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

His published dramas are twenty in number, and were written in the following order: 1. “Taste, a comedy,” 1752. 2. “The Englishman in Paris,” 1753. 3. “The Knights,” 1754. 4. “The Englishman returned from Paris,” 1756. 5. “The Author,” 1757. 6. “The Minor,” 1760. 7. “The Lyar,” 1761; not printed till 1764. 2. “The Orators,” 1762. 9. “The Mayor of Garrat,” 1763. 10. “The Patron,” 1764. 11. “The Commissary.” 12. “Prelude on opening the Theatre,” 176T. 13. “Tho Devil upon Two Sticks,” 1768, printed in 1778. 1 k “The Lame Lover,” 1770. 15. The Maid of Bath,' 1 1771, printed 1778. 16. “The Nabpb,” 1772, primed 1778. 17. “The Bankrupt,” 1772. 18. “The Cozeners,” 1771, printed 1778. 19. “A Trip to Calais, 1776, printed 1778. 20.” The Capuchin.“The lattur of these uas altered from the former, which was prohibited. A trifling piece called” Piety io Pattens,“awl” The Diversions of the Morning,“altered from Taste, were never published. The anonymous mock Tragedy of” The Tailors," is usually printed with. Foote’s works, and is very generally thought to he his. It was acted in 1767, printed in 1778. Most of these are formed upon temporary topics, and full of personalities, the objects of which are still generally recollected, and therefore do not require to be specified; but they are replete with vivacity and humour, and though composed with little care, or attention to plot, are very entertaining even in the closet. Foote borrowed liberally from Moliere and others; but made what he took his own by an originality in his manner of employing it; and his personal humour was so peculiar, that it has been hardly possible for any other player to give equal effect to the parts he acted himself.

, an eminent historian and biographer, was professor of divinity at Louvaine, and canon and archdeacon of Mechlin, where he died July 16 1761, highly respected as a man of learning and virtue, but of his private history we have no further particulars. His first publication appears to have been “Batavia Sacra, sive res gestae Apostolicorum virorum,” fol. 1714. He then published, 2. “Historia Episcopatus Antverpiensis,” Brussels, 1717, 4to. 3. “Historia Episcopatus Sylvicducensis,” ibid. 1721. 4. A new edition of “Auberti Minci Opera Diplomatics et Historica,” with large additions, ibid, 1723, 2 vols. fol. 5. “Diplomatum Belgicorum novu collectio,” being a supplement to the former, 1734 and 1748, 2 vols. foi. 6. “Chronologia sacra Episcoporum Belgii, ab anno 1561 ad annum 1761,” 12mo, a work in verse, with prose notes. He also published a new edition of the “Basilica Bruxellensis” of J. B. Christian, at Mechlin in 1743, 2 vols. 8vo, but is best known by his “Bibliotheca Belgica,” or lives of the Belgic authors, 1739, 2 vols. 4to, being a continuation of Miraeus, Sweert, and Valerius Andreas, ornamented with near 150 portraits, not half of which are to be found in the most complete copies. We lie under too many obligations to this work to examine it with the rigour which Marchand has employed, and for which we refer to his “Dictionnaire Historique.” The inaccuracies, as far as we have examined the work, are few, and for an occasional want of liberality, we must seek an apology in his religion. He has, however, taken some credit to himself, for not omitting those epitaphs on protestant writers in which their principles are commended and of this merit he ought not to be deprived.

, a very eminent Scottish lawyer, was born at Culloden, in the county of Inverness, in 1685, and educated in the university of Edinburgh, whence he removed to Utrecht, and afterwards to Paris, where he studied the civil law. He returned, in 1710, to Scotland, and was called to the bar in the court of session. His abilities as an advocate were soon noticed, and he obtained great practice. In 1717, he was appointed solicitor-general of Scotland. In 1722, he was returned member for the county of Inverness; and in 1725, was promoted to the dignity of lord-advocate. He was further advanced in 1742, to be lord-president of the court of session, in which high station he acted with such integrity, that he was esteemed and honoured by his country. During the rebellion in 1745 and 6, he used the utmost of his power to oppose the pretender, and mortgaged his estate to support the government. With great reason he applied to the ministry for a repayment of those expences which he had incurred by his loyalty, and their refusal, undoubtedly a stain on the history of the times, is said to have operated so strongly upon his mind, as to produce a fever, of which he died in 1747, at the age of 62. His writings were chiefly on theological subjects, without any reference to his profession; they are, 1. “Thoughts on Religion.” 2. “A Letter to a Bishop.” 3. “Reflections on Incredulity,” 1750, in 2 vols. 12mo. Father Houbigant translated the two former of these works into French, but they were not greatly admired in that country; the solidity of the Scottish lawyer could not be expected to suit with the vivacity of French reasoners. Duncan Forbes of Culloden, says a recent biographer, was in all respects one of the most eminent men of his time. His learning was extensive and profound, reaching even to the oriental languages; and he had that acuteness and subtlety of parts, which is peculiarly fitted for the nice discriminations of the law; but which was always regulated in him by the prevailing principles of his nature, probity, candour, and a strong sense of the beauty of virtue and moral excellence. In the eloquence of the bar, he outshone all his contemporaries; for he united to great knowledge of jurisprudence, a quickness of comprehension that discovered to him at once the strong ground of argument which he was to press, or the weakness of the doctrine he wished to assail. When raised to the presidency of the court, the vigour of his intellect, his patience in the hearing of causes, his promptitude in the dispatch of business, the dignity, of his deportment, and above all, the known probity and integrity of his mind, gave the highest weight to the decisions of that tribunal over which he presided.

Of his religious sentiments this biographer, the late lord Woodhouselee, speaks with less approbation. He allows that his piety was fervent and habitual, but seems to refer it to warmth of heart, and feelings naturally ardent, and that all this co-operating with a lively imagination, led him to become an admirer and disciple of the Hutchinsonian scheme of theology; and he adds that he had not enough of physical science to detect the absurdities with which the scheme of his favourite author abounds. It does not appear, however, that he adopted the whole scheme of Hutchinson, or that he was more absurd in what he did adopt than bishop Home, Parkhurst, and some other men of equal talents and celebrity. Warburton in one of his “Letters” lately published, after recommending the lord president’s “Reflections on Incredulity,” which was a posthumous work, adds, “It is a little jewel. I knew and venerated the man; one of the greatest that ever Scotland bred, both as a judge, a patriot, and a Christian.”

, an eminent Scotsman, was born in 1564, when the affairs of the church of Scotland were in great confusion. He was distinguished by his family, an well as by his uncommon merit, being himself lord of Corse, and baron of O'Neil, in the shire of Aberdeen. He was liberally educated both at Aberdeen and St. Andrew’s; and having a plentiful estate, a noble alliance, and great credit in his country, he contributed much towards restoring order, by encouraging pious and peaceable ministers, and by instructing the people in set conferences as well as occasional discourses; especially the papists, who would hear nothing from the pulpit. In this laudable manner he acted as a layman; and his abilities became so conspicuous, that he was often solicited to enter into the ministry by eminent persons both in church and state. He at length submitted to their judgment, and was ordained a presbyter at the age of 28. He was admitted minister of Keith, where he continued with the highest applause till 1618; and then, at the earnest desire of the clergy and laity of the diocese of Aberdeen, as well as at the express command of the king, was promoted to the bishopric of Aberdeen, which he had held about seventeen years. “It was,” says Burnet, “with great difficulty, that king James made him accept that dignity; and for several months he refused it, having proposed to himself to live in a less conspicuous state. It was soon seen, how much, he deserved to be a bishop; and that his refusal was not counterfeit, but the real effect of his humility. In all his behaviour he has displayed the character of a truly apostolic man. He visited his diocese without pomp and noise, attended only by one servant, that he might more easily be informed of what belonged to his care, &c.”

This excellent man died in 1635, aged seventy-one, after having two days before sent for all the clergy in Aberdeen to receive the sacrament with him. His “Commentary upon the Revelations,” was printed at London in 1613. He was a great promoter and guardian of learning as well as of religion. “He took so much care of the two colleges he had in his diocese, that,” as Burnet says, “they soon distinguished themselves, and became famous all over Scotland.” As he was chancellor of the university of Aberdeen, he improved that seat of learning, by repairing the fabric, augmenting the library, reviving the professions of divinity, canon-law, and physic, and procuring another professorship in divinity to be added.

, of Corse, second son to the preceding, was born May 2, 1593, and after his school education, was sent to the university of King’s college, Aberdeen, in 1607. After a course of philosophy and theology here, he went to Heidelberg, where he attended the lectures of Paraeus, and afterwards spent some time at the other universities of Germany. With theology he applied vigorously to the study of the Hebrew language, and according to Pictet, maintained, in 1608, a public dispute against the archbishop and the Lutherans of Upsal. If there be no mistake in this date, he could now have been only fifteen or sixteen yeajs of age. He pursued his studies, however, abroad until 1619, when returning to Aberdeen, he gave such proofs of extensive knowledge and talents, that he was immediately appointed professor of divinity and ecclesiastical history in King’s college. How well he was qualified for the office appears from his “Historicotheological Institutions,” a work universally admired, even by those who differed from him with regard to matters of church-government. Having, however, subscribed the Perth articles, as they were called, proposed by the synod of Perth, as an introduction to episcopacy in Scotland, the favourite measure of James I. which Dr. Forbes ably defended, and having refused to subscribe to the national league and covenant, he was ejected from his professorial chair in 1640. He had before this made an ineffectual. attempt to compose the religious dissentions in Scotland, by publishing a work written with great moderation of sentiment, entitled “Irenicam,” dedicated to the lovers of truth and peace. This was printed at Aberdeen in 1629, 4to. In 1642 he went to Holland, where he remained a few years, and revising the lectures he had delivered when professor, he compiled from them the excellent work abovementioned, which he published at Amsterdam in 1645, fol. under the title of “Institutiones historico-theologicæ.” This was so much admired, and considered indeed as one of the best works of the kind that had ever appeared, as to pass through three editions in a very short time. In 1646 he published, at the same place, his father’s “Commentary Oh the Apocalypse,” 4to, translated into Latin. Returning then to Scotland, he spent the short remainder of his life in retirement on his estate of Corse, where he died April 29, 1648. Those who had ejected him from his professorship added two instances of persecution which are peculiarly disgraceful. While professor, he had purchased a house at Old Aherdeen, where King’s college is situated, and made it over for the use of his successors; but having forgot to secure his life-rent in it, the prevailing party actually turned him out of it; and now, when dead, they would not allow him to be buried beside his father, though earnestly requested by many of his friends. The body was afterwards carried to the church-yard of Leuchil, where it lies without any monument. In 1703, a very elegant edition of all his works, in 2 vols. fol. was printed by the Wetsteins at Amsterdam, under the care partly of Mr. George Garden of Aberdeen, but principally of professor Gurtler of Deventer. The whole indicates great learning, and his “Exercitia Spiritualia,” a kind of Diary, shows no less piety.

, bishop of Edinburgh, was born in 1585, at Aberdeen, where he went through the courses of classical learning and philosophy. He was admitted master of arts at sixteen, and immediately afterwards made professor of logic: he applied himself to support Aristotle’s logic against the Ramists. Afterwards he went to travel, and made a great progress in divinity and the Hebrew language, in the universities of Germ-ant, during the four years he passed in that country. He then visited the university of Leyden, where he was greatly esteemed. His ill state of health not permitting him to undertake a journey into France and Italy, as he would willingly have done, he went over to England. The fame of his learning soon proclaimed him there, so that the university of Oxford offered him a professorship of Hebrew; which, however, he did not accept, because the physicians advised him to return to his native country. The magistrates of Aberdeen expressed a particular esteem for him. He recovered his health, and accepted at first a private cure; but afterwards, being strongly solicited by the inhabitants, went to be preacher in his native city. He was admitted doctor of divinity, when king James, among other regulations, had settled it with the deputies of the clergy, that the academical degrees and dignities should be restored to their ancient course. The labour of preaching hurting his health, they gave him a less painful employment, making hint principal of Markchal-college. He was afterwards dean of the faculty of divinity, and then rector of the university; a post immediately under the chancellor. Then he became pastor at Edinburgh, and was received there with every mark of friendship; but people’s dispositions being changed, from their warm attachment to the antiepiscopal discipline of Geneva, he withdrew himself, and retired to his own country. He was sent for some years after by Charles I. who had caused himself to be crowned at Edinburgh in 1633; and he preached before the monarch with great eloquence and learning. That prince, having founded an episcopal church at Edinburgh, knew of none more worthy to fill the new see than Dr. Forbes. He was consecrated with the usual ceremonies, and applied himself wholly to the functions of his dignity: but fell sick soon after, and died in 1634, after having enjoyed his bishopric only three months.

Though able and learned, he had published nothing, and composed very little. He wrote a treatise tending to pacify controversies, which was printed at London in 1658, with this title, “Considerationes modestae et pacificae controversiarum de justificatione, purgatorio, invocatione Sanctorum, Christo Mediatore, Kucharistia.” “This posthumous work,” says ttoe author of his life, “is a signal specimen and proof of a pacific temper, and a moderate mind: wherein, like a second Cassander, and catholic moderator, he endeavours to compose, or at least to mitigate, the rigid and austere opinions, in certain points of religious controversy, both of the reformed and of the popish party. How greatly he regarded moderation, appears from that usual saying of his, that, if there had been more Cassanders and Wiceliuses, there would have been no occasion for a Luther, or a Calvin.” He had another saying concerning letters, as good as this concerning religion: it was, “Lege plura, et scribe pauciora,” “Read more, and write less.” It was a piece of advice he gave to one, who used a great deal of paper; and the result of a resolution, which he himself had made, not to write much.

