress it. An aged priest named Mill, had suffered martyrdom at St. Andrew’s, and in the opinion of archbishop Spottiswood, “the death of this martyr was the death of popery in this realm.” The protestants were now increasing in numbers, and were not a little encouraged by the death of queen Mary of England, and the accession of Elizabeth, whom they knew to be favourable to their cause. The queen regent of Scotland was therefore addressed more boldly than before by the protestant lords, in behalf of the free exercise of their religion, and by Erskine among the rest; but, although his demands and language are said to have been more moderate than the rest, this produced no effect, and a proclamation was issued, requiring the protestant ministers to appear at Stirling, May 10, 1559, and there to be tried for reputed heresy. The protestant lords and other laity determined upon this to accompany and defend their ministers, and much confusion would have immediately ensued, if Mr. Erskine had not obtained a promise from the queen regent, that the ministers should not be tried; and the people were ordered to disperse. No sooner had this been done, than the queen broke her promise, and a civil war followed, for the particulars of which we must refer to the page of history. It may suffice to notice here, that Mr. Erskine occasionally assisted as a temporal baron, but before the war was concluded, he relinquished his armour, and became a preacher, for which by his learning and study of the controversies between the church of Rome and the reformers, he was well qualified. The civil war ended in favour of the prntestant party, by the death of the queen regent in 1560 and a parliament, or convention of the estates was immediately held, who began their proceedings by appointing a committee of lords, barons, and burgesses, to distribute the few protestant ministers whom they then had, to the places where their services were most required. The committee nominated some of them to the chief cities, and as “The first book of Discipline” was now produced, they, agreeably to the plan proposed in that book, nominated five ministers who should act in the capacity of ecclesiastical Supkrintendants. Mr. Erskine was one of these five, and had the superintendency of all ecclesiastical matters in the counties of Angus and Mearus, and from this period Ins usual designation was, “John Erskine of Dun, knight, superintendant of Angus and Mearus.” This was in fact a kind of episcopal authority, conferred for life; but for their conduct the superintendants were accountable to the general assembly of the clergy. Their office was sufficiently laborious, as well as invidious; and we find Mr. Erskine several times applying to be dismissed. In 1569, by virtue of his office, he had to suspend from their offices for their adherence to popery, the principal, sub-principal, and three professors of King’s-college, Aberdeen. In 1577, he had a hand in compiling the “Second Book of Discipline,” or model for the government of a presbyterian church, which still exists; and in other respects he was an active promoter of the reformation as then established, until his death, March 21, 1591, in the eightysecond year of his age. Buchanan, Knox, and Spottiswood, agree in a high character of him; and even queen Mary preferred him as a preacher, because, she said, he “was a mild and sweet natured man, and of true honesty and uprightness.”

, grand-master of the artillery of France, was born in 1486, of a distinguished and ancient family, and died in 1567, at the age of eighty-one. He was at first page to queen Anne of Brittany, and afterwards performed great services to the kings Francis I. and Henry II. being the first who put the French artillery on a respectable footing. He signalized himself at the taking of Calais in 1558, and on several other occasions gave eminent proofs of sagacity and courage. He is also said to have been the first gentleman of Picardy who embraced the protestant religion. Brantome, in his Capitaines François, says, “that M. d'Estrées was one of the worthy men of his rank, without offence to others, and the most intrepid in trenches and batteries; for he went to them holding up his head, as if it had been to a hunting party in the fields; and the greatest part of the time he went on horseback, mounted on a great German hack, above twenty years old, and as intrepid as his master; for as to cannonades and arquebusades that were fired in the trench, neither the one nor the other ever lowered their heads for them; and he shewed himself half the body high above the trench, for he was tall and conspicuous as well as his horse. Hq was the ablest man in the world in knowing the fittest spots for erecting a local battery, and in directing it best; accordingly, he was one of the confidents that mons. de Guise wished to have about him for making conquests and taking towns, as he did at Calais. It was he who the first provided us with those fine founderies of artillery which we make use of to this day; and even of our cannon, which do not fear being fired a hundred times one after the other, as I may say, without bursting, without splitting, without breaking, as he proved in one before the king, when the first essay was made; but we do not choose to cram them in this manner, for we spare goodness as much as we can. Before this mode of casting, our cannons were not near so good, but a hundred times more fragile, and requiring to be very often refreshed with vinegar, which occasioned much more trouble. He was of a very large person, a fine and venerable old man, with a beard that reached down very low, and seemed to have been his old comrade in war in the days of yore, which he had all along made his profession, and where he learned to' be somewhat cruel.”

That his long seven years’ silence is not to be pardon'd." Which shews that the poem in which these lines are written was just before the publication of our author’s last comedy. Sir George was addicted to great extravagances, being too free of his purse in gaming, and of his constitution with women and wine; which embarrassed his fortune, impaired his health, and exposed him to many reflections. Gildon says, that for marrying a fortune he was knighted; but it is said in a poem of those times, which never was printed (ms collection of satires, in the Harleian collection), that, to make some reparation of his circumstances, he courted a rich old widow; whose ambition was such, that she would not marry him unless he could make her a lady; which he was forced by the purchase of knighthood to do. This was probably about 1683. We hear not of any issue he had by this lady; but he cohabited, whether before or after this said marriage is not known, for some time with Mrs. Barry, the actress, and had a daughter by her on whom he settled five or six thousand pounds but she died young. From the same intelligence we have also learnt, that sir George was, in his person, a fair, slender, genteel man; but spoiled his countenance with drinking, and other habits of intemperance; and, in his deportment, very affable and courteous, of a sprightly and generous temper; which, with his free, lively, and natural vein of writing, acquired him the general character of Gentle George and Easy Etherege; in respect to which qualities we may often find him compared with sir Charles Sedley. His courtly address, and other accomplishments, won him the favour of the duchesi of York, afterwards, when king James was crowned, his queen; by whose interest and recommendation he wa sent ambassador abroad. In a certain pasquil that was written upon him, it is intimated as if he was sent upon ome embassy to Turkey. Gildon says, that, being in particular esteem with king James’s consort, he was sent envoy to Hamburgh but it is in several books evident, that he was, in that reign, a minister at Ratisbon at least from 1686 to the time that his majesty left this kingdom, if not later and this appears also from his own letters which he wrote thence some to the earl of Middleton, inverse to one of which his lordship engaged Mr. Dryden to return a poetical answer, in which he invites sir George to write another play; and, to keep him in countenance for his having been so dilatory in his last, reminds him hovr long the comedy, or farce, of the “Rehearsal” had been hatching, by the duke of Buckingham, before it appeared: but we meet with nothing more of our author’s writing for the stage. There are extant some other letters of his in prose, which were written also from Ratisbon; two of which he sent to the duke of Buckingham when he was in his recess. As for his other compositions, such as have been printed, they consist, for the greatest part, of little airy sonnets, lampoons, and panegyrics, of no great poetical merit, although suited to the gay and careless taste of the times. All that we have met with, of his prose, is a short piece, entitled “An Account of the rejoycing at the diet of Ratisbonne, performed by sir George Etherege, knight, residing therefrom his majesty of Great Britain; upon occasion of the birth of the prince of Wales. In a letter from himself.” Printed in the Savoy, 1688. How far beyond this or the next year he lived, the writers on our poets, who have spoken of him, have been, as in many other particulars of his life, so in the time when he died, very deficient. In Gildon’s short and imperfect account of him, it is said, that after the revolution he went for France to his master, and died there, or very soon after his arrival thence in England. But there was a report, that sir George came to an untimely death by an unlucky accident at Ratisbon; for, after having treated some company with a liberal entertainment at his house there, in which having perhaps taken his glass too freely, and being, through his great complaisance, too forward in waiting on some of his guests at their departure, flushed as he was, he tumbled down the stairs and broke his neck. Sir George had a brother, who lived and died at Westminster; he had been a great courtier, yet a man of such strict honour, that he was esteemed a reputation to the family. He had been twice married, and by his first wife had a son; a little man, of a brave spirit, who inherited the honourable principles of his father. He was a colonel in king William’s wars; was near him in one of the most dangerous battles in Flanders, probably it was the battle of Landen in 1693, when his majesty was wounded, 'and the colonel both lost his right eye, and received a contusion on his side. He was offered, in queen Anne’s reign, twenty-two hundred pounds for his commission, but refused to live at home in? peace when his country was at war. This colonel Ktherege died at Ealing in Middlesex, about the third or fourth year of king George I. and was buried in Kensington church, near the altar; where there is a tombstone over his vault, in which were also buried his wife, son, and sister. That son was graciously received at court by queen Anne; and, soon after his father returned from the wars in Flanders under the duke of Marlborough, she gave him an ensign’s commission, intending farther to promote him', in reward of his father’s service but he died a youth and the sister married Mr. Hill of Feversham in Kent but we hear not of any male issue surviving. The editors of the Biographia Dramatica observe, that, as a writer, sir George Etherege was certainly born a poet, and appears to have been possessed of a genius, the vivacity of which had littlecultivation; for there are no proofs of his having been a scholar. Though the “Comical Revenge” succeeded very well upon the stage, and met with general approbation for a considerable time, it is now justly laid aside on account of its immorality. This is the case, likewise, with regard to sir George’s other plays. Of the “She would if she could,” the critic Dennis says, that though it was esteemed by men of sense for the trueness of some of its characters, and the purity, freeness, and easy grace of its dialogue, yet, on its first appearance, it was barbarously treated by the audience. If the auditors were offended with the licentiousness of the comedy, their barbarity did them honour; but it is probable that, at that period, they were influenced by some other consideration. Exclusively of its loose tendency, the play is pronounced to be undoubtedly a very good one; and it was esteemed as one of the first rank at the time in which it was written. However, ShadwelPs encomium upon it will be judged to be too extravagant.

, or Etheridge, or, as in Latin he writes himself, Edrycus, probably an ancestor of the preceding, was born at Thame in Oxfordshire, and admitted of Corpus Christi college, Oxford, in 1534; of which he was made probationer fellow in 1539. In 1543 he was licensed to proceed in arts; and, two years after, admitted to read any of the books of Hippocrates’s aphorisms. At length, being esteemed an excellent Grecian, he was made the king’s professor of that language about 1553, and so continued till some time after Elizabeth came to the crown, when, on account of his joining in the persecution of the protestants in Mary’s reign, was forced to leave it. He practised medicine with great success in Oxford, where he mostly lived; and also took under his care the sons of many popish gentlemen, to be instructed in the several arts and sciences; among whom was William Gifford, afterwards archbishop of Rheims. He was reckoned a very sincere man, and adhered to the last to the catholic religion, though he suffered exceedingly by it. Wood tells us, that he was living an ancient man in 1588; but does not know when he died. He was a great mathematician, skilled in vocal and instrumental music, eminent for his knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew languages, a poet, and, above all, a physician. There are musical compositions and Latin poems of his still extant in manuscript. In manuscript also he presented to queen Elizabeth, when she was at Oxford in 1566, “Acta Henrici Octavi, carmine Graeco.” He also turned the psalms into a short form of Hebrew verse; and translated the works of Justin Martyn into Latin. In 1588 was published by him in 8vo, “Hypomnemata quasdam in aliquot libros Pauli Æginetae, seu observationes medicamentorum qui hue aetate in usu sunt.” The antiquary Leland was his intimate friend, and in his life-time celebrated his praises in these lines:

The queen of England now concerted measures with the emperor for declaring and carrying on a war with France. Her Britannic majesty highly resented the indignity offered to herself, and the wrong done the house of Austria, by the duke of Anjou’s usurping the crown of Spain. She acted, therefore, to preserve the liberty and balance of Europe, to pull down the exorbitant power of France, and at the same time to revenge the affront offered her, by the king of France’s owning the pretended prince of Wales for king of her dominions. Eugene was made president of the council of war by the emperor, and all the world approved his choice; as indeed they well might, since this prince no sooner entered on the execution of his office than affairs took quite a new turn. The nature and limits of our plan will not suffer us to enlarge upon the many memorable actions which were performed by this great statesman and soldier during the course of this war, which proved so fatal to the glory of Louis XIV. The battles of Schellenburg, Blenheim, Turin, &c. are so particularly related in almost every history, that we shall not insist upon them here. In 1710 the enemies of Eugene, who had vowed his destruction, sent him a letter, with a paper inclosed, which was poisoned to such a degree, that it made his highness, with two or three more who did but handle it, ready to swoon; and killed a dog immediately, upon his swallowing it after it was greased. The next year, 1711, in April, the emperor Joseph died of the small-pox; when Eugene marched into Germany, to secure the election of his brother to the throne. The same year, the grand visier sent one of his agas in embassy to his highness, who gave him a very splendid audience at Vienna, and received from him a letter written with the grand visier’s own hand, wherein he styles his highness “the great pattern of Christian princes, president of the Aulic council of war to the emperor of the Romans, the most renowned and most excellent among the Christian princes, first peer among all the nations that believe in Christ, and best beloved visier of the emperor of the Romans.”

In 1712, after having treated with the States General upon the proposals of peace then made by the court of France, he came over to England, to try if it were possible to engage our court to go on with the war, for it met with great obstructions here: but was surprised to find, the day before his arrival, which was on Jan. 5, that his good friend the duke of Marlborough was turned out of all his places. However, he concealed his uneasiness, and made a visit to the lord president of the council, and to the lord treasurer; and having had an audience of the queen, the day after his arrival, he paid his compliments to the foreign ministers, and the new ministry, especially the duke of Ormond, whose friendship he courted for the good of the common cause. But, above all, he did not neglect his fast friend and companion in military labours, the discarded general; but passed his time chiefly with him. He was entertained by most of the nobility, and magnificently feasted in the city of London by those merchants who had formerly contributed to the Silesian loan. But the courtiers, though they caressed him for his own worth, were not forward to bring his negotiations to an happy issue; nor did the queen, though she used him civilly, treat him with that distinction which was due to his high merit. She made him a present of a sword set with diamonds, worth about 5000l. which he wore on her birth-day; and had the honour at night to lead her to and from the opera performed on this occasion at court. After he had been told that his master’s affairs should be treated of at Utrecht, he had his audience of leave March the 13th, and the 17th set out to open the campaign in Flanders, where he experienced both good and ill fortune at Quesnoy and Landrecy.

Among the valuable effects left by prince Eugene, were found a rich crucifix, embellished with diamonds, with which he was presented by the emperor, upon his last campaign into Hungary; six gold-hilted swords, set with diamonds; one presented by his late imperial majesty, another by queen Anne, a third by the king of Prussia, a fourth by George I, before his accession to the crown, a fifth by the republic of Holland, and a sixth by the state of Venice; an exceeding rich string of diamonds for a hat, with a buckle of the same; twenty gold watches, set with diamonds; besides a prodigious quantity of silver plate, jewels, &c. to an immense value. He likewise left a large and curious library of books; among which were several rare manuscripts, besides a fine cabinet of medals, and other curiosities.

As to a general character of prince Eugene, it may easily be collected from what has already been said of him. He was always remarkable for his liberality; one instance of which he shewed, while he was here in England, to Mrs. Centlivre, the poetess; who, having addressed to him a trifling poem on his visiting England, received from him a gold snuff-box, valued at about 35 pistoles. He was also a man of great and unaffected modesty, so that he could scarcely bear, with any tolerable grace, the just acknowledgments that were paid him by all the world. Burnet, who was admitted several times to much discourse with him, says, that “he descended to an easy equality with those who conversed with him, and seemed to assume nothing to himself, while he reasoned with others.” He said jokingly one day, when the duke of Marlborough talking of his attachment to his queen, Regina pecunia, “Money is his queen.” This great general was a man of letters; he was intended for the church, and was known at the court of France by the name of the abbé de Savrie. Having made too free in a letter with some of old Louis the Fourteenth’s gallantries, he fled out of France, and served as a volunteer in the emperor’s service in Hungary against the Turks, where he soon distinguished himself by his talents for the military art. He was presented by the emperor with a regiment, and a few years afterwards made commander in chief of his armies. Louvois, the insolent war-minister of the insolent Louis XIV. had written to him to tell him, that he must never think of returning to his country: his reply was, “Eugene entrera un jour en France en dépit de Louvois & de Louis.” In all his military expeditions, he carried with him Thomas a Kempis “de Imitatione.” He seemed to be of the opinion of the great Gustavus Adolphus, king of Sweden, “that a good Christian always made a good soldier.” Being constantly busy, he held the passion of love very cheap, as a mere amusement, that served only to enlarge the power of women, and to abridge that of men. He used to say, “Les amoureux sont dans la société ce que les fanatiques sont en religion.” His amusement was war, and in the Memoirs written by himself, and lately published, he speaks of some of its horrors with too little feeling. It is said that he was observed to be one day very pensive, and was asked by his favourite aid-de-camp on what he was meditating so deeply? “My good friend,” replied he, “I am thinking, that if Alexander the Great had been obliged to wait for the approbation of the deputies of Holland before he attacked the enemy, how impossible it would have been for him to have made half the conquests that he did!” This illustrious conqueror lived to a great age, and being tam Mercurio quam Marte, “as much a scholar as a captain,” amused himself with making a fine collection of books, pictures, and prints, which are now in the emperor’s collection at Vienna. The celebrated cardinal Passionei, then nuncio at Vienna, preached his funeral sermon, from the following text of apocryphal Scripture: “Alexander, son, of Philip the Macedonian, made many wars, took many strong holds, went through the ends of the earth, took spoils of many nations: the earth was quiet before him. After these things he fell sick, and perceived that he should die.”—Maccabees.