, a French naval officer of great repute, was born in 1656, and bred to the sea-service under a: relation, who was a sea-captain, named Korbin-Gardane. In 1636, he was left by his commander the chevalier de Chaumont, in the service of the king of Siam, to whom he was some time chief admiral. He afterwards distinguished himself on the coast of Spain, where, in 1703, he displayed his generosity no less than he had before proved his valour, by giving up to the owner a French prize, which the governor of Barcelona had ceded to him. In 1708 he was intrusted with conveying the pretender to Scotland, but was so closely watched by admiral Byng, that he was happy in returning his charge to Dunkirk. Louis XIV. admired and esteemed his greatness of soul, and frequently discoursed with him on the subject of his engagements, the recital of which he heard with great satisfaction. Once, when the king had given him some recompence for his services, at the time of going to court to return thanks, his zeal for a brother seaman of great merit, named John Bart, whom he considered as neglected, burst forth in remonstrances for him. The king was pleased with this generous disinterestedness, and remarked to his minister Louvois, that he saw few such examples at his court. But though Forbin was favoured by the king, he was not equally in the good graces of the ministers; and, after he had distinguished himself highly in many engagements against various enemies, his infirmities and his discontent caused him to retire from the service in 1710. He died in 17:53, at the age of 77.

Some maxims were found in his Memoirs published in 1749, by Reboulet, in two volumes, which ought to have made him more acceptable to ministers: unless, perhaps, as is highly probable, his experience of the bad effects of the contrary conduct, was the cause of committing them to paper. They are directed to persons who desire to rise in the sea service; and are to this effect: 1. “Never to. interfere in any thing which did not strictly belong to their employment.” 2. “To pay a blind obedience to the or^ ders they received, however repugnant to their private opinions; trusting that ministers have more extended views, than individuals in the service can develope.”

, an eminent political and financial writer of France, was born at Mans, Oct. 2, 1722. His father, Francis, Louis Veron Duverger, was a merchant of that city. Having finished his education at the college of Beauvais, i,Ek Paris, he left it in the sixteenth year of his age, to followthe tarn my trade, which had long been carried on by his family; his great grandfather having established at Mans a, manufactory of tammies, which, from that circumstance, in Spain were called Verones. In 1741 he was sent by his father to Spain and Italy, whence he returned to Mans in 1743. His grandfather by the mother’s side, having soon after retired from business, he was thereby enabled to trade on his own account; but declining, from motives of delicacy, to carry on at Mans the same trade as his father, he Avent to Nantes, where his uncle was established as a shipowner, to obtain a knowledge of the mercantile concerns and transactions of that city. Having spent several years at Nantes, and collected much valuable information on maritime and colonial trade, he entered in 1752 upon a speculation, which induced him to go to Paris. Confined to a small circle of friends and acquaintance, he lived there in great privacy, yet presented to government several memoirs, which experiencing a very cool reception, he resolved to write in future, not for administration, but the public. He published accordingly in 1753, his “ThtJorie et pratique du Commerce et de la Marine,” a free translation from the Spanish of Dr. Geron. de Votariz, which was soon followed by the “Considerations sur les Finances d'Espagne relativement a eel les de France,” a work in which he displayed such intimate acquaintance with the Spanish system of finance, that the Spanish ambassador at the court of Versailles proposed him to marshal cle Noailles, as consul-general of Spain; but the former being soon after recalled by his court, the appointment did not take place. About the same time he published, in 1754, his “Essai sur la partie politique du commerce de terre et de mer, de Pagriculture et des finances,” which within three weeks passed through two editions; the third edition was published in 1766, and the fourth in 1796, considerably improved and enlarged. From his profound knowledge in matters relative to money and coinage, he was appointed in 1755, to examine into the enormous abuses which had crept into the administration <yf the French mint. He immediately proposed a new coinage, but his plan was not carried into execution until 1771; he was, however, in the meanwhile, appointed inspectorgeneral of the mint, a new office expressly established for him. Having obtained free admittance to the library of the family of Noailles, rich in manuscripts relative to the administration of the finances of France, he conceived the idea of composing his “Recherches et considerations sur les finances de France depuis 1595 jusqu'a 1721,” printed at Basle, 1758, in 2 vols. 4to, and reprinted the same, year at Liege, in 6 vols. 8vo. This valuable work expeperienced the most distinguished reception both in France and other countries, and supplied Thomas with matter for his observations on the true principles of financial administration in his eulogy of Suny. The duke de Choiseuil being appointed prime minister, he endeavoured to place Forbonnois in the department for foreign affairs; but the latter declining the appointment, Choiseuil requested he would apply himself to lay down a general system of trade, and to comment on all commercial treaties concluded by France, in order that certain and uniform principles might be introduced into that important department of political economy. While he was making the necessary preparations for executing that commission, the abandoned state of the French finances in 1759, occasioned the appointment of the noted Sithonette to the office of comptroller-general or minister of finances. Without being in the least connected with that minister, Forbonnois received an offer of the place of principal clerk of the department of finance, which being declined, the minister requested he would at least privately lend him his assistance in projecting the first financial operations necessary for opening the war both by sea and land, at a time when 1,500,000 livres only were left in the treasury. Eight days after, Forbonnois brought him all the plans and draughts of edicts for the first operations. They were approved by the minister, and laid before Louis XV. who in consequence thereof appointed Forbonnois inspector of the depot of the general financial comptrol, a title which he himself suggested, in order to avoid the eclat of a more brilliant appointment. However, Forbonnois’ acknowledged superiority as a financier, which proved exceedingly offensive to the minister’s lady, soon brought on a coolness between her husband and him, which induced Forbonnois to retire into the country until Sithonette’s disgrace and dismission. He might have succeeded him as comptroller-general, had he been willing to consent to sacrifices which he could not reconcile with his honesty and candour. While he held the place of inspector of the depot of the general financial comptrol, he published his “Lettre d'un Banquier a son correspondent cle province;” chiefly intended to give a favourable account of the minister’s operation. In 1760 he pointed out to the Duke de Choiseuil the perilous situation of France, and suggested the plan of a treaty of peace, calculated to tempt the ambition of Great Britain, and at the same time to save resources for France. This plan met with so much applause, that Don de Fuentes, at that lime Spanish ambassador at Paris, who was admitted to the conferences, offered an armed neutrality on the part of his court to tacilitate its execution. Forbonnois was charged to draw up the necessary acts and plans, and to elucidate a great variety of points respecting the fisheries, the means of enlarging them, the sacrifices to be made to England, &c. nay, he was offered the appointment of plenipotentiary to conclude the treaty; but having executed his charge, and demanded a conference, he received no answer. Being entrusted with the secrets of the state, he began to entertain strong apprehensions for his personal safety, and took refuge in a glass-manufactory in the mountains of Burgundy, in which he was concerned. He returned, however, afterwards to Paris, and in order to render both the minister and the financiers perfectly easy on his account, he purchased the place of a counsellor or member of the parliament of Metz.

Jn 1767 and 1768, he published his “Principes et observations economiques,” and “Supplement au journal d'AoCil 1768, ou examen du livre intitule*, Principes sur la liberte* du commerce des grains.” At the abolition of the parliament of Metz, in 1770, he resolved to retire to his estate, which he did; but Terray’s appointment to the place of comptroller-general brought him once more to Paris. He privately assisted that minister in the execution of the memorable financial operations which distinguish his administration, but declined to accept any place under government, resigned the office of inspector-general of the mint, obtained a pension suitable to the station he had filled, and retired again to his estate, where he continued until 1790. In this year we find him at Mans, among the electors assembled in that city.

In 1757 he married miss Leray de Charmont, an accomplished and higlily amiable lady, who by the mildness of her character brightened the evening of his meritorious life, and in some measure indemnified him for the disappointments he had experienced in what is called “le grand monde.” The leisure he enjoyed in his peaceful retreat was employed in agricultural and literary pursuits. To the journal edited by Dupontof Nemours, he contributed several interesting memoirs signed The Old Man of the Sarthe. He also published, in 1789, “Prospectus sur les Finances, dedie” aux bons Francois,“and some time after his” Observations succintes sur remission de deux milliards d'assignats." At the beginning of the revolution he performed the functions of president of the district of Mamers, and also obtained the distinction of his name being inserted in the list of candidates for the office of tutor to the prince royal, son of Louis XVI.

In April 1799, the disturbances which prevailed in the department of the Sarthe, and several anonymous threatening letters he received, induced him at his advanced age to leave his country seat, and take refuge in Paris. Finding in the metropolis but few of his former acquaintance, he formed new connections, and became a frequent visitor of the national institute, of which he was a member. One of his last works is his “Analyse des principes sur la circulation des Denrees, et Pinfluence du numeraire sur cette circulation.” At the time he composed this valuable publication, he was already afflicted with a chronical disease, which put a period to his existence on the 25th of September, 1800. In 1801 M. de L'Isle de Salle published a very curious literary life of Forbonnois, who left a great many unpublished treatises, among which are eight on legislation, ten on diplomacy, seven on the marine and the colonies, eleven on finances, &c. Some of these were probably the collections he made previous to the publicacation of some of his works.

, an eminent lexicographer, was born in a small village of Treviso in the Venetian territories, August 16, 1688. His family was obscure, and scarcely wealthy enough to afford him a literary education. He went through his studies in the seminary of Padua, where his principal instructor was the celebrated philologist Facciolati, then professor in that place, and only six years older than himself. Evincing an early predilection for the church, he was at a proper age ordained a priest, soon after which he was appointed spiritual director to the seminary in which he had been educated. After having filled that station for nine years, he removed, in 1724, to Ceneda, in the same capacity; but in 1731 he was recalled to Padua, and remained there till 1765, when be retired to his native place, with the design of passing his last years in the bosom of his family.

He was at first employed by Facciolati in the corrections and additions to the famous dictionary of Calepini, which the latter published at Padua, in 1718, and which, owing to its superior merit, justly superseded all the preceding works of the same kind in Italy. He was likewise employed by Facciolati in the compilation of the famous dictionary entitled “Ortografia Italiana,” which has already gone through many editions, and which is absolutely necessary to all who wish to write Italian with orthographical accuracy. So great was Forcellini’s modesty, that the public would not have been informed of the assistance he rendered in these two excellent works, had not Facciolati himself declared, in his preface to the last, “that he had the satisfaction of bringing up a pupil of singular abilities, the abbe” Forcellini, who was afterwards his assistant in the im^ proved edition of Calepini, and in the compilation of the Ortografia."

It was greatly advantageous to the cause of letters that Mr. Forcellini, being introduced to the notice of cardinal Cornaro, bishop of Padua, received from that prelate an order to compile a new Latin Dictionary, in which all the deficiencies of the preceding edition of Calepini’s performance, for the Latin department, should be supplied. Perhaps no person was better qualified for such an undertaking, or was possessed of more steadiness, patience, and perseverance; an almost incredible proof of which is, that he employed in it in-aHy forty years of his life He ransacked not only all the Latin writers of the several ages of Roman literature, but all the ancient grammarians, and every collection of inscriptions which had been published to his time. To each of the Latin words inserted in this new Dictionary he affixed the corresponding Italian and Greek, and, to render the work still more complete, he subjoined to u a copious list of barbarous words, and a numerous catalogue of the writers whose works he had investigated. The performance was soon considered classical and unrivalled. Besides the intimate friendship of Facciolati, his preceptor and benefactor, the abbe Forceliini was highly esteemed by Morgagni, Pontedera, Valsecchi, and other eminent professors in the university of Padua. His learning and his merit would have advanced him to high literary honours, had he been less modest and unassuming. He was regular in his domestic life, candid, disinterested, and exemplary; and as a literary character, he was satisfied that his memory would be dear to and respected by posterity. He died April 4, 1768.

His great dictionary is entitled “Totius Latinitatis Lexicon, consilio et cura Jacobi Facciolati, opera et studio Ægidii Forceliini, alumni seminarii Patavini, lucubratum” and the edition of it which we have seen was published at Padua in 1771, 4 vols. in folio.