, celebrated as a philosopher, patriot, and learned writer of the seventeenth century, was descended from an ancient and honourable family, a branch of which, at the time of his birth, was settled in the county of Surrey, though it flourished originally in the county of Salop, at a place which is still called Evelyn. George Evelyn, esq. purchased the family estate at Wotton in Surrey, in the reign of queen Elizabeth, and had, by two wives, sixteen sons and eight daughters. He died May 30, 1603, in the seventy-third year of his age, leaving his estate at Wotton to Richard Evelyn, esq. his youngest and only surviving son by his second wife. This Richard Evelyn, esq. married Eleanor, or Ellen, daughter and heiress of John Stansficld, of die Cliff" near Lewes, esq. and had by her three sons, George, John, and Richard.

As considerable light is thrown on the history and merits of Mr. Evelyn from the account given of his works, little apology need be made for the length of the article, taken principally from the Biographia Britannica. These were, 1. His treatise “Of Liberty and Servitude,” 1649, 12mo. This was a translation, and in all probability the first essay of our author’s pen. 2. “A Character of England, as it was lately presented in a letter to a nobleman of France, with reflections upon Callus Castratus,” 1651, 16to. The third edition of this book appeared in 1659; at present it is very scarce. 3. “The State of France,” London, 1652, 8vo. 4. “An Essay on the First Book of Titus Lucretius Carus, de renim natura, interpreted, and made into English verse, by J. Evelyn, esq.” London, 1656, 8vo. The frontispiece to this book was designed by his lady, Mary Evelyn. There is a copy of verses by F.dmun.l Waller, esq. of Beaconsfield, prefixed and directed to his worthy friend Mr. Evelyn, perhaps too extravagant. As there are many faults, however, in this work which do not belong to the author, we shall subjoin the transcript of a ms note in his own hand-writing in the copy at Wotton: “Never was book so abominably misused by printer; never copy so negligently surveied by one who undertooke to looke over the proofe-sheetes with all exactnesse and care, naqely Dr. Triplet, well knowne for his abiilitie, and who pretended, to oblige me in Hiv absence, and so readily offer'd himselfe. This good yet I received by it, that publishing it vaiiu-ly, its ill succese at the printer’s discouraged me with troubling the world with the rest.” 5. “The French Gardener, instructing how to cultivate all sorts of fruit-trees and herbs for the garden, together with directions to dry and conserve them in their natural,” &c. Lond. 1658, in 12mo, and several times after. In most of the editions is added, “The English Vineyard vindicated, by John Rose, gardener to his majesty king Charles II. with a' tract of the making and ordering of wines in France.” The third edition of this French Gardener, which came out in 1676, was illustrated with sculptures. 6. “The golden book of St. Oh ry sos torn, concerning the Education of Children.” Lond. 1659, 12mo, in the preface to which is a very interesting account of his son Richard, an amiable and promising child, who died in infancy, Jan. 27, 1657. This little narrative, as Mr. Evelyn’s work is scarce, may be seen in decade first of Barksdale’s Memorials, which, however, is almost as scarce. 7. “An Apology for the Royal Party, c.” 1659, 4to, mentioned above. 8. “The late News or Message from Brussels unmasked,” 1659, 4 to, also mentioned above. 9. A Panegyric at his, majesty king Charles II. his Coronation,' 1 Loncl. 1661, fol. 10. “Instructions concerning the erecting of a Library, written by Gabriel Naude”, published in English, with some improvements,“Lond. 1661, 8vo. ll.” Fumifugium or the inconveniences of the air and the smoke of London dissipated together with some remedies humbly proposed,“London, 1661, 4to, in five sheets, addressed to the king and parliament, and published by hisma jesty’s express command. Of this there was a late edition in 1772. 12.” Tyrannies or the Mode in a discourse of sumptuary laws“Lond. 1661, 8vo. 13.” Sculptnra; or the history a-id art of Chalcography and Engraving in Copper, with an ample enumeration of the most renowned masters and their works; to which is annexed, a new manner of engraving, or mezzo-tinto,. communicated by his highness prince Rupert to the author of this treatise,“Lond. 1662, 8vo. In the dedication to Mr. Robert Boyle, dated: at Sayes-court, April 5th, 1662, he observes, that he wrote this treatise at the reiterated instance of that gentleman. The first chapter treats of sculpture, howderived and distinguished, with the styles and instruments belonging to it. The second, of the original of sculpture in general. la this chapter our author observes, that letters, and consequently sculpture, were lon.g before the flood, Suidas ascribing both letters and all the rest of the sciences to Adam. After the flood, as he supposes, there were but few who make any considerable question, that it might not be propagated by Noah to his posterity, though some admit of none before Moses. The third chapter treats of the reputation and progress of sculpture among the Greeks and Romans down to the middle ages, with a discussion of some pretensions to the invention of copper cuts and their impressions. The fourth, of the invention and progress of chalcography in particular, together with an ample enumeration of the most renowned masters and their works. The fifth, of drawing and design previous to the art of chalcography, and of the use of pictures in order to theeducation of children. In this chapter, our author, in honour of the art upon which he writes, discourses thus:” It was in the former chapter that we made rehearsal of the most renowned gravers and their works, not that we had no more to add to that number, but because we would not mingle these illustrious names and qualities there, which we purposely reserved for the crown of this discourse. We did, therefore, forbear to mention what his highness prince Rupert’s own hands have contributed to the dignity of that art, performing things in graving, of which some enrich our collection, comparable to the greatest masters; such a spirit and address there appears in all that he touches, and especially in that of the mezzotinto, of which we shall speak hereafter more at large, having first enumerated those incomparable gravings of that his new and inimitable style, in both the great and little decollations of St. John the Baptist, the soldier holding a spear and leaning his hand on a shield, the two Mary Magdalens, the old man’s head, that of Titian, &c. after the same Titian, Georgion, and others. We have also seen a plate etched by the present French king, and other great persons; the right honourable the earl of Sandwich, sometimes, as we are told, diverting himself with the burine, and herein imitating those ancient and renowned heroes, whose names are loud in the trumpet of fame for their skill and particular affection to these arts. For such of old were Lucius Manilius, and Fabius, noble Romans, Pacuvius, the tragic poet, nephew to Ennius. Socrates, the wisest of men, and Plato himself, Metrodorus and Pyrrhus the philosopher, did both desigii and paint and so did Valentinian, Adrian, and Severus, emperors so as the great Paulus ^milius esteemed it of such high importance, that he would needs have his son to be instructed in it, as in one of the most worthy and excellent accomplishments belonging to a prince. For the art of graving, Quintilian likewise celebrates Euphranor, a polite and rarely endowed person; and Pliny, in that chapter where he treats of the same art, observes that there was never any one famous in it, but who was by birth or education a gentleman. Therefore he and Galen in their recension of the liberal arts, mention that of graving in particular, amongst the most permanent; and in the same catalogue, number it with rhetoric, geometry, logic, astronomy, yea, r grammar itself, because there is in these arts, say they, more of fancy and invention, than strength of hand, more of the spirit than of the body. Hence Aristotle informs us, that the Grecians did universally institute their children in the art of painting and drawing, for an oeconomique reason there signified, as well as to produce proportions in the mind. Varro makes it part of the ladies 1 education, that they might have the better skill in the works of embroidery, &c. and for this cause is his daughter Martia celebrated among those of her fair sex. We have already mentioned the learned Anna Schurman; but the princess Louisa has done wonders of this kind, and is famous throughout Europe for the many pieces which enrich our cabinets, examples sufficient to vindicate its dignity, and the value that has been set upon it, since both emperors, kings, and philosophers, the great and the wise, have not disdained to cultivate and cherish this honourable quality of old, so nobly reputed, that amongst the Greeks a slave might not be taught it. How passionately does Pereskius, that admirable and universal genius, deplore his want of dexterity in this art Baptista Alberti, Aldus Pomponius, Guaricus Durer, and Rubens, were politely learned and knowing men, and it is hardly to be imagined of how great use and conducible a competent address in this art of drawing and designing is to the several advantages which occur, and especially to the more noble mathematical sciences, as we have already instanced in the lunary works of Hevelius, and are no less obliged to celebrate some of ur own countrymen famous for their dexterity in this incomparable art. Such was that Blagrave, who himself cut those diagrams in his Mathematical Jewel; and such at present is that rare and early prodigy of universal science, Dr. Chr. Wren, our worthy and accomplished friend. For, if the study of eloquence and rhetoric were cultivated by the greatest geniuses and heroic persons which the world has produced, and that, by the suffrage of the most knowing, to be a perfect orator a man ought to be universally instructed, a quality so becoming and useful should never be neglected.“In the sixth chapter he discourses of the new way of engraving or mezzotinto, invented and communicated by prince Rupert and he therein observes,” that his highness did indulge him the liberty of publishing the whole manner and address of this new way of engraving; but when I had well considered it, says he (so much having been already expressed, which may suffice to give the hint to all ingenious persons how it is to be performed), I did not think it necessary that an art so curious, and as yet so little vulgar, and which indeed does not succeed where the workman is not an accomplished designer, and has a competent talent in painting likewise, was to be prostituted at so cheap a rate as the more naked describing of it here would too soon have exposed it to. Upon these considerations then, it is, that vvg leave it thus enigmatical; and yet that this may appear no disingenuous rhodomontade in me, or invidious excuse, I profess myself to be always most ready sub sigillo, and by his highness’s permission, to gratify any curious and worthy person with as full and perfect a demonstration of the entire art as my talent and address will reach to, if what I am now preparing to be reserved in the archives of the royal society concerning it be not sufficiently instructive.“There came, however, into the hands of the communicative and learned Richard Micldleton Massey, M. D. and F. 11. S. the original manuscript, written by Mr. Evelyn, and designed for the royal society, entitled” Prince Rupert’s new way of engraving, communicated by his highness to Mr. Evelyn;“in the margin of which is this note:” This I prepared to be registered in the royal society, but I have not yet given it in, so as it still continues a secret.“In this manuscript he first describes the two instruments employed in this new manner of engraving, viz. the hatcher and the style, and then proceeds to explain the method of using them. He concludes with the following words:” This invention, or new manner of chalcography, was the result of chance, and improved by a German soldier, who, espying some scrape on the barrel of his musket, and being of an ingenious spirit, refined upon it, till it produced the effects you have seen, and which indeed is, for the delicacy thereof, much superior to anyinvention extant of this art, for the imitation of those masterly drawings, and, as the Italians call it, that morhidezza expressed in the best of their designs. I have had the honour to be the first of the English to whom it has been yet communicated, and by a special indulgence of his highness, who with his own hands was pleased to direct me with permission to publish it to the world; but I have esteemed it a thing so curious, that I thought it would be to profane it, before I had first offered it to this illustrious society. There is another way of engraving, by rowelling a plate with an instrument made like that which our scriveners and clerks use to direct their rulers by on parchment, only the points are thicker set into the rowel. And when the plate is sufficiently freckled with the frequent reciprocation of it, upon the polished surface, so as to render the ground dark enough, it is to be abated with the style, and treated as we have already described. Of this sort I have seen a head of the queen Christina, graved, if I mistake not, as big as the life, but not comparable to the mezzotinto of prince Rupert, so deservedly celebrated by J. Evelyn."

Mr. Evelyn’s next publication was the most important of all his works: 15. “Sylva; or, a dicourse of Foresttrees, and the propagation of timber in his majesty’s dominions 5 as it was delivered in the royal society the 15th of October, 1662, Upon occasion of certain queries propounded to that illustrious assembly by the honourable the principal officers and commissioners of the navy.” To which is annexed, “Pomona, or, an appendix concerning fruit-trees, in relation to cider, the making and several ways of ordering it: published by express order of the royal society,” Lond. 1664, fol. This was the first work written by the command, and published in virtue of an order, of the royal society, signed by the lord viscount Brouncker, their president, and dedicated to the king. The second edition of it was published in 1669, with a new dedication to king Charles II. dated from Sayes-court, Aug. 24; the first paragraph of which deserves the reader’s notice. “Sir, This second edition of Sylva, after more than a thousand copies had been bought up and dispersed of the first impression, in much less than two years space (which booksellers assure us is a very extraordinary thing in volumes of this bulk), conies now again to pay its homage to your serene majesty, to whose auspices alone it owes the favourable acceptance which it has received in the world. But it is not that alone which it presumes to tell your majesty, but to acquaint you that it has been the sole occasion for furnishing your almost exhausted dominions with more, I dare say, than two millions of timber-trees, besides infinite others, which have been propagated within the three nations at the instigation and by the direction of this work; and that the author of it is able, if need require, to make it out by a competent volume of letters and acknowledgments, which are come to his hands, from several persons of the most eminent quality, many of them illustrious, and divers of them unknoun to him, in justification of what he asserts; which he the rather preserves with the more care, because they are testimonials from so many honourable persons ‘of the benefit they have received from the endeavours of the royal society, which now-a-days passes through so many censures; but she has yet your majesty for her founder and patron, and is therefore the’ less concerned, since no man of worth can lightly speak ill of an assembly v.hich your majesty has thought fit to dignify by so signal a relation to it.” The third edition, with great additions and improvements, was published in 1G79; the fourth in 1705, and the fifth in 1729, both very incorrect. In 1776 a new edition of the “Sylva” was published in 4to, by Dr. Andrew Hunter, of York, a gentleman eminently qualified for the undertaking. Under the care of this gentleman the work appeared with every possible advantage; and was enriched by the judicious editor with ample and copious notes, and adorned with a set of fine engravings. A head of Mr. Evelyn is prefixed, drawn and engraved by Battolozzi. Dr. Hunter’s edition of the Sylva has been four times reprinted. The edition of 1812 contains the deceased editor’s last corrections . 16. “A parallel of the antient architecture with the modern, in a collection of ten principal authors who have written upon the five orders, viz. Palladio and Scammozzi, Serlio and Vignola D. Barbaro and Cataneo L. B. Alberti and Viola, Bullant and De Lorme compared with one another. The three Greek orders, Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian, comprise the first part of this treatise, and the two Latin, Tuscan and Composite, the latter written in French by Roland Freart, sieur de Chambray made English for the benefit, of builders to which is added, an account of architects and architecture^ in an historical and etymological explanation of certain terms, particularly affected by architects; with Leon Baptista Alberti’s treatise of statues,” London, 1664, folio. This work, as well as the former, is dedicated to king Charles II.; and the dedication dated from Sayes-court, August 20th, contains^some curious facts. After an apology for prefixing his royal name to a translation, our author proceeds thus: “I know none, indeed, to whom I could more aptly inscribe a discourse of building, than to so royal a builder, whose august attempts have already given so great a splendour to our imperial city, and so illustrious an example to the nation It is from this contemplation, sir, that after I had, by the commands of the royal society, endeavoured the improvement of timber and the planting of trees, I have advanced to that of building, as its proper and mutual consequent, not with a presumption to incite or instruct your majesty, which were a vanity unpardonable, but, by it, to take occasion of celebrating your majesty’s great example, who use your empire and authority so worthily, as fortune seems to have consulted her reason, when she poured her favours upon you; so as I never cast my eyes on that generous designation in the epigram, Ut donem pastor K tedificem, without immediate reflection on your majesty, who seem only to value those royal advantages you have above others, that you may oblige, and that you may build. And certainly, sir, your majesty has consulted the noblest way of establishing your greatness, and of perpetuating your memory, since, while stones can preserve inscriptions, your name will be famous to posterity; and, when those materials fail, the benefits that are engraven in our hearts will outlast those of marble. It will be no paradox, but a truth, to affirm, that your majesty has already built and repaired more in three or four years, notwithstanding the difficulties and the necessity of an extraordinary ceconomy for the public concernment, than all your enemies have destroyed in twenty, nay than all your majesty’s predecessors have advanced in an hundred, as I could easily make out, not only by what your majesty has so magnificently designed and carried on at that your ancient honour of Greenwich, under the conduct of your most industrious and worthy surveyor, but in those splendid apartments and other useful reformations for security and delight about your majesty’s palace at Whitehall the chargeable covering first, then paving and reformation of Westminster-hall care and preparation for rebuilding St. Paul’s, by the impiety and iniquity of the late confusions almost dilapidated; what her majesty the queen-mother has added to her palace at Somerset-house, in a structure becoming her royal grandeur, and the due veneration of all your majesty’s subjects, for the lioirnir she has done both this your native city, and the whole nation. Nor may I here omit, what I so much desire to transmit to posterity, those noble and profitable amoenities of your majesty’s plantations, wherein you most resemble the divine architect, because your majesty has proposed in it such a pattern to your subjects, as merit their imitation and protoundest acknowledgments, in one of the most worthy and kingly improvements tbat nature is capable of. 1 know not what they talk of former ages, and of the now contemporary princes with your majesty these things are visible and should I here descend to more particulars, which yet were not foreign to the subject of this discourse, I would provoke the whole world to produce me an example parallel with your majesty, for your exact judgment and marvellous ability in all that belongs to the naval architecture, both as to its proper terms and more solid use, in which your majesty is master of one of the most noble and profitable arts that can be wished, in a prince to whom God has designed the dominion of the ocean, which renders your majesty’s empire universal; where, by exercising your royal talent and knowledge that way, you can bring even the antipodes to meet, and the poles to kiss each other; for so likewise, not in a metaphorical but natural sense, your equal and prudent government of this nation has made it good, whilst your majesty has so prosperously guided this giddy bark, through such a storm, as no hand, save your majesty’s, could touch the helm, but at the price of their temerity.” There is also another dedication to sir John Denham, knight of the bath, superintendent and surveyor of all his majesty’s buildings and works, in which there are several matters of fact worth knowing, as indeed there are in all Mr. Evelyn’s dedications; for, though no man was naturally more civil, or more capable of making a compliment handsomely, yet his merit was always conspicuous in his good manners; and he never thought that the swelling sound of a well-turned period could atone for want of sense. It appears from the dedication of the second edition of the Sylva to king Charles II. that there was a second edition of this work also in the same year, viz. 1669, as there was a third in 1697, which was the last in the author’s life-time. In this third edition, which is very much improved, “the account of Architects and Architecture,” which is an original work of Mr. Evelyn’s, and a most excellent one of its kind, is dedicated to sir Christopher Wren, surveyor to his majesty’s buildings and works; and there is in it another of those incidental passages that concern the personal history of our author. Having said in the first paragraph, that, if the whole art of building were lost, it might be found again in the noble works of that great architect, which, though a very high, is no unjust compliment, more especially, continues our author, St. Paul’s church and the Monument; he then adds, “I have named St. Paul’s, and truly not without admiration, as oft as I recall to mind, as frequently I do, the sad and deplorable condition it was in, when, after it had been made a stable of horses and a den of thieves, you, with other gentlemen and myself, were, by the late king Charles, named commissioners to survey the dilapidations, and to make report to his majesty, in order to a speedy reparation. You will not, I am sure, forget the struggle we had with some who were for patching it up any how, so the steeple might stand, instead of new-building, which it altogether needed: when, to put an end to the contest, five days after (August 27, Sept. 1666), that dreadful conflagration happened, out of whose this phoenix is risen, and was by providence designed for you. The circumstance is too remarkable, that I could not pass it over without notice. I will now add no more, but beg your pardon for this confidence of mine, after I have acquainted you that the parallel to which this was annexed being out of print, I was importuned by the bookseller to add something to a new impression, but to which I was no way inclined; till, not long since, going to St. Paul’s, to contemplate that august pile, and the progress you have made, some of your chief workmen gratefully acknowledging the assistance it had afforded them, I took this opportunity of doing myself this honour.” The fourth edition of this work, printed long after our author’s death, viz. in 1733, was in folio, as well as the rest; to which is added “The Elements of Architecture,” by sir Henry Wotton, and some other things, of which, however, hints were met with in our author’s pieces. 