, an ingenious gentleman of the seventeenth century, was the son of sir John Ford, knt. and was born at Up-park in the parish of Harting in Sussex, in 1605. He became a gentleman commoner of Trinity college, Oxford, in 1621, but left it without taking a degree, after which Wood has not been able to trace his history, until he served the office of high sheriff for Sussex, and demonstrated his loyalty to Charles I. who conferred on him the honour of knighthood at Oxford, Oct. 4, 1643. About that time he bore a colonel’s commission in the army, or, according to Clarendon, had a regiment of horse in lord Hopton’s troops, and was afterwards a considerable sufferer for his adherence to the royal cause. In 1647, he and Dr. Stephen Goffe were imprisoned on. suspicion of being accessary to his majesty’s escape from Hampton court. How or when he was released we are not told, but as he had married general Ireton’s sister, he might owe his release to the influence of his brother-inlaw with the parliamentary party. In 1656 we find him employed in certain mechanical inventions of considerable importance. With Cromwell’s encouragement, and at the request of the citizens of London, he contrived machinery for raising the Thames water into all the higher streets of the city, a height of ninety-three feet. This he is said to have accomplished in a year’s time, and at his own expence; and the same machinery was afterwards employed in other parts of the kingdom for draining mines and lands, which it performed better and cheaper than any former contrivance. He also constructed the great water engine at Somerset-house, for supplying the Strand, &c. but this obstructing the prospect from the windows, queen Catherine, the consort of Charles II. caused it to be pulled clown. After the restoration he invented a mode of coining copper money (Wood says, farthings) which could not possibly be counterfeited, as each piece was made to differ from another in some minute circumstance. He failed in procuring a patent for these for England, but obtained one for Ireland. He went over accordingly to carry his design into execution there, but died before he could accomplish it, on Sept. 3, 1670, and his body being brought over, was interred in the family buriai place at Harting. Wood speaks of him as a man who might have done great things if he had met with proper encouragement. He published, 1. “A Design for bringing a River from Rickmansworth in Hertfordshire to St. Giles’s in the Fields, near London; the benefits of it declared, and the objections against it answered,” Lond. 1641, 4to. 2. “Experimental Proposals how the king may have money to pay and maintain his fleets, with ease to the people London may be re-built, and all proprietors satisfied money may be lent at six per cent, on pawns and the fishing trade set up, and all without straining or thwarting any of our laws or customs,” ibid. 1666, 4to. To this last was added a “Defence of Bill Credit.” About 1663 he had printed a proposal fur the raising of money by bills of exchange, which should pass current instead of money, to prevent robbery.

, an early English dramatic author, the second son of Thomas Ford, esq. a gentleman in the commission of the peace, was a native of Ilsington in Devonshire, where he was born in 158G, probably in the beginning of April, as he was baptised on the 17th of that month at Ilsington. It does not appear where he was educated, but on Nov. 16, 1602, he entered as a member of the Middle Temple, for the purpose of studying law. While there he published, in 1606, “Fame’s Memoriall, on the earle of Devonshire deceased; with his honourable life, peaceful end, and solemne funerall,” a small quarto of twenty-eight leaves. This poem, considered as the production of a youth, is creditable to the talents of Ford, as it exhibits a freedom of thought and command of language, of which there are few contemporaneous examples. At this time Ford was in his twenty-first year, and deeply engaged, but unfortunate, in an affair of the heart; and being disappointed also by the death of lord Mountjoy, the liberal friend of the poet Daniel, to whom he was about to look up as a patron, he determined to seek relief in travel. Whether he actually went abroad, or finding a nymph less cruel, and an avenue to fame without individual patronage, remained in England, is matter of conjecture: but we next hear of him on the stage. With a forbearance, however, unusual with those who have once adventured before the public, Ford abstained from the press from 1606 to 1629, when he printed his tragicomedy of the “Lover’s Melancholy.” But this was not his first attempt on the stage, as his play entitled “A bad beginning makes a good ending,” was acted at court as early as 1613. He wrote at least eleven dramas, and such as were printed appeared from 1629 to 1639. The greater part of those were entirely of his own composition, but in some he wrote conjointly, probably with Decker, Drayton, Hatherewaye, or some of the numerous retainers of the stage. It has been asserted that Jonson was jealous of Ford, and that Ford was frequently pitted against Jonson, as the champion of his antagonists. But Mr. Gilchrist, in, “A Letter to William Gifford, esq.” 1811, has most satisfactorily proved that there is no foundation for either of these assertions. The date of Ford’s death is unknown; he wrote nothing for the stage after 1639, and it is probable that he did not long survive that period. A writer in the “Censura Literaria,” has attributed to him an excellent little manual, entitled “A Line of Life, pointing at the immortalitie of a vertuous name,” 1620, 12mo.

As a dramatic writer, his merit has been thus appreciated by one admirably qualified for the task. Reversing the observation of Dry den on Shakspeare, it may be said of Ford, that “he wrote laboriously, not luckily;” always elegant, often elevated, never sublime, he accomplished by patient and careful industry what Shakspeare and Fletcher produced by the spontaneous exuberance of native genius. He seems to have acquired early in life, and to have retained to the last, a softness of versification peculiar to himself. Without the majestic march of verse which distinguishes the poetry of Massinger, and with none of that playful gaiety which characterizes the dialogue of Fletcher, he is still easy and harmonious. There is, however, a monotony in his poetry, which those who have perused his scenes long together must have inevitably perceived. His dialogue is declamatory and formal, and wants that quick chace of replication and rejoinder so necessary to effect in representation. His genius was mostly inclined to tragedy. In his plots he is far from judicious; they are for the most part too full of the horrible, and he seems to have had recourse to an accumulation of terrific incidents to obtain that effect which he despairs of producing by pathos of language. Another defect in Ford’s poetry, proceeding from the same source, is the alloy of pedantry which pervades his scenes, at one time exhibited in the composition of uncooth phrases, at another in perplexity of language; and he frequently labours with a remote idea, which, rather than throw it away, he obtrudes upon his reader involved in inextricable obscurity. For this opinion of Ford’s merits, as well as for the particulars of his life, we are indebted to an elaborate and comprehensive article in the “Quarterly Review,” occasioned by an edition of “The Dramatic Works of John Ford; with an introduction and explanatory notes, by Henry Weber, esq.” 1811, 2 vols. 8vo. In this article the reader will also find a masterly delineation of the principal plays of Ford.

, a man of learning, and an elegant Latin poet, was the son of Richard Ford, of East Ogwell, a small parish near Newton-Bushell, in that part of Devonshire called the South-Hams, and was born there in 1619. By the Worths, his mother’s family, he was descended from the founder of Wadham college, Oxford. He was some time at the high-school at Exeter, but finished his education at the free-school of Dorchester, in Dorsetshire, under Gabriel Reeve, fellow of New College. He was admitted of Magdalen Hall, Oxford, in 1636, and in the next year was candidate for a scholarship at Wadham college, probably as a founder’s kinsman, but was unsuccessful. In 1641, being then B. A. he retired to London, and during the rebellion joined the disaffected party. At the close of the war he returned to the university, and took his master’s degree in 1648; in which year, by the favour of Dr. Edward Reynolds, dean of Christ Church, one of the visitors of the university appointed by parliament, he became a student of that house, and distinguished himself as a tutor. He was created B. D. Feb. 16, 1649, by dispensation of the delegates, who had before decreed, that, having been “expelled the university with great injury, he should be restored with all academical honour imaginable.” He then became a frequent preacher at the university; but, for preaching at St. Mary’s against the oath of the Independents called the engagement, as he himself informed Anthony Wood, he was expelled from his studentship.

About this time he became lecturer of Newington-green, and in 1651, vicar of St. Lawrence’s, Reading, where he was considered as an eminent preacher. In 1653 he married Mrs. Anne Thackham. In July 1659 he was chosen by the corporation of Northampton, the patrons, vicar of All Saints; and, in 1665, he took the degree of D. D. and was appointed chaplain to his majesty. In 1670 he removed to London, became minister of Bridewell chapel, and rector of St. Mary Aldermanbury but finding his health impaired by the air of London, he accepted, in 1677, the rectory of Old Swinford, near Sturbridge, in Worcestershire, on the presentation of Thomas Foley, of Kidderminster. Here he died April 7, 1699, and was buried in the church near his (we presume second) wife, Martha Stampe, who died in 1684. He was accounted an able scholar, an elegant Latin poet, and a preacher of great eminence.

His works are, 1. “Ambitio sacra. Conciones duae Latine habitae ad academicos,” Oxon. 1650, 4to. 2. Several Latin poems, published separately in 1666, and the following years, and afterwards collected into one volume, entitled “Poemata Londinensia, &c.” 3. “Carmen funebre, ex occasione Northampton^ conflagrate,” Lond. 1676, 4to. This was translated, or rather imitated by F. A. (Fernando Archer) 4to. 4. “A Panegyric on Charles I.” 5. “Christ’s Innocency pleaded against the cry of the chief priests,” Lond. 1656, 4to. 6. “The Spirit of Bondage and Adoption largely and practically handled,” ibid. 1655, 8vo, with a sermon and tract added. 7. “Anew version of the Psalms of David,” 1668, 8vo. 8. “Two Dialogues concerning the practical use of Infant Baptism,” Lond. 1654 and 1656, 8vo. 9. “A short Catechism, ibid. 1657, 8vo. 10.” A plain and profitable exposition of, and enlargement upon, the Church Catechism,“ibid. 16S4, 1686, 8vo. 11.” A Discourse concerning God’s Judgments,“prefixed to” A just Narrative, or account of a man whose hands and legs rotted off, in the parish of King’s Swinford, in Staffordshire, where he died June 21, 1677,“ibid. 1678, 8vo. The narrative itself was written by James Illingworth, B. D. Dr. Ford published also several occasional sermons, and was one of the translators of” Plutarch’s Morals," published in 1684.

, was a Scottish historian, whose time and place of birth are uncertain. It is most generally agreed that he was a priest in the church of Fordun in 1377, because he dedicated his history of Scotland to cardinal Wardlaw, who at that time was bishop of Glasgow. The time of his death is equally obscure, but may with probability be conjectured to have been soon after he finished his “Scoti-chronicon.” In this history there are some traditions that seem not sufficiently authenticated, and many legendary tales, too gross for belief, yet some curious and valuable particulars are also contained in it; among which may be reckoned the oration of a highland bard, delivered at the coronation of Alexander III. in 1249, a piece peculiar in its kind. Every convent in Scotland, and some in England, transcribed copies of this history; and two editions of it have been printed; one by Hearne at Oxford, 1722, in 5 vols. 8vo; the other by Mr. Goodall at Edinburgh, in a single volume, folio. ms copies are to be found in great plenty in the Bodleian library, in the British Museum, and at Edinburgh.

, professor of philosophy in the Marischal college, Aberdeen, and author of several valuable works, was born in that city, in 1711, probably in March, as we find he was baptized on April 1. His father was an eminent merchant, who had a family of twenty children by his wife, a sister to Dr. Thomas Blackwell, of whom we have already given an account. This, their second son, after being educated at the grammar school of his native city, was entered of Marischal college in 1724, where he went through a course of philosophy under professor Daniel Garden, and of mathematics under Mr. John Stewart. He took his degree of M. A. in 1728, when he was but little more than seventeen years old. Being intended for the church, his next application was to the study of divinity, under the professor of that branch, Mr. James Chalmers, a man of great learning and piety, whom the editor of this Dictionary is proud to record as his grandfather. Mr. Fordyce studied divinity with great ardour, the utmost of his ambition being ordination in a church that affords her sons but a moderate emolument. Circumstances with which we are unacquainted, appear to have prevented his full intention, as he never became a settled minister in the establishment of his native country. He was admitted, however, to what may be termed the first degree of orders in the church of Scotland, that is, he was licensed to preach, and continued to preach occasionally for some time. He is said, indeed, to have been once domestic chaplain to John Hopkins, esq. of Bretons, near Rumford, in Essex, who had a regular service every Sunday in the chapel of the house; but there is reason to think he did not continue long in this situation, and that he returned home, as in Sept. 1742 he was appointed one of the professors of philosophy in the Marischal college. The duties of the philosophic professorship at that time included natural history, chronology, Greek and Roman antiquities, mechanics, optics, and astronomy, which were taught during three sessions, or years, to the same pupils. This system is now altered, but that My. Fordyce was well qualified for the above-mentioned laborious task was universally acknowledged.

When Dodsley formed the design of that useful book “The Preceptor, 11 Mr. Fordyce wa one of the ingenious men of whose assistance he availed himself, and who wrote the ninth division of the work, on moral philosophy, which attracted so much attention, that a separate publication was soon called for, and appeared in 1754 under the title of” The Elements of Moral Philosophy, 17 and has gone through various editions. It is undoubtedly one of the best compendiums of ethics that had then appeared, being both elegant and entertaining, as well as instructive. Previously to this, however, Mr. Fordyce had attracted some notice as an author, though without his name, in “Dialogues concerning Education,” the first volume of which was published in 1745, and the second in 1748. It is a work of very considerable merit, but somewhat tinged with the fopperies of the school of Shaftesbury, although entirely free from its more injurious notions. He Was engaged in other literary designs, and afforded the promise of rising to great eminence in the world, when he was cut off by a premature death. In 1750 he made a tour through France, Italy, and other countries, with a particular view to visit Rome, and was returning home in 1751, when he unhappily lost his life, in the forty-first year of his age, by a storm on the coast of Holland.

Early in 1752 was published, from a finished manuscript of our author, “Theodorus: a Dialogue concerning the art of Preaching,” 12mo, which is a work of considerable utility to young divines, and has been repeatedly printed along with his brother Dr. James Fordyce’s sermon on “The Eloquence of the Pulpit.” Mr. David Fordyce’s last production was left by him in an unfinished state, but not so incomplete as to be unworthy of publication. It was entitled “The Temple of Virtue, a Dream,” and was given to the world in 1757, by his brother James, who added to the descriptive part of the temple twelve characters that had a claim to a place in it, in the drawing of which several living characters were intended, particularly the late earl of Chatham. Mr. Fordyce left several other brothers, of whom the youngest, Alexander, attained an unhappy celebrity by his ruinous speculations as a banker, but James and William deserve some notice on a better account.

, D.D. a dissenting clergyman of considerable eminence, was born about 1720, in the city of Aberdeen, and was brother to the preceding David Fordyce. Having acquired the foundation of classical knowledge at the grammar school of his native place, and completed the usual course of study in philosophy and divinity at the Marischal college, Mr. Fordyce was licensed, when very young, according to the forms of the church of Scotland, and was settled soon after as one of the ministers of Brechin, in the county of Angus. He was removed from this, after some years, to the parish of Alloa near Stirling, where at first he had many prejudices to encounter; but the amiableness of his manners, his affectionate temper, and the assiduous discharge of his parochial duties, not only by preaching, but by visiting, catechizing, &c. his parishioners, as is the custom in Scotland, soon enabled him to overcome their dislike, and their attachment became so unbounded, that, when he afterwards left them to settle in London, his departure occasioned universal regret. During his residence at Alloa, he printed three occasional sermons, which attracted much notice; and he still farther increased his fame by publishing, in 1760, a sermon preached before the general assembly of the church of Scotland, “On the folly, infamy, and misery of Unlawful Pleasures.” The delivery of this sermon entitled him to rank among the most popular orators of his country, and the style and sentiments, when it came to be examined in the closet, claimed the admiration not only of general readers, but of the best judges. It struck also with all the force of novelty, for nothing of that kind had hitherto been heard from the pulpits of Scotland.

About this time he received the degree of D. D. from the university of Glasgow, and was invited by the society of protestant dissenters in Monkwell-street, London, to be co-pastor with Dr. Lawrence, then aged and infirm. This invitation he accepted, and upon Dr. Lawrence’s death, which happened soon after, he became sole pastor, and continued to discharge the duties of that office till 1782, when his health, which had long been declining, rendered it necessary to discontinue his public services. But during his ministry in this place he acquired a higher degree of popularity than probably ever was, or will be attained by the same means. It was the strong force of his eloquence, which drew men of all ranks and all persuasions to hear him. His action and elocution were original, and peculiarly striking, and not a little assisted by his figure, which was tali beyond the common standard, and by a set of features which in preaching displayed great variety of expression and animation. Besides his regular attendants who subscribed to his support, his meeting was frequented by men curious in eloquence; and it is said that the celebrated David Garrick was more than once a hearer, and spoke of Dr. Fordyce’s skill in oratory with great approbation. With respect to his theological sentiments, he appears to have possessed that general liberality which is civil to all systems, without being attached to any. From his printed works, it would be easier to prove that he belonged to no sect, than that he held the principles of any. As to the matter, morality appears to have been his chief object; and as to the manner, he evidently studied a polish and a spirit which is seldom met with in English pulpits, although it has not been unusual in those of France. In private life his piety was so conspicuous as to be universally acknowledged, and there was a fervour in his language and expression when he conversed on religious subjects of the general kind, which procured him the highest respect. During the prosperity of his brother, the banker, whose failure has made the name memorable in the annals of bankruptcy, he had probably access to much company of the upper ranks; and it is certain, that from this, or from a disposition naturally graceful, his manners were peculiarly elegant and courtly.

After he had been some years at Monkwell-street he had an assistant, Mr. Toller, but an unhappy dispute, aggravated by contradiction, and perhaps obstinacy on both sides, separated them, and very much thinned Dr. Fordyce’s congregation. Towards his latter years, his sermons were poorly attended, and the public appeared to have been fully gratified with the past displays of his oratory; so uncertain is the popularity that depends principally on curiosity and fashion. After resigning the pastoral care of the society in Monkwell-street, he lived the greater part of his remaining years at a retirement in Hampshire, in the neighbourhood of lord Bute, with whom he lived in great intimacy, and to whose valuable library he had free access. Soon after the death of his brother, sir William Fordyce, M.D. he removed to Bath, where, after suffering much from an asthmatic complaint, to which he had been subject many years, he departed this life Oct. 1, 1796, in his 76th year.

His printed works were, besides the occasional sermons already mentioned, “Sermons to Young Women,” 1765, 2 vols. 12mo, “Addresses to Young Men,” 1777, 2 vols. 12mo. “Addresses to the Deity,” 1785, 12mo. A volume of “Poems,” 1786; and some sermons, the most valuable of which is “A charge at the ordination of the rev. James Lindsay,” his successor in Monkwell-street, to whose eloquent and affectionate discourse on his funeral, we are indebted for the principal part of this account. He printed also when at Bath, “A Discourse on Pain,” 1791 remarkable for a certain cure for the cramp, which we dare not transcribe, but of which the original thought seems to be borrowed from Beaumont and Fletcher’s Knight of the burning Pestle, Act 3. Of these works his “Sermons to young Women” were once in high esteem. The novelty of the title, and of the subjects, as coming from the pulpit, made them universally read; but neither in them, nor in the greater part of his other works, do we discover talents that are more than superficial. He was perhaps the first of sentimental preachers, but we question whether that pre-eminence be enviable. He drew largely on his imagination, and by striking allusions, and graceful turns of expression, produced all that eloquence can produce when it is not addressed to the judgment, a temporary persuasion. But he made no additions to our stock of theological knowledge, and, although he appealed in a general way, to the fundamental articles of the Christian belief, he illustrated none of its doctrines. His chief aim in truth seems to have been to refine and polish the language of devotion, and in this it must be confessed he has eminently succeeded.

, another brother of the preceding, was born in 1724, and educated in the Marischal college, Aberdeen, of which he died rector magnijicus, or lord rector, an office of great dignity in the Scotch universities, and to which he bequeathed a legacy of \000l. At the age of eighteen, he had completed the usual course of academical studies, and had distinguished himself for his proficiency in Greek and mathematics. He had also studied physic and surgery under an able practitioner, and then joined the army as a volunteer, and afterwards served as surgeon to the brigade of guards on the coast of France, and in all the wars of Germany, and some part of that time, if we mistake not, under sir John Pringle. The warm support of his military friends, and of some persons of high rank to whom he had been serviceable, concurred with his own merit and address in recommending him to very extensive practice in London. His publications, likewise, added considerably to his fame: and he was sent for to greater distances, and received larger sums, than almost any physician of his time. By these means he might have acquired an immense fortune, had he not been a very great sufterer by the bankruptcy of his brother Alexander, and had he not proved himself a man of most unbounded liberality to his family and friends, and a generous patron to many of his young countrymen, who were, from time to time, recommended to his good offices. His address had much of the courtly manner of past times, and his conversation, while unassuming, was replete with elegant anecdote and solid information. His practice lay much among persons of rank, whose manners became familiar to him. Few men died more generally lamented by a very extensive circle of friends. Although originally of a delicate constitution, by temperance and exercise he preserved his health for many years, but suffered at last a long and severe illness, which ended in his death, Dec. 4, 1792, at his house in Brook-street, Grosvenor-square. His first publication was “A Treatise on the Venereal Disease,” which was followed, some years after, by another on “Fevers,” and a third on “The ulcerated Sore Throat.” In all these, except perhaps the first, he gave the result of long practice and judicious observation. Just before his death he published "The great importance and proper method of cultivating and curing Rhubarb in Britain, for medicinal uses/* 1792, 8vo. For his successful attempts to cultivate this valuable medicine, the importation of which at that time cost the nation annually 200,000l. the society for the encouragement of arts unanimously voted him a gold medal. Sir William was a fellow of the royal society, and received the honour of knighthood from his majesty about 1787.

, another eminent physician, nephew to the preceding, was born in Aberdeen, November 18, 1736, and was the only and posthumous child of Mr. George Fordyce, the proprietor of a small landed estate, called Broadford, in the neighbourhood of that city. His mother, not long after, marrying again, he was taken from her when about two years old, and sent to Fovran, at which place he received his school-education. He was removed thence to the university of Aberdeen, where, it is said, he was made M. A. when only fourteen years of age, but this we much doubt. In his childhood he had taken great delight in looking at phials of coloured liquors, which were placed at the windows of an apothecary’s shop. To this circumstance, and to his acquaintance with the late learned Alexander Garden, M. D. F. R. S. many years a physician in South Carolina, and in this city, but then apprentice to a surgeon and apothecary in Aberdeen, he used to attribute the resolution he very early formed to study medicine. He was in consequence sent, when about fifteen years old, to his uncle, Dr. John Fordyce, who at that time practised medicine at Uppingham, in Northamptonshire. With him he remained several years, and then went to the university of Edinburgh, where, after a residence of about three years, he received the degree of M. D. in October 1758. His inaugural dissertation was upon catarrh. While at Edinburgh, Dr. Cullen was so much pleased with his diligence and ingenuity, that, besides shewing him manyother marks of regard, he used frequently to give him private assistance in his studies. The pupil was ever after grateful for this kindness, and was accustomed to speak of his preceptor in terms of the highest respect, calling him often “his learned and revered master.” About the end of 1758 he came to London, but went shortly after to Leyden, for the purpose, chiefly, of studying anatomy under Albinus. He returned in 1759 to London, where he soou determined to fix himself as a teacher and practitioner of medicine. When he made known this intention to his relations, they highly disapproved of it, as the whole of his patrimony had been expended upon his education. Inspired, however, with that confidence which frequently attends the conscious possession of great talents, he persisted in his purpose, and, before the end of 1759, commenced a course of lectures upon chemistry. This was attended by nine pupils. In 1764 he began to lecture also upon materia medica and the practice of physic. These three subjects he continued to teach nearly thirty years, giving, for the most part, three courses of lectures on each of them every year. A course lasted nearly four months; and, during it, a lecture of nearly an hour was delivered six times in the week. His time of teaching commenced about 7 o'clock in the morning, and ended at 10; his lectures upon the three above-mentioned subjects being given one immediately after the other. In 1765 he was admitted a licentiate of the college of physicians. In 1770 he was chosen physician to St. Thomas’s hospital, after a considerable contest; the number of votes in his favour being 109, in that of his antagonist, Dr. Watson, 106. In 1774 he became a member of Dr. Johnson’s, or the literary club and in 1776 was elected a fellow of the royal society. In 1787 he was admitted a fellow of the college of physicians. No circumstance can demonstrate more strongly the high opinion entertained of his abilities by the rest of his profession in London, than his reception into that body. He had been particularly active in the dispute, which had existed about twenty years before, between the fellows and licentiates, and had, for this reason, it was thought, forfeited all title to be admitted into the fellowship through favour. But the college, in 1787, were preparing a new edition of their Pharmacopoeia; and Knowing his talents in the branch of pharmaceutical chemistry, suppressed their resentment of his former conduct, and, by admitting him into their body, secured his assistance in the work. In 1793 he assisted in forming a small society of physicians and surgeons, which has since published two volumes, under the title of “Medical and Chirurgical Transactions;” and continued to attend its meetings most punctually till within a month or two of his death. Having thus mentioned some of the principal events of his literary life, we shall next give a list of his various medical and philosophical works; and first of those which were published by himself, 1. “Elements of Agriculture and Vegetation.” He had given a course of lectures on these subjects to some young men of rank; soon after, the close of which, one of his hearers, the late Mr. Stuart Mackenzie, presented him with a copy of them, from uotes he had taken while they were delivered. Dr. Fordyce corrected the copy, and afterwards published it under the above-mentioned title. 2. “Elements of the Practice of Physick.” This was used by him as a text-book for a part of his course of lectures on that subject. 3. “A Treatise on the Digestion of Food.” It was originally read before the college of physicians, as the Gulstonian lecture. 4. “Four Dissertations on Fever.” A fifth, which completes the subject, was left by him in manuscript, and has since been published. His other works appeared in the Philosophical Transactions, and the Medical and Chirurgical Transactions. In the former are eight papers by him, with the following titles: 1. Of the light produced by inflammation. 2. Examination of various ores in the museum of Dr. W. Hunter. 3. A new method of assaying copper ores. 4. An account of some experiments on the loss of weight in bodies on being melted or heated. 5. An account of an experiment on heat. 6. The Cronian lecture on muscular motion. 7. On the cause of the additional weight which metals acquire on being calcined, &c. Account of a new pendulum, being the Bakerian lecture. His papers in the Medical and Chirurgical Transactions are, 1. Observations on the small-pox, and causes of fever. 2. An attempt to improve the evidence of medicine. 3. Some observations upon the composition of medicines. He was, besides, the inventor of the experiments in heated rooms, an account of which was given to the royal society by the present sir Charles Blagden; and was the author of many improvements in various arts connected with chemistry, on which he used frequently to be consulted by manufacturers. Though he had projected various literary works in addition to those which have been mentioned, nothing has been left by him in manuscript, except the dissertation on fever already spoken of; and two introductory lectures, one to his course of materia medica, the other to that of the practice of physic. This will not apear extraordinary to those who knew what confidence he ad in the accuracy of his memory. He gave all his lectures without notes, and perhaps never possessed any; he took no memorandum in writing of the engagements he formed, whether of business or pleasure, and was always most punctual in observing them; and when he composed his works for the publick, even such as describe successions of events found together, as far as we can perceive, by no necessary tie, his materials, such at least as were his own, were altogether drawn from stores in his memory, which had often been laid up there many years before. In consequence of this retentiveness of memory, and of great reading and a most inventive mind, he was, perhaps, more generally skilled in the sciences, which are either directly subservient to medicine, or remotely connected with it, than any other person of his time. One fault, however, in his character as an author, probably arose, either wholly or in part, from the very excellence which has been mentioned. This was his deficiency in the art of literary composition; the knowledge of which he might have insensibly acquired to a much greater degree than was possessed by him, had he felt the necessity in his youth of frequently committing his thoughts to writing, for the purpose of preserving them. But, whether this be just or not, it must be confessed, that notwithstanding his great learning, which embraced many subjects no way allied to medicine, he seldom wrote elegantly, often obscurely and inaccurately; and that he frequently erred with respect even to orthography. His language, however, in conversation, which confirms the preceding conjecture, was not less correct than that of most other persons of good education. As a lecturer, his delivery was slow and hesitating, and frequently interrupted by pauses not required by his subject. Sometimes, indeed, these continued so long, that persons unaccustomed to his manner, were apt to fear that he was embarrassed. But these disadvantages did not prevent his having a considerable number of pupils, actuated by the expectation of receiving from him more full and accurate instruction than they could elsewhere obtain. His person is said to have been handsome in his youth; but his countenance, from its fulness, must have been always inexpressive of the great powers of his mind. His manners too, were less refined, and his dress in general less studied, than is usually regarded as becoming the physician in this country. From these causes, and from his spending a short time with his patients, although sufficient to enable him to form a just opinion of their disorders, he had for many years but little private employment in his profession; and never, even in the latter part of his life, when his reputation was at its height, enjoyed nearly so much as many of his contemporaries. This may have partly resulted too, from his fondness for the pleasures of society, to which he often sacrificed the hours that should have been dedicated to sleep; he has frequently indeed, been known in his younger days, to lecture for three hours in a morning, without having undressed himself the preceding night. The vigour of his constitution enabled him to sustain for a considerable time, without apparent injury, this debilitating mode of life; but at length he was attacked with the gout, which afterwards became irregular, and for many years frequently affected him with excruciating pains in his stomach and bowels; in the latter part of his life, also, his feet and ankles were almost constantly swollen, and a little time before his death he had symptoms of water in the chest. To the first mentioned disease (gout), he uniformly attributed his situation, which, for several weeks previous to his dissolution, he knew to be hopeless. This event took place at his house in Essex-­street, May 25, 1802.