17. “Mwrtyj/ov Tjjj AvaiMos; that is, another part of the mystery of Jesuitism, or the new heresy of the Jesuits, publicly maintained at Paris, in the college of Clermont, the twelfth of December, 1661, declared to all the bishops of France, according to the copy printed at Paris. Together with the imaginary heresy, in three letters; with divers other particulars relating to this abominable mystery never before published in English;” Lond. 1664, 8vo. This, indeed, has not our author’s name to it; but that it is really his, and that he had reasons for not owning it more publicly, appears from a letter from him to Mr. Boyle. 18. “Kalendarium Hortense, or the gardener’s almanac, directing what he is to do monthly throughout the year, and what fruits and flowers are in prime,” Lond. 1664, 8vo. The second edition of this book, which seems to have been in folio, and bound with the Sylva and Pomona, as it was in the third edition, was dedicated to Cowley, with great compliments from our author to that poet, to whom it had been communicated before; which occasioned Cowley’s addressing to John Evelyn, esq. his mixed essay in verse and prose, entitled “The Garden.” This passed through at least nine editions. The author made many additions as long as he lived and the best was that printed by way of appendix to the fourth and last edition of the Sylva in his life-time. 19. “The history of the three late famous impostors, viz. Padre Ottotnano, pretended son and heir to the late grand signior; Mahomet Bei, a pretended prince of the Ottoman family, but, in truth, a Wallachian counterfeit: and Sabbatai Sevi, the supposed Messiah of the Jews, in the year 1666; with a brief account of the ground and occasion of tjie present war between the Turk and the Venetian: together with the cause of the final extirpation, destruction, and exile, of the Jews out of the empire of Persia,” Lond. 1668, 8vo. This piece is dedicated to Henry earl of Arlington, and the dedication is subscribed J. E. and, if Mr. Wood had seen it, he would not have said, “I know nothing yet to the contrary but this may be a translation.” The nature and value of this little piece were much better known abroad: one of the best literary journals, “Act. Eruditorum Lipsiensiutn,” A. D. 1690, p. 605, having given, though at some distance of time, a very just character of it, with this very remarkable circumstance, that the pretended Mahomet Bei was at that very juncture in the city of Leipsic. There is added, at the end of this piece, an account of the extirpation of the Jews in Persia during the reign of Shah Abbas the second, which is not so large or perfect as the rest; of which circumstance the author gives a hint, and does not press any thing farther than he is supported by authorities. He mentions a person, who, the very year that the book was published, took upon him the title of brother to the famous count Serini, and that he had the misfortune to be shipwrecked in the west of England, by which he imposed upon persons of quality, till, by unluckily calling for drink upon the road in very audible English, he discovered the cheat. He farther remarks, with regard to Sabbatai Sevi, that he was the twenty-fifth false Messiah that had attempted to impose upon the Jews, even according to their own account. 20. “Public employment and an active life preferred to solitude, in a reply to a late ingenious essay of a contrary title,” Lond. 1667, in 8vo. This was written in answer to a discourse of sir George Mackenzie’s, preferring solitude to public employment, which was at the time of its publication much admired; and, as our author apprehended this might prove an encouragement to indolence and timidity, he therefore wrote against it. We have in the Transactions of the royal society a character of this, and thie piece before mentioned, which follows the account given of the second edition of the “Sylva,” Philosoph. Trans. No. 53; and the reader will find some ingenious strictures on “Public employment, &c.” in vol. 1. of the Censura Literaria, by one who knows well how to improve solitude. 21. “An idea of the perfection of painting, demonstrated from the principles of art, and by examples conformable to the observations which Pliny and Quintilian have made upon the most celebrated pieces of the ancient painters, paralleled with some works of the most famous modern painters, Leonardo da Vinci, Raphael, Julio Romano, and N. Poussin. Written in French by Roland Freart, Sieur de Cambray, and rendered English by J. E. esquire, fellow of the royal society;” Lond. 1668, 8vo, This translation is dedicated to Henry Howard, of Norfolk, heir apparent to that dukedom and the dedication is dated from Say es-court, June the 24th, 1668, 8vo. This piece, like most of Mr. Evelyn’s works, is now become exceeding scarce. In the preface he observes, that the reader will find in this discourse divers useful, remarks, especially where the author “treats of costume, which we, continues he, have interpreted decorum, as the nearest expression our language would bear to it. And I was glad our author had reproved it in so many instances, because it not only grows daily more licentious, but even ridiculous and intolerable. But it is hoped this may universally be reformed! when our modern workmen shall consider, that neither the exactness of their design, nor skilfulness in colouring, ha.s been able to defend their greatest predecessors from just reproaches, who have been faulty in this particular. I could exemplify in many others, whom our author has omitted; and there is none but takes notice what injury it has done the fame of some of our best reputed painters, and how indecorous it is to introduce circumstances, wholly improper to the usages and genius of the places where our histories are supposed to. have beeq acted.” Mr. Evelyn then remarks, that this was not only the fault of Bassano, who would be ever bringing in his wife, children, and servants, his dog and his cat, and very kitchen-stuff, after the Paduan mode; but of the great Titian himself, Georgipn, Tintoret, and the rest; as Paulo Veronese is observed also to have done, in his story of Pharaoh’s daughter drawing Moses out of the river, attended with a guard of Swisses. Malvogius likewise, in a picture then in the king’s gallery at Whitehall, not only represents our first parents with navels upon their bellies, but has placed an artificial stone fountain, carved with imagery, in the midst of his paradise. Nor does that excellent and learned painter, Rubens, escape without censure, not only for making most of his figures of the shapes of brawny Flemings, but for other sphalmata and circumstances of the like nature, though in some he has acquitted himself to admiration, in the due observation of costume, particularly in his crucifixes, &c. Raphael Urbino was, doubtless, one of the first who reformed these inadvertencies; but it was more conspicuous in his latter than in his former pieces. “As for Michael Angelo,” continues Mr. Evelyn, “though I heartily consent with our critic in reproving that almost idolatrous veneration of his works, who hath certainly prodigiously abused the art, not only in the table this discourse arraigns him for, but several more which I have seen; yet I conceive he might have omitted some of those embittered reproaches he has reviled him with, who doubtless was one of the greatest masters of his time, and however he might succeed as to the decorum, was hardly exceeded for what he performed in sculpture and the statuary art by many even of the ancients themselves, and haply by none of the moderns: witness his Moses, Christus in Gremio, and several other figures at Rome to say nothing of his talent in architecture, and the obligation the world has to his memory, for recovering many of its most useful ornaments and members out of the neglected fragments, which lay so long buried, and for vindicating that antique and magnificent manner of building from the trifling of Goths and barbarians.” He observes next, that the usual reproach of painting has been the want of judgment in perspective, and bringing more into history than is justifiable upon one aspect, without turning the eye to each figure in particular, and multiplying the points of sight, which is a point even monsieur Freart, for all the pains he has taken to magnify that celebrated Decision of Paris, has failed in. For the knowing in that art easily perceive, that even Raphael himself has not so exactly observed it, since, instead of one, as monsieur Freart takes it to be, and as indeed it ought to have been, there are no less than four or five; as du Bosse hath well observed in his treatise of “The converted painter,” where, by the way also, he judiciously numbers amongst the faults against costume, those landscapes, grotesque figures, &c. which we frequently find abroad especially for, in our country, we have few or none of those graceful supplements of steeples painted, horizontally and vertically on the vaults and ceilings of cupolas, since we have no examples for it from the ancients, who allowed no more than a frett to the most magnificent and costly of those which they erected. But, would you know whence this universal caution in most of their works proceeded, and that the best of our modern painters and architects have succeeded better than others of that profession, it must be considered, that they were learned men, good historians, and generally skilled in the best antiquities; such were Raphael, and doubtless his scholar Julio; and, if Polydore arrived not to the glory of letters, he yet attained to a rare habit of the ancient gusto, as may be interpreted from most of his designs and paintings. Leon Baptist Alberti was skilled in all the politer parts of learning to a prodigy, and has written several curious things in the Latin tongue. We know that, of later times, Rubens was a person universally learned, as may be seen in several Latin epistles of his to the greatest scholars of his age. And Nicholas Poussin, the Frenchman, who is so much celebrated and so deservedly, did, it seems, arrive to this by his indefatigable industry “as the present famous statuary, Bernini, now living,” says Mr. Evelyn, “has also done so universal a mastery, that, not many years since, he is reported to have built a theatre at Rome, for the adornment whereof he not only cut the figures and painted the scenes, but wrote the play, and composed the music, which was all in recitative. And I am persuaded, that all this is not yet by far so much as that miracle and ornament of our age and country, Dr. Christopher Wren, were able to perform, if he were so disposed, and so encouraged, because he is master of so many admirable advantages beyond them. I alledge these examples partly to incite, and partly to shew the dignity and vast comprehension of this rare art, and that for a man to arrive to its utmost perfection, he should be almost as universal as the orator in Cicero, and the architect in Vitruvius. But, certainly, some tincture in history, the optics and anatomy, are absolutely requisite, and more, iri the opinion of our author, than to be a steady designer, and skilled in the tempering and applying of colours, which, amongst most of our modern workmen, go now for the only accomplishments of a painter.”

, a Lutheran divine, was born at Coslin, a town of Pomerania, in 15D3. In his youth, as his parents were poor, he contrived to defray the expences of his education by instructing a few pupils in what he had already learned, and having the charge of some of them to Rostock, he soon distinguished himself among the learned of that city. Having taken orders, he was chosen preacher at Coslin, and chaplain to the duke Bogislaus XI V. who five years after recommended him to a doctor’s degree at Gripswald. About this time the king of Sweden, Gustavus Adolphus, arriving in Germany, made him his confessor, and superintendant of his army; and after the battle of Lutzen, in which that prince lost his life, the duke Bogislaus recalled Fabricius, and made him superintendant of Upper Pomerania, in which office he was afterwards continued by queen Christina. He was also appointed minister of the principal church of Stettin, and professor of divinity. He died suddenly of an apoplectic stroke, Aug. 11, 165+. His principal writings are, 1. “Disputationes in Genesim, et in Kpistolam ad Romanes. 2.” Probatio visionum,“a work which involved him in disrepute with some of his brethren, and obliged him to publish in defence of it, 'J.” Invictir visionum probationes.“4.” JustaGustaviana." He published besides some pieces in German.

, a man of considerable learning, but unfortunately connected with the French prophets, was a native of Switzerland, whither his family, originally Italians, were obliged to take refuge, for religion’s sake, in the beginning of the reformation. He was born Feb. 16, 1664. His father intending him for the study of divinity, he was regularly instructed in Greek and Latin, philosophy, mathematics, and astronomy; learned a little of the Hebrew tongue, and began to attend the lectures of the divinity professors of Geneva: but his mother being averse to this, he was left to pursue his own course, and appears to have produced the first fruits of his studies in some letters on subjects of astronomy sent to Cassini, the French king’s astronomer. In 1682 he went to Paris, where Cassini received him very kindly. In the following year he returned to Geneva, where he became particularly acquainted with a count Fenil, who formed the design of seizing, if not assassinating the prince of Orange, afterwards William III. This design Faccio having learned from him communicated it to bishop Burnet about 1686, who of course imparted it to the prince. Bishop Burnet, in the first letter of his Travels, dated September 1685, speaks of him as an incomparable mathematician and philosopher, who, though only twenty-one years old, was already become one of the greatest men of his age, and seemed born to carry learning some sizes beyond what it had hitherto attained. Whilst Dr. Calamy studied at the university of Utrecht, Faccio resided in that city as tutor to two young gentlemen, Mr. Ellys and Mr. Thornton, and conversed freely with the English. At this time he was generally esteemed to be a Spinozist; and his discourse, says Dr. Calamy, very much looked that way. Afterwards, it is probable, that he was professor of mathematics at Geneva. In 1687 he came into England, and was honoured with the friendship of the most eminent mathematicians of that age. Sir Isaac Newton, in particular, was intimately acquainted with him. Dr. Johnstone of Kidderminster had in his possession a manuscript, written by Faccio, containing commentaries and illustrations of different parts of sir Isaac’s Principia. About 1704 he taught mathematics in Spitafnelds, and obtained about that time a patent fora species of jewel-watches. When he unfortunately attached himself to the new prophets, he became their chief secretary, and committed their warnings to writing, many of which were published. The connexion of such a man with these enthusiasts, and their being supported, likewise, by another person of reputed abilities, Maximilian Misson, a French refugee, occasioned a suspicion, though without reason, that there was some deep contrivance and design in the affair. On the second of December, 1707, Faccio stood in the pillory at Charing-cross, with the following words affixed to his hat: “Nicolas Fatio, convicted for abetting and favouring Elias Marion, in his wicked and counterfeit prophecies, and causing them to be printed and published, to terrify the queen’s people.” Nearly at the same time, alike sentence was executed upon Elias Marion, one of the pretended prophets, and John d'Ande, another of their abettors. This mode of treatment did not convince Faccio of his error; and, indeed, the delusion of a man of such abilities, and simplicity of manners, was rather an object of compassion than of public infamy and punishment. Oppressed with the derision and contempt thrown upon himself and his party, he retired at last into the country, and spent the remainder of a long life in silence and obscurity. He died at Worcester in 1753, about eightynine years old. When he became the dupe of fanaticism, he seems to have given up his philosophical studies and connections. Faccio, besides being deeply versed in all branches of mathematical literature, was a great proficient in the learned and oriental languages. He had read much, also, in books of alchymy. To the last, he continued a firm believer in the reality of the inspiration of the French prophets. Dr. Wall of Worcester, who was well acquainted with him, communicated many of the above particulars to Dr. Johnstone, in whose hands were several of Faccio’s fanatical manuscripts and journals; and one of his letters giving an account of count Fenil’s conspiracy, and some particulars of the author’s family was communicated to the late Mr. Seward, and published in the second volume of his Anecdotes. In the Republic of Letters, vol. I. we find a Latin poem by Faccio, in honour of sir Isaac Newton; and in vol. XVIII. a communication on the rules of the ancient Hebrew poesy, on which subject he appears to have corresponded with Whiston. There are also many of his original papers and letters in the British Museum; and among them a Latin poem, entitled “N. Facii Duellerii Auriacus Throno-Servatus,” in which he claims to himself the merit of having saved king William from the above-mentioned conspiracy.

His father dying in 1548, and the persecution in Germany rendering that country unsafe to all who did not profess the Romish doctrine, he and Bucer came over to England in consequence of receiving letters from archbishop Cranmer, in which they had assurances of a kind reception and a handsome stipend, if they would continue here. They arrived in April 15*y, but Strype says in 1548 were entertained some days in the palace at Lambeth, and appointed to reside at Cambridge, where they were to undertake a new translation and illustration of the scriptures, Fagius taking the Old Testament, and Bucer the New, for their several parts. A pension of 100l. a year was settled on Fagius, and the same on Bucer, besides the salary they were to receive from the university. But this was all put an end to, by the sudden illness and death of both these professors. Fagius fell ill at London of a quartan fever, but would be removed to Cambridge, on hopes of receiving benefit from the change of air. He-died there Nov. 12, 1550; and Bucer did not live above a year after. Melcbior Adam and Verheiden suggested that Fagius was poisoned, but for this we find no other authority. By a disgraceful bigotry, both their bodies were dug up and burnt in the reign of queen Mary.