, a learned Portuguese ecclesiastic, was born at Lisbon in 1523, and entered among the Dominicans in February 1539. Having acquired a critical knowledge of the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew languages, king John III. sent him to study theology in the university of Paris, where he became distinguished for his proficiency. On his return to Lisbon the king appointed him his preacher, and prince Louis at the same time entrusted to him the education of his son. Of all the divines sent by king Sebastian to the council of Trent in 1561, he held the first place in respect of talents. It is said that one day when he was about to ascend the pulpit, he asked the fathers of the council, who were his auditors, in what language they would wish to hear him preach, such facility he had in all the modern languages. In consideration of his uncommon merit these fathers appointed him a member of that celebrated council of Feb. 26, 1562. He was also appointed secretary to the committee for examining and condemning such publications as they thought unfit to be disseminated, and this office was ever after given to a monk of his order. The fathers of the council afterwards sent him on an important mission to pope Pius IV. who discovering his talents, and knowing his integrity, conferred upon him the place of confessor to his nephew, the cardinal St. Charles Borromeo. At Rome he was also employed to reform the Breviary and the Roman Missal, and to compose the Roman catechism. This detained him at Rome for some time; but having at length returned to Portugal, he was chosen prior of the Dominican convent at Lisbon in 1568. His other offices were those of confessor to king John III. and the princess Mary, daughter of king Emanuel, qualificator of the inquisition, and deputy of the tribunal of conscience, and of the military orders. From the profits of these places he built the convent of St. Paul in the village of Almada, opposite Lisbon, and there he died, Feb. 10, 1581. He published an oration at the council of Trent, and the catechism and breviary mentioned above; but his principal work was a commentary of Isaiah, “Isaiae prophetae vetus et nova ex Hebraico versio, cum commentario, &c.” Venice, 163, fol. This is a very rare edition; but the work was afterwards added to the London edition of the “Critici Sacri,”

, perhaps better known by the name of Philip of Bergamo, was born at Soldio, an estate belonging to his family near Bergamo, in 1434. He was of the order of Augustines, and was famous in his time as an historian, which he did not much deserve. He published a chronicle from Adam to 1503, which, except in those events that fell under his own knowledge, is a tasteless compilation from the most credulous authors. It was first published by him in 1482, and a fourth edition in 1505. He died June 15, 1520. There is also extant by him a “Confessional, or Interrogatorium,” printed at Venice, in 1487, folio, and “A Treatise of illustrious Women,” in Latin, published at Ferrara, in 1497, folio.

, or Peter Van Foueest, an eminent physician, was born at Alcmaer in 1522. He was sent by his father to Louvain, in order to study with a view to the profession of the law; but, preferring that of medicine, cultivated it in the universities of Bologna, Padua, and Rome; at the former of which he graduated, and afterwards proceeded to complete his studies at Paris. He settled, at the request of his friends, in his native town; but at the end of twelve years removed to Delft, in consequence of a petition from the inhabitants of that place, which was at that time ravaged by a fatal contagious epidemic. Forestus in obeying the call of humanity, not only preserved his own health, but was so successful in his administration of remedies to others, that the town of Delft retained him in the capacity of physician, with a considerable pension, for nearly thirty years; after which he was invited to Leyden, to give the first lectures on medicine at the opening of the university in 1575. He afterwards returned to Delft, and resided there about ten years more, when his attachment to his native city impelled him to visit Alcmaer, where he terminated his life in 1597, in the seventy-fifth year of his age.

Forestus (for by his Latin name he is best known), was one of the most expert physicians of his time: he was extremely industrious, and his principal views were directed to the observation of diseases, in which he manifested, in numerous instances, a considerable degree of penetration and judgment. Mailer, indeed, has thrown out some suspicions against the histories of djsease which he has detailed; and apprehends that he was occasionally more anxious to prove the justness of his“prognostics, and the felicity of his cures, than to relate a true account of the symptoms: but Boerhaave has praised him highly for the care and attention which he has evinced in the collection of so large a number of histories of disease. The following are the titles of his works: 1.” Observationum et Curationum Medicinalium sive Medicinae Theories et Practicae, libri 28,“Francofurti, 1602, 2 vols. folio. 2. A third volume of the same work in 1604; and 3. A fourth volume, consisting of the 30th, 31st, and 32d books in 1607. 4. In 1610 a fifth volume was printed under the title of” Observationum et Curationum Chirurgicarum, libri quinque. Accesserunt de incerto ac fallaci Urinarum judicio adversus Uromentas et Uroscopos, libri tres“in which the fallacy and absurdity of the pretensions of the uroscopists are clearly pointed out. 5. A sixth and last volume of these treatises was published at Francfort in 1611, with the title of” Observationum et Curationum Chirurgicarum libri quatuor posterius," folio. All these books of observations were printed separately at Leyden, between 1589 and 1610, in 8vo. The three books relative to the urine, in 1583. Complete collections of the works of Forestus have been subsequently published at various times and places.

, a Prussian writer of various talents, originally of a French refugee family, was born at Berlin in 17 1L He was educated at the royal French college for the church, and being ordained in his twentieth year, he was chosen one of the officiating ministers of the French congregation in Berlin. In 1737 he was appointed professor of eloquence in the French college, and in 1739 succeeded to the philosophical chair of the same college. On the restoration of the royal academy of sciences and belles lettres at Berlin in 1744, M. Formey was made secretary to the philosophical class, and four years afterwards sole and perpetual secretary of -the academy. His talents and fame procured him admission into many foreign learned bodies, as those of London, Petersburg, Haarlem, Mantua, Bologna, and many others in Germany, and he was personally acquainted with several of the most eminent and illustrious characters throughout Europe. Besides his academical employments, he rttas agent or secretary to the dowager princess of Wirtemberg: he filled several offices in the French colony at Berlin, and at length became a privy counsellor in its superior directory. He was twice married, and by his second wife had many children, seven of whom survived him. He died in the month of March 1797, at the great age of eighty-five years and eight months. In Thiebault’s “Anecdotes of Frederic II.” there are some of Formey, by which it would appear that he was apt to be very unguarded, and almost licentious in conversation, but often procured his pardon by the ingenuity of his excuses. His publications were extremely numerous, but we have nowhere seen a complete list. The following, however, probably includes the principal: 1. “Articles des Pacte Conventa, dresses et conclus entre les etats de Pologne et le roi Frederic-Auguste,” 1733, 4to, translated from the Latin. About this time he was concerned in the publication of several political pieces on the affairs of Poland. 2. “Le fidele fortifie par la grace,” a sermon, Berlin, 1736. 3. “Ducatianaj ou remarques de feu M. leDuchat, &c.” Amst. 2 vols. 8vo. 4. “Bibliotheque Germanique;” in this journal he wrote from vol. XXVII. The lives of Duchat, Beausobre, Baratier, &c. are from his pen. 5. “Mercure et Minerve% ou choix de nouvelles, &c.” another periodical work, begun in Dec. 1737, and concluded in March 1738. C. “Amusemens litteraires, moraux, et politiques,” a continuation of the preceding, as far as July of the last mentioned year. 7. “Correspondence entre deux amis sur la succession de Juliers et de Bergues,” Hague, 1738. 8. “Sermons sur le mystere de la naissance de Jesus Christ,” from the German of lleinbeck, Berlin, 1738. 9. “Sermons sur divers textes de Tecriture sainte,” ibid. 1739, 8vo. 10. “Remarques historiques sur les medaille* et monnoies,” ibid. 1740, 4to, from the German of Koehler. II.“Journal de Berlin,” 1740, of which he edited the last six months of that year. 12. “La Belle Wolfienne,” 1741, 8vo. Formey had adopted the philosophy of Leibnitz, as explained by Wolf, and in this publication endeavoured, but without success, to render their principles familiar to the ladies. 13. “Memoires pour servir a Tbistoire de Pologae,” Hague, 1741, 8vo, from the Latin of Lengnich. 14. “La yie de Jean-Philippe Baratier,” Berlin, ifo. 15. ‘ Le iriomphe de i’evidence, ou refnta.­tion du Pyrrhonisme ancien et moderne,“2 vols. 8vo, an abridgment from Crousaz. 16.” Traite sur la reformation de la justice en Rrusse,“to which is added a treatise on dreams. 17.” Eloges des academicians de Berlin et de divers autres savans,“Berlin, 1757, 2 vols. 12mo. 18.” Principes du droit naturel et des gens,“Amst. 3 vols. 12mo, from Wolff’s Latin work. 19.” Conseils pour former une bibliotheque,“Francfort, 1746, of which the sixth edition appeared in 1775, 8vo. 20.” Le systeme du vrai bonheur,“1761. 21.” Melanges philosophiques,“Leyden, 1754, 2 vols. 12mo, translated afterwards into English. 22.” La comtesse Suedoise,“Berlin, 1754, 8vo, from the German of Gellert. 23.” Examen philosophique de la liaison reelle entre les sciences et les mceurs,“1755, 8vo. 24.” L'Abeille du Parnasse,“1750 1754, 10 vois. 8vo. 25.” Le Philosophe Paien, ou pensees de Pline, avec un commentaire literal et moral,“Leyden, 3 vols. 12mo. 26.” Principes elementaires des Belles Lettres,“Berlin, 1759. 27.” Diversite’s historiques,“1764, 8vo f from ^lian, with notes. 28.” Abrege de toutes les sciences a Tusage des adolescens,“Berlin, 1764—1778, 8 vols. 12mo. 9-9.” Introduction generate aux sciences, avec des conseils pour former un bibliotheque choisie,“Amst. 1764. 30.” Discours de Gellert sur la morale,“Berlin, 1766. 31.” Traduction Franchise de l'Histoire des Protestans,“by Hansen, Halle, 1767. Some of these have been published in English, particularly his small work on the belles lettres, and another not noticed above,” Histoire abrege*e de la Philosophic," which we can remember a very popular book in this country. Formey, indeed, if not one of the most profound, was one of the most pleasing of writers, and all his works were calculated by clearness and precision of style for popular reading. He deserves credit also as one of the defenders of revelation against Diderot and Rousseau; and for this reason Voltaire endeavoured to prejudice the king of Prussia against him. Besides the extensive labours we have enumerated, and the list is by no means complete, Formey wrote many articles in the French Encyclopaedia, and in that of Yverdun. His correspondence with literary men was most extensive, and almost all the booksellers on the continent occasionally engaged his services as an editor.