, an eminent French physician in the reign of Louis XIV. was born at Paris, May 11, 1638. He was the son of Henry Fagon, commissioner in ordinary of war, and of Louisa de la Brosse, niece of Guy de la Brosse, physician in ordinary to Louis XIII. and grandson of a physician in ordinary to Henry IV. He studied first in the Sorbonne, under M. Gillot, an eminent doctor, with whom he resided as student, and who persuaded him to chuse the medical profession. M. Fagon never forgot M. Gillot in his highest prosperity; but, if he met him in the street, alighted from his coach, and conducted him to the house where he was going. This young physician had scarcely begun to dispute, when he ventured to maintain, in a thesis, the circulation of the blood, which was at that time held as a paradox among the old doctors; and also another on the use of tobacco, published long afterwards; “An frequens Nicotian ye usus vitam abbreviet,” Paris, 1699, 4to. He took his doctor’s degree 1664, M. Vallot wishing to repair and replenish the royal garden, M. Fagon offered his services; and going, at his own expence, to Auvergne, Languedoc, Provence, the Alps, and the Pyrenees, returned with an ample collection of curious and useful plants. He had the principal share in the catalogue of the plants in that garden, puhlished 1665, entitled “Hortus Regius,” to which he prefixed a little Latin poem of his own. M. Fagon was made professor of botany and chemistry at the royal garden, and began to have the plants engraved; but there are only forty -five plates finished, which are very scarce. The king appointed bim first physician to the dauphiness in 1680, and to the queen some months after. In 1693 he was made first physician to the king, and superintendant of the royal garden in 1698, to which he retired after the king’s death, and, for the improvement of which, he persuaded Louis XIV. to send M. de Tournfort into Greece, Asia, and Egypt, which produced the scientific voyage so well known to the learned world. Fagon died March 11, 1718, aged near eighty. The academy of sciences had chosen him an honorary member in 1699. He left “Les Qualités du Quinquina,” Paris, 1703, 12mo. He married Mary Nozereau, by whom he had two sons Anthony, the eldest, bishop of Lombez, then of Vannes, died February.16, 1742 the second, Lewis, counsellor of state in ordinary, and to the royal council, and intendant of the finances, died at Paris May 8, 1741, unmarried. The Fagonia, in botany, was so called by Tournfort in honour of him.

, an ingenious poet, who flourished: in the reigns of queen Elizabeth and king James the First, was the second son of sir Thomas Fairfax, of Denton, Yorkshire, by Dorothy his wife, daughter of George Gale, of Ascham-Grange, esq. treasurer to the Mint at York. In what year he was born is not related. The family from which he sprang was of a very military turn. His father had passed his youth in the wars of Europe, and was with Charles duke of Bourbon, at the sacking of Rome, in 1527. His engaging in this expedition is said to have g'lYen such offence to sir William Fairfax, that he was disinherited; but this is not reconcileable to the fact of his succeeding to the family estate at Denton, which he transmitted to his descendants. It was in 1577, or, according to Douglas, in 1579, when far advanced in years, that he was knighted by queen Elizabeth. The poet’s eldest brother, Thomas, who in process of time became the first lord Fairfax of Cameron, received the honour of knighthood before Rouen in Normandy, in 1591, for his bravery in the army sent to the assistance of Henry the Fourth of France; and he afterwards signalized himself on many occasions in Germany against the house of Austria. A younger brother of Edward Fairfax, sir Charles, was a captain under sir Francis Vere, at the battle of Newport, fought in 1600; and in the famous three years’ siege of Ostend, commanded al) the English in that town for some time before it surrendered. Here he received a wound in his face, from the piece of a skull of a marshal of France, killed near him by a cannon-ball, and was himself killed in 1604.

Such are the few particulars that are related concerning the private life of Fairfax. But it is as a poet that he is principally entitled to attention; and in this respect he is held in jqst reputation, and deserves to have his name transmitted with honour to posterity. His principal work was his translation of Tasso’s heroic poem of “Godfrey of Bologne” out of Italian into English verse; and what adds to the merit of the work is, that it was his first essay in poetry, and executed when he was very young. On its appearance, it was dedicated to queen Elizabeth. The book was highly commended by the best judges and wits of the age in which it was written, and their judgment has been sanctioned by the approbation of succeeding critics. King James valued it above all other English poetry; and king Charles used to divert himself with reading it in the time of his confinement. All who mention Fairfax, do him the justice to allow that he was an accomplished genius. Dryden introduces Spenser and Fairfax almost on the level, as the leading authors of their times, and Waller confessed that he owed the music of his numbers to Fairfax’s Godfrey of Bologne. “The truth is,” says the author of Cibber’s Lives, “this gentleman is, perhaps, the only writer down to sir William Davenant, who needs no apology to be made for him on account of the age in which he lived. His diction is so pure, elegant, and full of graces, and the turn of his lines so perfectly melodious, that one cannot read it without rapture; and we can scarcely imagine the original Italian has greatly the advantage in either: nor is it very probable, that while Fairfax can be read, any author will attempt a new translation of Tasso with success.” Without disputing the general truth of this eulogium (which, however, might somewhat have been softened), it cannot fail to be observed, how much the biographer has been mistaken in his concluding conjecture. A new translation of Tasso has not only been attempted, but executed, by Mr. Hoole, with remarkable success and with distinguished excellence; and indeed in such a manner, that in the opinion of Dr. Johnson, Fairfax’s work will perhaps not soon be reprinted. Of Fairfax, it has been justly said that he had the powers of genius and fancy, and broke through that servile custom of translation which prevailed in his time. His liberal elegance rendered his versions more agreeable than the dry ness of Jonson, and the dull fidelity of Sandys and May; and he would have translated Tasso with success, had he not unhappily chosen a species of versification which was ill adapted to the English language. Mr. Hoole, in assigning the reasons for his giving a new version of Tasso’s “Jerusalem Delivered,” remarks that Fairfax’s stanzas cannot be read with pleasure by the generality of those who have a taste for English poetry: of which no other proof is necessary than that it appears scarcely to have been read at all. It is not only unpleasant, but irksome, in such a degree as to surmount curiosity, and more than counterbalance all the beauty of expression and sentiment, which is to be found in that work. He does not, however, flatter himself that he has excelled Fairfax, except in measure and versification; and, even of these, the principal recommendation is, that they are more modern, and better adapted to the ear of all readers of English poetry, except of the very few vtho have acquired a taste for the phrases and cadencies of those times, when our verse, if not our language, was in its rudiments.“The author of iris life in the Biog. Britannica, however, is of opinion that it was not necessary to the justification of Mr. Hoole’s new version, that he should pass so severe a censure on Fairfax’s measure. To say that” it is not only unpleasant, but irksome, in such a degree as to surmount curiosity, and more than counterbalance all the beauty of expression which is to be found in the work,“appears to be very unjust The perspicuity and harmony of Fairfax’s ver>ification are indeed extraordinary, considering the time in which he wrote; and in this respect he ranks nearly with Spenser. Nothing but a fine fancy and an elegant mind could have enabled him, in that period, to have made such advances towards perfection. Hume seems to be nearly of the same opinion.” Fairfax,“says that historian,” has translated Tasso with an elegance and ease, and at the same time with an exactness, which for that age are surprising. Each line in the original-is faithfully rendered by a correspondent line in the translation. Harrington’s translation of Ariosto is not likewise without its merit. It is to be regretted, that these poets should have imitated the Italians in their stanza, which has a prolixity and uniformity in it that displeases in long performances. They had otherwise, as well as Spenser, contributed much to the polishing and refining of English versification.

Hitherto he had acquitted himself with undaunted bravery, and with great and deserved applause from his party. Had he stopped here, or at such times at least as the king’s concessions were in reason and equity a just ground for peace (which was more than once), he might have been honourably ranked among the rest of those patriots, who took up arms only for the redress of grievances. But his boundless ambition, and his great desire to rule, made him weakly engage, with the utmost zeal, in the worst and most exceptionable parts of the rebellion. When the parliamentarians thought fit to new-model their army, and to lay aside the earl of Essex, they unanimously voted sir Thomas Fairfax to be their general in his room, he being ready to undertake or execute any thing that he was ordered. To him Oliver Cromwell was joined with the title of lieutenant-general, but with intention of being his governor, exercising the superiority of deep art over a comparatively weak mind. Sir Thomas, being thus voted commander-in-chief of the parliament’s army on the 21st of January, 1644-5, received orders from the parliament speedily to come up from the north to London, where he arrived privatcsly, Feb. 18, and, the next day, was brought by four of the members into the house of commons, where he was highly complimented by the speaker, and received his commission of general. The 15th of the same month, an ordinance was made, for raising and maintaining of forces under his command: it having been voted, a few days before, that he should nominate all the commanders in his army, to be taken out of any of the other armies, with the approbation of both houses. March 25, the parliament ordered him 1500l. The 3d of April, he went from London to Windsor, where he appointed the general rendezvous and continued there till the last day of that month, new-framing and modelling the army or rather Cromwell doing it in his name. April 16, he was appointed, by both houses, governor of Hull. In the mean time, Taupton, in Somersetshire, one of the parliament’s garrisons, being closely besieged by the royalists, sir Thomas Fairfax received orders to hasten to its relief, with 8000 horse and foot. He began his march May 1, and by the 7th had reached Blandford in Dorsetshire: but, the king taking the field from Oxford, with strong reinforcements brought by the princes Rupert and Maurice, sir Thomas was ordered by the parliament to send 3000 foot and 1500 horse to relieve Taunton, and himself to return, with the rest of Juis forces, to join Oliver Cromwell and major-general Browne, and attend the king’s motions. The 14th of May he was come back as far as Newbury; where having rested three nights, he went and faced Dennington-castle, and took a few prisoners. Thence he proceeded to lay siege to Oxford, as he was directed by the committee of both kingdoms, and sat down before it the 22d. But, before he had made any progress in this siege, he received orders to draw near the king, who had taken Leicester by storm, May 31, and was threatening the eastern associated counties. Sir Thomas therefore rising from before Oxford, June 5, arrived the same day at Marsh-Gibbon, in Buckinghamshire on the llth he was at Wootton, and the next day at Gilsborough, in Northamptonshire where he kept his head-quarters till the 14th, when he engaged the king’s forces, at the fatal and decisive battle of Naseby, and obtained a complete victory. The king, after that, retiring into Wales, sir Thomas went and laid siege on the 16th to Leicester, which surrendered on the 18th. He proceeded, on the 22d, to Warwick; and thence (with 'a disposition either to go over the Severn towards the king, or to move westward as he should be ordered) he marched on through Gloucestershire towards Marlborough, where he arrived the 28th. Here he received orders from the parliament, to hasten to the relief of Taunton, which was besieged again by the royalists; letters being sent at the same time into the associated comities for recruits, and tfce arrears of pay for his army; but on his arrival at Bland ford, he was informed, that lord Goring had drawn off his horse from before Taunton, and left his foot in the passage to block up that place, marching himself with the horse towards Langport. Sir Thomas Fairfax, therefore, advancing against him, defeated him there on the 10th of July; and the next day^ went and summoned Bridgewater, which was taken by storm on the 22d. He became also master of Bath the 30th of the same month; and then laid close siege to Sherborne-castle, which was likewise taken by storm August 15. And, having besieged the city of Bristol from the 22d of August to the 10th of September, it was surrendered to him by prince Rupert. After this laborious expedition, the general rested some days at Bath, having sent out parties to reduce the castles of the Devises and Berkley, and other garrisons between the west and London; and on the 23d moved from Bath to the Devises, and thence to Warminster on the 27th, where he stayed till October 8, when he went to Lyme in Dorsetshire. From this place he came to Tiverton, of which he became master on the 19th; and then, as he could not undertake a formal siege in the winter season, he blocked up the strong city of Exeter, which did not surrender till the 13th of April following: in the mean time, he took Dartmouth by storm, January 18, 1645-6; and several forts and garrisons at different times. Feb. 16, he defeated thelord Hopton near Torrington. This nobleman retreating with his broken forces into Cornwall, sir Thomas followed him: in pursuit of whom he came to Launceston Feb. 25, and to Bodmin March 2. On the 4th, Mount Edgecornbe was surrendered to him; and Fowey about the same time. At last the parliament army approaching Truro, where lord Hopton had his head-quarters, and he being so hemmed in as to remain without a possibility of escaping, sir Thomas, on the 5th of March, sent and offered him honourable terms of capitulation, which after some delays, lord Hoptoit accepted, and a treaty was signed by commissioners on both sides, March 14 in pursuance of which, the royalists, consisting of above 5000 horse, were disbanded and took an oath never to bear arms against the parliament. But, before the treaty was signed, lord Hopton, and Arthur lord Capel, retired to Scilly, whence they passed into Jersey, April 17, with Charles prince of Wales, sir Kdtvard Hyde, and other persons of distinction. Thus the king’s army in the west being entirely dispersed by the vigilance and wonderful success of general Fairfax, he returned, March 31, to the siege of Exeter, which surrendered to him upon articles, the 13th of April, as already observed: and with the taking of this city ended his western expedition. He then marched, with wonderful speed, towards Oxford, the most considerable garrison remaining in the king’s hands, and arriving on the 1st of May, with his army, began to lay siege to it. The king, who was there, afraid of being enclosed, privately, and in disguise, departed thence on the 27th of April; and Oxford surrendered upon articles, June 24, as did Wallingford, July 22. After the reduction of these places, sir Thomas went and besieged Ragland-castle, in Monmouthshire, the property of Henry Somerset, marquis of Worcester, which yielded Aug. 19. His next employment was to disband major-general Massey’s brigade, which he did at the Devises. About that time he was seized with a violent fit of the ston, unjder which he laboured many days. As soon as he was recovered, he took a journey to London; where he arrived November 12, being met some miles off by great crowds of people, and the city militia. The next day, both houses of parliament agreed to congratulate his coming to town, and to give him thanks for his faithful services and wise conduct: which they did the day following, waiting upon him at his house in Queen-street*. Hardly had he had time to rest, when he was called upon to convoy the two hundred thousand pounds that had been granted to the Scotish army; the price of their delivering up their sovereign king Charles. For that purpose he set out from London, December 18, with a sufficient force, carrying at the same time 50,000l. for his own army. The king being delivered by the Scots to the parliament’s commissioners at Newcastle, Jan. 30, 1646-7, sir Thomas went and met him, Feb. 15, beyond Nottingham, in his way to Holmby; and his majesty stopping his horse, sir Thomas alighted, and kissed his hand; and afterwards mounted, and discoursed with him as they rode along. The 5th of March following, after long debate in parliament, he was toted general of the forces that were to be continued. He came to Cambridge the 12th of the same month, where he was highly caressed and complimented, and created master of arts.

, a learned man, was born in the isle of Jersey in 1655, and in 1669 became a commoner of Exeter college in Oxford; from whence he removed to St. Alban’s hall, and took both his degrees in arts, that of master in July 1676. Afterwards he went into orders, retired to his native country, where he was made rector of St. Saviour’s, and was afterwards chosen deputy from the states of that island to king William and queen Mary. He was also rector of Shenley, in Hertfordshire, where he built an elegant house at the expense of 1000l. King William recommended him to a prebend in Durham. The golden prebend was then vacant, but the bishop removed Dr. Pickering to it, and gave Dr. Falle the fourth stall, of which he afterwards complained. The repairing of the prebendal house cost him 200l. He died at Shenley, in 1742, and left his excellent library (excepting a collection of sacred music, which he gave to the library at Durham), to the island of Jersey. He published three sermons; one preached at St. Hilary’s in Jersey, in 1692; another at Whitehall in 1694; and another before the mayor of London in 1695. He was the author also of “An account of the isle of Jersey, the greatest of those islands that are now the only remainder of the English dominions in France: with a new and accurate map of that island,” 1694, 8vo. This is much quoted by bishop Gibson.

Although much of his life was spent in active business, he found leisure to produce the following works: 1. An English translation in rhyme of Guarini’s “II Pastor Fido, or the Faithful Shepherd,” 1646, 4to. 2. A translation from, English into Latin verse of Fletcher’s “Faithful Shepherdess,” 1658. 3. In the octavo edition of “The Faithful Shepherd,” are inserted the following poems of our author; An Ode on his majesty’s Proclamation in 1630, commanding the gentry to reside upon their estates in the country; an English translation of the fourth book of Virgil’s Aneid Odes of Horace, translated into English; and a summary Discourse of the Civil Wars of Rome. 4. He translated from Portuguese into English, Canpens’ “Lusiad, or Portugal’s Historical Poem,” 1655, folio. 5. After his decease were published two pieces in 4to, 1671 r “luerer per solo querer,” “To love only for love’s sake,” a dramatical romance, represented before the king and queen of Spain and “Fiestas de Aranjeuz,” Festival at Aranjeuz. Both written in Spanish by Antonio de Mendoza, upon celebrating the birth-day of Philip VI. in 1623, at Aranjuez; and translated by our author in 1654, during his confinement. 6. His correspondence was published in 1701, in one volume, 8vo, under this title: “'Original Letters of his excellency sir Richard Fanshawe during his embassy in Spain and Portugal; which, together with divers letters and answers from the chief ministers of state in England, Spain, and Portugal, contain the whole negotiations of the treaty of peace between those three crowns.” The publisher received these letters from the hands of a daughter of sir Richard, who had them in her possession. He also composed other things, remaining in manuscript, which he wrote in his younger years, but had not tha leisure to complete. Even some of the preceding printed pieces have not all the perfection which our ingenious author could have given them: for, as his biographer observes, “being, for his loyalty and zeal to his master’s service, tossed from place to place, and from country to country, during the unsettled times of our anarchy, some of his manuscripts falling by misfortune into unskilful hands, were printed and published without his consent or knowledge, and before he could give them his last finishing strokes.” But that was not the case with his translation of “II Pastor Fido,” which was published by himself, and procured him much reputation.