, a celebrated astrologer, was born at Quidham, near Wilton, in Wiltshire, Dec. 30, 1552, of a good family, being the grandson of sir Thomas Forman, of Leeds, and great grandson of another sir Thomas Forman. As an introduction to his astrological history, we are told that, at six years old and after, he was much troubled “with strong dreams and visions.” His education at Salisbury was of a very humble kind, his master being only able to teach him English, and something of the accidence. From him he was sent to the free school at Salisbury, where he continued two years. His next preceptor was one Minterne, a prebendary of the cathedral, of whom we are only informed that he used to carry his wood from place to place in winter to warm himself, and made Simon do the same, “so gaining heat without fire.” In 1563 Ford’s father died, a very unfortunate event, for his mother not caring for him, made him keep sheep, and plow, and pick up sticks. At the age of fourteen, however, he became apprentice to a dealer in grocery and drugs at Salisbury, and acquired some knowlege of the latter, which he endeavoured to improve by books, but his master would not let him read. Yet such was his avidity to learn, that his master having a young boarder in the house who wept to school at Salisbury, Ford learned of him what he had been taught in school, although that was. but little. ~At length, in consequence of a quarrel with his master’s wife, he obtained leave to quit his service, and went again to school for about eight weeks, applying very diligently to his books until his “illnatured and clownish mother” refused to maintain him. At length, when in his eighteenth year, he became schoolmaster at the priory of St. Giles’s, and by teaching thirty boys for half a year, scraped together forty shillings. With this, accompanied by an old schoolfellow, he travelled on foot to Oxford, and became a poor scholar of Magdalen college, being partly maintained by a bachelor of arts; but this person employed him in so many menial employments during his college frolics, that he left the university after two years’ residence.

Hitherto we have seen onjy the laudable efforts of a young man to overcome the difficulties of adverse fortune. In what follows he is less entitled to respect. He now applied himself to the study of physic and astrology, and after having travelled to Holland for that purpose, set up in Philpot-lane, London, where his practice being opposed by the physicians, and himself four times fined and imprisoned, he went to study at Cambridge, where he took a doctor’s degree, and a licence to practise; and settling at Lambeth, openly professed the joint occupation of physician and astrologer. “Here he lived,” says Lilly, “with good respect of the neighbourhood, being very charitable to the poor, and was very judicious and fortunate in horary questions and sicknesses.” His charity to the poor, however, was not wholly disinterested. Quacks of this description are generally well repaid for their charity by the good report of the poor, wh.o are illiterate and credulous. In 1601 a complaint was made to Whitgift, archbishop of Canterbury, against him for deluding the people, but it does not appear what steps were taken against him. In the mean time he was much resorted to by all ranks of people; among others the famous, or rather infamous, countess of Essex, applied to him for his assistance in her wicked designs, as appeared by the trials of that lady and of Mrs. Anne Turner, for the murder of sir Thomas Overbury. He died suddenly in a boat on the Thames, Sept. 12, 1611, and if we may believe Lilly, predicted his death on that day. He wrote a great many books, on the philosopher’s stone, magic, astronomy, natural history, and natural philosophy, two treatises on the plague, and some religious tracts, of which Anthony Wood has given a catalogue from the Ashmolean museum, where his Mss. were deposited, but it seems doubtful whether any of them were printed. There are also some of his Mss. on astrology in the British Museum. He was a man of considerable learning in all the above sciences, as they were then understood, but seems to have been either an egregious dupe, or unprincipled impostor, in the use he made of his knowledge.

, a learned Swedish naturalist, was born in 1736, and studied first at Gottingen, and afterwards at Upsal, where he became a pupil of Linnæus. In 1761 he was sent, at the expence of the king of Denmark, to investigate the natural productions of the East, in company with the celebrated Niebuhr, and, unhappily too soon for the interests of science, died at Jerim in Arabia, July 11, 1763, aged thirty-one. His notes and descriptions, rich in information respecting the natural history of Egypt and Arabia, but not corrected by references to other authors, as they would have been by himself for the press, were published in three quarto volumes, under the direction of his fellow-traveller, at Copenhagen in 1775.

, an eminent protestant divine, born 1495, at Augsburg, was among the friends of Reuchelinus, Melanchton, and Luther, and taught Hebrew with reputation at Wittemberg, where he died December 8, 1556, leaving an excellent “Hebrew Dictionary,” Basil, 1564, fol. He must be, however, distinguished from another John Forster, a German divine, who died 1613, author of “De Interpretatione Scripturarum,” Wittemberg, 1608, 4to and “Commentaries on Exodus, Isaiah, and Jeremiah,” 3 vols. 4to and from Valentine Forster, who published a “History of the Law,” in Latin, with the “Lives of the most eminent Lawyers,” to 1580, the time in which he wrote.

, an eminent naturalist, was the son of a burgomaster at Dirschaw, in Polish Prussia, where he was born Oct. 22, 1729. We learn nothing of his education until his fifteenth year, when he was admitted into the gymnasium of Joachimsthal at Berlin, where his application to the study of ancient and modern languages was incessant and successful. From 1748, when he went to the university of Halle, he studied theology, and continued his application to the learned languages, among which he comprehended the Oriental, and after three years he removed to Dantzic, and distinguished himself as a preacher, imitating the French rather than the Dutch manner; and in 1753 he obtained a settlement at Nassenhuben. In the following year he married his cousin, Elizabeth Nikolai. During his residence in this place he employed his leisure hours in the study of philosophy, geography, and the mathematics, still improving his acquaintance with the ancient and modern languages. With a small income, and increasing family, the difficulties he experienced induced him to accept the proposal of removing to Russia, in order to superintend the new colonies at Saratow, but not succeeding in this or any other scheme of a settlement in that country, he removed to London in 1766, with strong recommendations, but with very little money. After his arrival, he received from the government of Russia a present of 100 guineas; and he also made an addition to his stock by the translation of Kalm’s Travels and Osbeck’s Voyage. At this time lord Baltimore proposed to him a settlement in America, as superintendant of his extensive property in that country; but he preferred the place of teacher of the French, German, and natural history in the dissenting academy at Warrington. For the first department he was by no means well qualified, his extraordinary knowledge of languages being unaccompanied by a particle of taste, and his use of them being barbarous, though fluent; and his knowledge of natural history was of little value in his academical department. This situation, however, for these or other reasons which we never heard assigned, he soon abandoned; and returning to London, he was engaged, in 1772, to accompany captain Cook, as a naturalist, in his second voyage round the world. At this time he was forty-three years of age, and his son George, who went with him, was seventeen. Upon his return to England in 1775, the university of Oxford conferred upon him the degree of LL. D. At this time he was projecting, with the assistance of his son, a botanical work in Latin, containing the characters of many new genera of plants, which they had discovered in the course of their voyage. An account of the voyage having been published by his son in English and German, the father was supposed to have had a considerable share in it; and as he had entered into an engagement not to publish any thing separately from the authorized narrative, he thus incurred the displeasure of government, and gave offence to his friends. Independently of the violation of his engagement, he was also chargeable with having introduced into his work several reflections on the government which appointed, and some falsehoods respecting the navigators who conducted the expedition. The father and son, finding that, in consequence of these circumstances, their situation in London was become unpleasant, determined to quit EnglaiYd. Before the execution of their purpose, their condition became embarrassed and distressing; but Mr. Forster was invited, in 1780, to be professor of natural history at Halle, and inspector of the botanical garden and in the following year he obtained the degree of M. D. His health, however, began to decline and the death of his son George so deeply impressed his mind as to aggravate his other complaints. Towards the commencement of 1798, his case became desperate; and before the close of this year, viz. on the 9th of December, he died. Mr. Forster’s disposition was most unamiable, and extremely irritable and litigious; and his want of prudence involved him in perpetual difficulties. Yet these seem to have all been virtues in the eyes of the celebrated Kurt Sprengel of Halle, who thus embellishes his character, which we should not copy if it did not mention some particulars of his studies and works: “To a knowledge of books in all branches of science, seldom to be met with, he joined an uncommon fund of practical observations, of which he well knew how to avail himself. In natural history, in geography, both physical and moral, and in universal history, he was acquainted with a vast number of facts, of which he who draws his information from works only has not even a distant idea. This assertion is proved in the most striking manner by his ‘ Observations made in a Voyage round the World.’ Of this book it may be said, that no traveller ever gathered so rich a treasure on his tour. What person of any education can read and study this work, which is unparalleled in its kind, without discovering in it that species of instructive and pleasing information which most interests man, as such The uncommon pains which Forster took in his literary compositions, and his conscientious accuracy in historical disquisitions, are best evinced by his * History of Voyages and Discoveries in the North, 7 and likewise by his excellent archaeological dissertation ‘ On the Byssus of the Ancients.’ Researches such as these were his favourite employment, in which he was greatly assisted by his intimate acquaintance with the classics. Forster had a predilection for the sublime in natural history, and aimed at general views ratUer than detail. His favourite author, therefore, was Buffon, whom he used to recommend as a pattern of style, especially in his ‘ Epoques de la Nature,’ his description of the horse, camel, &c. He had enjoyed the friendship of that distinguished naturalist; and he likewise kept up an uninterrupted epistolary intercourse with Linna3us, till the death of the latter. Without being a stickler for the forms and ceremonies of any particular persuasion, he adored the eternal Author of all which exists in the great temple of nature, and venerated his wisdom and goodness with an ardour and a heart-felt conviction, that, in my opinion, alone constitute the criterion of true religion. He held in utter contempt aM those who, to gratify their passions, or imitate the prevailing fashion, made a jest of the most sacred and respectable feelings of mankind. His moral feelings were equally animated: he was attracted with irresistible force by whatever was true, good, or excellent. Great characters inspired him with an esteem which he sometimes expressed with incredible ardour.”

His other works, besides those above mentioned, are chiefly compilations and translations. He also communicated several papers to the royal society, the academy of sciences at Stockholm, the imperial academy of sciences at Petersburgh, and other learned societies which appear in their respective Transactions and Memoirs.

, son of the preceding, was born at Dantzic in 1754, and accompanied his father to England when he was about twelve years of age. At Warrington, where he studied for some time, he acquired a perfect use of the English tongue; and possessing a retentive memory and fertile imagination, he distinguished himself by his various literary and scientific attainments. We have already mentioned that he accompanied his father in the circumnavigation of the globe; and on leaving England, after their return, he wished to settle at Paris. After a temporary residence in that city, he removed, in 1779, to Cassel, and undertook the office of professor of natural history in the university of that place. But soon after, the senate of Poland having offered him a chair in the university of Wilna, Forster accepted of the invitation. But, although this office was very lucrative, he accepted of the propositions of Catherine II. empress of Russia, who, jealous of every species of glory, wished to signalize her reign, by procuring to the Russian nation the honour of undertaking, after the example of England and France, a new voyage of discovery round the world. Unfortunately for the progress of knowledge, the war with the Ottoman Porte occasioned the miscarriage of this useful project, but Forster could not long remain in obscurity. The different publications, with which he occasionally enriched natural history and literature, increased his reputation. The elector of Mentz accordingly appointed him president of the university of the same name; and he was discharging the functions of his new office when the French troops took possession of the capital. This philosophical traveller, who had studied society under all the various aspects arising from different degrees of civilization who had viewed man simple and happy at Otaheite an eater of human flesh in New Zealand corrupted by commerce in England; depraved in France by luxury and atheism; in Brabant by superstition, and in Poland by anarchy: beheld with wild enthusiasm the dawnings of the French revolution, and was the first to promulgate republicanism in Germany.

The Mayencois, who had formed themselves into a national convention, sent him to Paris, in order to solicit their re-union with the French republic. But, in the course of his mission, the city of Mentz was besieged and retaken by the Prussian troops. This event occasioned the loss of all his property; and what was still more disastrous, that of his numerous manuscripts, which fell into the hands of the prince of Prussia. One Charles Pougens, who has written his life, after conducting our hero through these scenes of public life, proceeds to give us a view of his domestic habits and private principles. He tells us, that he formed a connexion (whether a njarriage or not, the studied ambiguity of his language leaves rather uncertain) with a young woman named Theresa Hayne, who, by, the illumination of French philosophy, had divested herself of all the prejudices which, we trust, the ladies of this country still consider as their honour, as they are certainly the guardians of domestic peace. Miss Hayne was indignant at the very name of duty. With Eloisa, she had taken it into her head, that

Love, free as air, at sight of human ties, Spreads his light wings, and in a moment dies.

She was frank enough, however, says our author, to acknowledge the errors of her imagination; and from this expression, and his calling her Forster’s wife, we are led to suppose that she was actually married to him. But their union, of whatever kind, was of short duration. Though the lady is said to have been passionately attached to celebrated names, the name of George Forster was not sufficient to satisfy her. He soon ceased, we are informed, to please her; she therefore transferred her affections to another; and, as was very natural for a woman who was indignant at the name of duty, she proved false to her husband’s bed. Forster, however, pretended to be such a friend to the modern rights of men and women, that he defended the character of his Theresa against crowds who condemned her conduct. Nay, we are told, that he considered himself and every other husband who ceases to please, as the “adulterer of nature.” He therefore laboured strenuously to obtain a divorce, to enable Theresa Hayne to espouse the man whom she preferred to himself. Strange, however, to tell, the prejudices even 'of this cosmopolite were too strong for his principles. While he was endeavouring to procure the divorce, he made preparations at the same time, by the study of the Oriental languages, to undertake a journey to Thibet and Indostan, in order to remove from that part of the world, in which both his heart and his person had experienced so severe a shock. But the chagrin occasioned by his iniffortunea, joined to a scorbutic affection, to which he had been long subject, and which he had contracted at sea during the voyage of circumnavigation, abridged his life, and prevented him from realizing this double project. He died at Paris, at the age of thirty -nine, on the 15th of February, 1792.

This is a strange tale; but we trust it will not prove useless. The latter part of it, at least, shows, that when men divest themselves of the principles of religion, they soon degenerate from the dignity of philosophers to the level of mere sensualists; and that the woman who can, in defiance of decorum and honour, transfer her affections and her person from man to man, ranks no higher in the scale of being than a female brute of more than common sagacity. It shows, likewise, that the contempt of our modern sages for those partial attachments, which unite individuals in one family, is a mere pretence that the dictates of nature will be heard and the laws of nature’s God obeyed. George Forster, though he was such a zealous advocate for liberty and equality as to vindicate the adultery of his wife, yet felt so sensibly the wound which her infidelity inflicted on his honour, that he could not survive it, but perished, in consequence, in the flower of his age.

His works are, “A Voyage round the World, in his Britannic majesty’s sloop Resolution, commanded by captain James Cook, during the years 1772, 3, 4, and 5,” London, 1777, 3 vols. 4to. This work was translated by himself and his father into German, and published at Berlin, in 2 vols. 4to, 1778—1780; “Reply to Mr. Wales’ s Remarks on Mr. Forster’s Account of captain Cook’s last Voyage,” London, 1778, 4to; “A Letter to the right Honourable the earl of Sandwich,” 1779, 4to. He was concerned for some time with professor Lichtenberg of Gottingen, in the publication of the Gottingen Magazine; Uo wrote some papers in the Transactions of the Academy of Sciences at Upsal he had a large share in the ;< Characters generum Plantarum, &c." of his father and was employed by professor Pallas, and others, in the continuation of Martini’s Dictionary of Natural History.

, an English divine and scholar of eminence in the last ceatury, was born Feb. 3, 1717, at Stadscombe, in the parish of Plimstock, Devonshire, of which his father, Robert Forster, was then minister. His mother, Elizabeth, was daughter of the rev. John Tindal, vicar of Cornwood, in the same county, and sister of the rev. Nicolas Tindal, translator of Rapin’s History. His father, soon after the birth of this his eldest child, being chosen lecturer to St. Andrew’s church at Plymouth, went thitherto reside, and continued in the same place and office till his death. His son, the subject of this article, having received the rudiments of a grammatical education at home, in which he made an early progress, was put under the tuition of the rev. John Bedford, master of the grammar-school at Plymouth; and of this numerous seminary he had gained the first place before he was thirteen years old. In 1731-2 he was removed to Eton, and at the same time entered at Pembroke college, Oxford, in order to entitle him to an exhibition. After passing about sixteen months at Eton, while Dr. George was head-master, he went to college, and became a pupil of Dr. Radcliffe. On June 13, 1733, he was admitted scholar of Corpus Christi, where Dr. Burton was tutor. In 1729 he became fellow; and afterwards took the care of pupils himself as assistant to Mr. Paget, but was disappointed in his wishes of succeeding that gentleman as the college tutor, Mr. Patten being appointed by the president to that office. He was admitted to the degree of B. A. Oct. 13, 1735; to that f M. A. Feb. 10, 1738, and to that 'of B. D. April 9, 1746, as soon as his standing allowed, in order to preserve hie seniority in college. His degree of D. D. was deferred till 1750, the time of his leaving the university. In 1739 he received deacon’s orders from Dr. Wynne, bishop of Bath and Wells, and priest’s orders from Dr. Hoadly, bishop of Winchester.

His first preferment in the church was the small rectory of Hethe in Oxfordshire, which was given him July 6, 1749, by the lord chancellor Hardwicke, on the recommendation of one of his earliest friends, Dr. Seeker, bishop of Oxford, and afterwards archbishop of Canterbury. By him he was also introduced to the notice of Dr. Butler, then bishop of Bristol, to whom, in 1750, he became domestic chaplain, when that prelate was translated to the see of Durham. In this situation he continued till the death of his new patron, which took place before he had &n opportunity of conferring upon Dr, Forster any mark of Ins affection and esteem. The bishop, however, who died in his arms at Bath, bequeathed him a legacy of 200l. and appointed him executor of his will. He now returned to college, determining to obliterate the remembrance of his disappointments by a renewed application to his studies. But he was very soon called forth again, and appointed, in July 1752, one of the chaplains to Dr. Herring, archbishop of Canterbury. In Feb. 1754 he was promoted by the lord chancellor Hardwicke to the prebendal stall in the church of Bristol; and in the autumn of the same year the archbishop gave him the valuable vicarage of Rochdale, in Lancashire. He was admitted fellow of the royal society in May 1765. In May 1756 he was sworn one of the chaplains to his late majesty, George II. and through the interest of lord Roystou, was appointed by sir Thomas Clarke to succeed Dr. Terrick, in the summer of 1757, as preacher at the Rolls chapel. In August 1757, he married Susan, relict of John Balls, esq. of the city of Norwich, a lady of great merit, and possessed of a considerable fortune. Upon his marriage he hired a house in Craig’s court, Westminster, where, after a short illness, he died on Oct. 20, foJlowing, in the forty-first year of his age, leaving no issue. His widow afterwards married Philip Bedingfield, esq. of Ditchingham, in Norfolk. His body was interred in St. Martin’s church, Westminster, and a monument was erected to his memory by his widow, in the cathedral church of Bristol, with an elegant Latin inscription, written by his friend Dr. Hayter, then bishop of Norwich.

To the number of his friends, who were at all known in the learned world, besides those already mentioned, may be added the rev. Zachary Mudge, author of a translation of the Psalms, and a volume of sermons Dr. Burton, Dr. Bentham, Dr. Benson, bishop of Gloucester and his great successor, Dr. Warburton, with the last of whom he occasionally held a literary correspondence. In private life, Dr. Forster was a man of much discernment, mildness, and benevolence. He always shewed his contempt of what was absurd, and his abhorrence of what he thought wicked, in a manner the most likely to produce a good effect on those whom he wished to convince or reform; at the same time with the most perfect command of his temper. By an uniform application to study, he acquired and deserved the character of very considerable erudition, and great critical acumen; possessing a knowledge of the Greek, Latin, and Hebrew languages, not exceeded by any man of his time.

Dr. Forster published, 1. “Reflections on the natural antiquity of government, arts, and sciences, in Egypt,” Oxford, 1743. 2. “Platonis dialogi quinque, Recensuit, notisque iilustravit, N. Forster, A. M. &c.” ibid. 1745. This is a very correct text of the Amatores, Euthyphro, Apologia Socratis, Criton, and Phaedo; and this edition of 1745 is preferred to those of 1752, and 1765, afterwards published. 3. “Appendix Liviana, continens, 1. ‘ Selectas codicum Mss. et editionum antiquaruru lectiones, prsecipuas variorum emendationes, et supplementa lacunarum in iis T. Livii qui supersunt libris; 2. J. Freinshewiii supplementorum lib. decem in locum decadis secundac Livianae deperdittp,’” ibid. 1746. This was a joint publication of Dr, Forster and another fellow of Corpus college, and was published without a name. 4. “Popery destructive of the evidence of Christianity.; a sermon before the university of Oxford, Nov. 5, 1746,” ibid. 1746. 5. “A Dissertation upon the account supposed to have been give*i of Jesus Christ by Josephus: being an attempt to show that this celebrated passage, some slight corruptions only excepted, may reasonably be esteemed genuine,” ibid. 1749. The criticism contained in this dissertation is allowed to be ingenious, even by Mr. Bryant, who, in deciding the controversy, defended the passage as it stands. Bishop Warburton’s opinion of it was still more favourable, as appears by his testimony to the author’s “abilities, candour, and address,” in his Julian, p. 93; and by part of a letter of his to Dr. Forster, in which, after having noticed some judicious observations of Dr. Forster, made on his Julian in manuscript, Warburton says, “I have often wished for a hand capable of collecting all the fragments remaining of Porphyry, Celsus, Hierocles, and Julian, and giving them to us with a just, critical, and theological comment, as a ‘ Defy to Infidelity.’ It is certain we want something more than what their ancient answerers have given us. This would be a very noble work. I know of none that has all the talents fit for it but yourself. What an opening will this give to all the treasures of sacred and profane antiquity and what an opportunity would this be of establishing a great character The author of the dissertation on the passage of Josephus (which I think the best piece of criticism of this age) would shine here. Think of it: you cannot do a more useful thing to religion or your own character. Controversies of the times are things that presently vanish. This will be always of the same importance.” (Dated Oct. 15, 1749.) 6. “Biblia Hebraica, sine punctis,” Oxon. 1750, 2 vols. 4to. 7. “Remarks on the rev. Dr. Stebbing’s Dissertation on the power of states to deny civil protection to the Marriages of Minors, &c.” Lond. 1755.

, an Austrian lawyer, was born in 1598. He published a political work at the age of nineteen, entitled “Hypomnemata politica,” and spoke a congratulatory harangue at Padua in the name of the German youth, in the presence of John Cornaro, who was just elected doge of Venice, with which the latter was so much pleased, that he honoured Forstner with the order of St. Mark. Forstner went afterwards into France, and returned to Germany, where, having been some time counsellor to the count de Hohenloe, and his envoy at Vienna, he became vice-chancellor, then chancellor of Montbeliard. He was afterwards employed in the negociations for the peace of Munster, and discovered so much prudence, and such great abilities, that the count de Traumandorf, the emperor’s plenipotentiary, procured him the rank of aulic counsellor. He died October 28, 1667, and left, besides his “Hypomnemata politica,” 1623, 8vo, “De principatu Tiberii, Notæ politicæ ad Taciturn,” a collection of his Letters on the Peace of Munster; “Omissorum Liber;” “Epistola apologetica ad amicum, contra secreti Temeratores, et Epistola de moderno Imperii statu;” and two historical letters, in tom. XIV. of Schelhorn’s Amœnitates Litterariæ.

, an able horticulturist, was born at Old Meldrum in the county of Aberdeen, in 1737, and having been early initiated in horticulture, a favourite study in his own country, he came to London in 1763. Shortly after he became pupil to the celebrated Philip Miller, gardener to the company of apothecaries at their physic-garden at Chelsea, and succeeded him in that situation in 1771. Here he remained until the beginning of 1784, when he was appointed by his majesty chief superintendant of the royal gardens at Kensington and at St. James’s; which employments he held until his death, July 25, 1804.

About 1768, Mr. Forsyth paid particular attention to the cultivation of fruit and forest trees, and turned his thoughts especially toward the discovery of a composition to remedy the diseases and injuries incident to them. After repeated trials, he at length succeeded in preparing one which fully answered his expectation; and in 1789 the success of his experiments attracted the notice of the commissioners of the land revenue, upon whose recommendation a committee of both houses of parliament was appointed to report upon the merits of his. discovery. The result of their inquiries was a perfect conviction of its utility; and in consequence, an address was voted by the house of commons to his majesty, praying that a reward might be “ranted to Mr. Forsyth, upon his disclosing the secret of his composition to the public, which was accordingly done; and in 1791, Mr. Forsyth published his.” Observations on the diseases, defects, and injuries of Fruit and Forest Trees,“to which he added the whole of the correspondence between the commissioners of the land revenue, the committee of parliament, and himself. In 1802 he published the final result of his labours, in” A Treatise on the culture and management of Fruit Trees," &c. 4to, the value of which work has been duly appreciated by the public, three editions having been sold in a very short time. Mr. Forsyth was a member of the society of antiquaries, and of the Linnaean and other learned bodies. He was a man of great benevolence, and although allowed to, rank high in his profession, had all the diffidence and modesty which adhere to men of real worth and knowledge.

, an eminent English lawyer in the reign of Henry VI. was descended from an ancient family in Devonshire: but we cannot learn either the place or time of his birth. It is also uncertain in which ^university he studied, or whether he studied in any. Prince, in his -Worthies of Devonshire, supposes him to havebeen educated at Oxford, and bishop Tanner fixes him to Exeter, college: and the great learning every where shewn in his writings makes these conjectures probable. When he turned his thoughts to the municipal laws of the land, he settled at Lincoln’s Inn, where he quickly distinguished himself by his knowledge of civil as well as common law. The first date that occurs, with respect to his preferments, is the fourth year of Henry VI.; when, as Dugdale informs us, he was made one of the governors of Lincoln’s Inn, and honoured with the same employment three years after. In 1430 he was made a serjeant at law; and, as himself tells us, kept his feast on that occasion with very great splendour, In 1441 he was made a king’s serjeant at law; and, the year after, chief justice of the king’s bench. He is highly commended by our most eminent writers, for the wisdom, gravity, and uprightness, with which he presided in that court for many years. He remained in great favour with the king, of which he received a signal proof, by an unnsual augmentation of his salary. He held his office through the reign of Henry VI. to whom he steadily adhered, and served him faithfully in all his troubles; for which, in the first parliament of Edward IV. which began at Westminster, Nov. 1461, he was attainted of high treason, in the same act by which Henry VI. queen Margaret, Edward their son, and many persons of the first distinction, were likewise attainted. After this, Henry fled into Scotland, and it is generally believed, that he then made Fortescne chancellor of England. His name, indeed, upon this occasion, is not found recorded in the patent rolls; because, as Selden says, “being with Henry VI. driven into Scotland by the fortune of the wars wijth the house of York, he was made chancellor of England while he was there.” Several writers have styled him chancellor of England; and, in his book “De laudibus legum Anglia;,” he calls himself “Cancellarius Angliae.”

In April 1463, he embarked with queen Margaret, prince Edward, and many persons of distinction, who followed the fortunes of the house of Lancaster, at Hamburg, and landed at Sluys in Flanders; whence they were conducted to Bruges, thence to Lisle, and thence into Lorrain. lu this exile he remained for many years, retiring from place to place, as the necessities of the royal family required: for though, during that space, the queen and prince were often in motion, and great efforts were made to restore. Henry, yet, considering the age of Fortescue, it is not probable that he was suffered to expose himself to such hazards; especially as he might do them better service by soliciting their interest at different courts. It is certain, that he was not idle; but, observing the excellent understanding of prince Edward, who applied himself wholly to military exercises, and seemed to think of nothing but qualifying himself for an expert commander, he thought it high time to give him other impressions, and to infuse into his mind just notions of the constitution of his country, as well as due respect to its laws; so that, if Providence should favour his designs, he might govern as a king, and not as a tyrant, or a conqueror. With this view 1 as we learn from his introduction, he drew up his famous work, entitled “De Laudibus Legtirn Anglise;” which, though it failed of its primary intention, that hopeful prince being not long after cruelly murdered, will yet remain an everlasting monument of this great and good man’s respect and affection for his country. This very curious and concise vindication of our laws was received with great esteem when it was communicated to the learned of that profession; yet it was not published till the reign of Henry VIII. when it was printed hy Edward Whitchurch, in 16mo, but without a date. In 1516 it was translated by Robert Mulcaster, and printed by R. Tottel, and again in 1567, 1573, and 1575; also by Thomas White in 1598, 1599, and 1609. Fortescue, with HenghamVs “Summa magna et parva,” was likewise printed in 1616 and 1660, 12mo, and again, with Selden’s notes, 1672, 12mo. In 1737 Fortescue was printed in folio; and lastly, in 1775, an English translation with the original Latin, was published in 8vo, with Selden’s notes, and a great variety of remarks relative to the history, antiquities, and laws of England, with a large historical preface by F. Gregor, esq. In 1663, E. Waterhouse, esq. published “Fortescue illustratuV” a commentary on the “De Laudibus,” which, although prolix and defective in style, Mr. Hargrave thinks may be resorted to with great advantage, and may very much facilitate the labours of more judicious and able inquirers. When lord chancellor, sir John is said to have drawn up the statute 2$ Henry VI. “of resumption of certain grants of the crown,” which, though much relied upon by the writers on that subject, is not extant in any present edition of the statutes. The house of Lancaster having afterwards a prospect of retrieving their fortunes, the queen and the prince went over to England, Fortescue with many others accompanying them. They did not succeed, so that this chancellor was forced to reconcile himself as well as he could to the victorious Edward IV.; for which purpose he wrote a kind of apology for his own conduct. Tlws treatise, though it has never been published, Selden had seen; as he tells us in his preface to Fortescue' s book, “L)e Laudibus, <kc.” After all these extraordinary changes of masters and fortunes, he preserved his old principles in regard to the English constitution; as appears from another valuable and learned work, written by him in English, and published in the reign of queen Anne, with this title: “The difference between an absolute and limited monarchy, as it more particularly regards the English constitution: being a treatise written by sir John Fortescue, knight, lord chief justice, and lord high chancellor of England, under king 'Henry VI. Faithfully transcribed from the manuscript copy in the Bodleian library, and collated with three other manuscripts (which were afterwards printed). Published with some remarks by John Fortescue Aland, of the Inner Temple, esq. F. R. S. 1714,” 8vo. There is a manuscript of this work in the Cotton library, in the title of which it is said to be addressed to Henry VI. but many passages in it shew it to have been plainly written in favour of, and for the service of, Edward IV. A second edition, with amendments, was published in 1719, 8vo. As for this author’s other writings, which were pretty numerous, as they were never printed, we know nothing more of them than we learn from the titles, and the commendations bestowed upon them by those who had perused them. They have, however, been carefully preserved in libraries, some of them being still extant under the following titles “Opusculum de natura Legis Naturae, et de ejus censura in successione regnorum supremorum;” “Defensio juris Domus Lancastriae” “Genealogy of the House of Lancaster” “Of the title of the House of York” “Genealogise Ilegum Scotios” “A Dialogue between Understanding and Faith” "A Prayer Book which savours touch of the times we live in,' 1 &c. It would certainly be a gratification, if not a benefit, to the learned world, if his manuscripts were printed; for he was a man of general knowledge, great observation, and his writings would probably throw much light upon the dark parts of our history and antiquities.

We know nothing further of his life, which probably was spent in retirement in the country, free from the cares, and remote from the dangers of a court. Neither is there any distinct account preserved of his jdeath; we are only told in general, that he was then near ninety years of age, which the circumstances of his life rendered very probable. His remains were interred in the church of Ebburton in Gloucestershire, where he had purchased an, estate; and where one of his descendants, in 1677, caused a monument to he repaired, upon which was the figure of this venerable person in his robes, and added an inscription to his memory. It was truly said by his editor, Mr. Fortescue Aland, that “all good men and lovers of the English constitution speak of him with honour; and that he still lives, in the opinion of all true Englishmen, in as high esteem and reputation as any judge that ever sat in Westminster hall. He was a man acquainted with all sorts of learning, besides his knowledge in the law, in which he was exceeded by none; as will appear by the many judgements he gave when on the bench, in the year-book of Henry VI. His character in history is that of pious, loyal, and learned: and he had the honour to be called the chief counsellor of the king. He was a great courtier, and yet a great lover of his country.”

, a learned Italian prelate and poet, was born in 1674, obtained the highest rank of episcopacy under pope Clement XI, and flattered himself that Clement XII. a friend of poetry and poets, would advance him to the dignity of cardinal. This pope continally giving him reason to hope, as constantly found excuses for disappointing him; at length one instance more of this duplicity, added to so many that had passed, completely extinguished the expectations of Fortiguerra, and this mortification so deeply affected him, that it proved fatal. When he was on his death-bed, Clement sent to him, endeavouring to comfort him once more, and revive his hopes, but the sick man turning himself about, and raising the clothes, only uttered such an explosion, as once surprised and entertained the British house of commons, and said, “that is my answer; a good journey to us both” <c Eccovi la riposta bon viaggio e per lei, e per me.“He died soon after this, which happened in 1735, being then sixty-one. His house was the general resort of wit and literature in Rome, and he wrote his ”Ricciardetto,“a burlesque poem in thirty cantos, in a very short time, to prove to a party of this kind, how easy it is for a man of imagination to write in the style of Ariosto, whom some of them had preferred to Tasso. In this poem he gave abundant liberty to his imagination, and its extravagance would be fatiguing beyond measure, were it not supported by the utmost ease of versification, and perpetual sallies of pleasantry and genius. It has been ably translated into French by a M. du Mourner, chev. of St. Louis, who died in 1768. There is also a translation of” Terence" by Fortiguerra, with the Latin text, printed at Urbino in 1736, and adorned with cuts, a very splendid book.

, a Venetian historian, was born in 1628. He is principally known as the continnator of the History of Venice written by Naui. His history was published in 1692, in 4to, and makes the tenth volume of the collection of Venetian historians, published in 1718, 4to, a collection badly printed, but containing only good authors. Foscarini was a senator, and filled several important posts in the republic. He died in 1692. He was employed by the state to write his history, and is supposed to have been furnished with the most authentic documents. Two novels by him are extant in an Italian collection, called “Novelle degli Academici incogniti,” 1651, 4to.

, a French painter, the pupil of Le Brun, who suffered him to paint for him occasionally in some of his most capital works, was the son of a goldsmith, and born at Paris in 1640. He perfected his talents in Italy, and on his return was employed to paint the dome of the hotel of invalids. Louis XIV. settled upon him a pension of 1000 crowns, and he was received into the academy of painting, where he became rector and professor. His fame extended even to England, whither he was invited by the earl of Montagu, and employed by liini in decorating his magnificent house, now the British Museum, where his paintings at that time attracted universal admiration. William III. on seeing them, offered him a handsome establishment in this country; but, at the same time, the celebrated architect Mansard, wrote to him from France, that he was wanted there to co-operate with him in finishing some public buildings, and he returned to his native country, where he died in 1716. He was reckoned inimitable in his time as a colourist, and excellent both in landscape and historical painting.

, nephew of the former, and also the son of a goldsmith, was born at Paris in 1658. He became lord of Aubigny by purchasing the lands to which that title was attached. He was successively secretary to the marquis de Crequi, and the duke d'Aumont. When the former of these noblemen was slain at the battle of Luzara, La Fosse was employed to carry his heart to Paris, and celebrated the death of the young hero in verses which are still extant. He was so much a master of Italian as to write skilfully in that language both in prose and verse, but his chief fame as a poet was atchieved in his own language, in which he wrote several tragedies, and many other poems. His ft Polixene, Manlius, and Theseus,“published in his” Theatre,“2 vols. 12mo, maintained their station in the French theatre till the revolution; and all his dramas are said to abound with passages which would not disgrace the finest tragic writers of France. His versification was highly finished, and he said that the expression cost him more than the thoughts. His” Manlius," the best of his pieces, has been pronounced in many respects worthy of Corneille; yet even in France, we are told, he is less known than he deserves. He was intimate with the poet J. Baptiste Rousseau, and lived the life of a philosopher, preferring letters to fortune, and friendship to every thing. He died Nov. 2, 1708, at the age of fifty. His modesty was equal to his genius; and when any of his pieces were less successful than others, he professed constantly that he never appealed from the judgment of the public.

, an English dissenting minister, was born at Exeter, Sept. 16, 1697. His grandfather was 9, clergyman at Kettering in Northamptonshire; but his father, being educated by an uncle who was a dissenter, imbibed the same principles, and was afterwards by trade a tucker, or fuller, in Exeter. He was sent early to the free school in that town, where the foundation of a friendship between him and Dr. Conybeare, afterwards bishop of Bristol, is said to have been laid; and thence was removed to an academy in the same city, where he finished his studies. He there displayed pre-eminent natural abilities, a quick apprehension, a solid judgment, a happy memory, and a free commanding elocution.

He began to preach in 1718; soon after which a strong debate arose among the dissenters, upon the doctrine of the Trinity, and subscription to tests. The dispute was fiercely carried on among them in the West of England, and particularly at Exeter, where he then resided. As he embraced the obnoxious opinions, he found it necessary to quit the county of Devon, and to accept of an ijivitation to Melborne in Somersetshire. Here he continued till some of his hearers took offence at the freedom of his opinions, and made that place uneasy to him. Then he removed to Ashwitk, an obscure retreat under the hills of Mendip in the same county, where he preached to two poor congregations, one at Colesford, the other at Wokey near Wells, both of which together did not produce more than 15l. per annum. It seems to have been here that he wrote his celebrated “Essay on Fundamentals,” and likewise his sermon “On the Resurrection of Christ;” for they were both printed in 1720.

From this place he removed to Trowbridge in Wiltshire, where he boarded with Mr. Norman, a reputable glover. Here his congregation did not consist of more than twenty or thirty persons; and his finances were so very insufficient for his support, that he began to entertain thoughts of quitting the ministry, and learning the glove trade of Mr. Norman; choosing-rather to recur to some secular employment, than seek for succour in the established church. About this time he was convinced, by reading Dr. Gale, that baptism of the adult by immersion was the true scripture-doctrine, and accordingly was baptised that way in Lpndon: but this caused no misunderstanding between him and his presbvterian congregation. While he was meditating on the poverty of his condition, and looking abroad for better means of subsistence, Robert Houlton, esTj. took him into his house as a chaplain, and treated him with much huiiiniiity. Tins event seems to have opened his way to public notice; for, in 1724, he was chosen to succeed Dr. Gale at Barbican, in London, where he laboured as a pastor above twenty years. In 1731 he published a “Defence of the usefulness truth, and excellency of the Christian Revelation,” against Tindal’s “Christianity as old as the Creation.” This Defence is written with great force of argument, and great moderation has been well accepted, and much esteemed by the candid and judicious of all parties and, as is said, was spoken of with great regard by Tindal himself. In 1744 he was chosen pastor of the independent church of Pinners-hall. In 1748 the university of Aberdeen conferred on him the degree of D. D. by diploma: for at this time the Scottish divines had the highest opinion of his merit.

In August 1746 he attended lord Kilmarnock, who was concerned in the rebellion the year before; and they who lived with him imagined that this attendance made too deep an impression on his tender, sympathizing spirit. His vivacity at least was thenceforward observed to abate; and, in April 1750, he was visited with a violent disorder, of which he never thoroughly recovered, though he continued to preach more or less till January 1752. Three days after, he h'nd another shock of the paralytic kind, which so impaired his understanding that he never possessed it rightly afterwards. About ten days before his death he was paralytic, but did not entirely lose his senses till the last, Nov. 5, 1753. Besides the pieces already mentioned, he published “Tracts on Heresy,” on which subject he had a controversy with Dr. Stebbing; several “Funeral Sermons,” one among the rest for the rev. Mr. Thomas Emlyn “An Account of lord Kilmarnock” four volumes of “Sermons,” in 8vo and two volumes of “Discourses on Natural Religion and Social Virtue,” in 4to.

Dr. Foster’s character has been spoken of by his friends in the highest terms, and they dwell with peculiar emphasis on his humanity, as a man perfectly free from every thing gross and worldly. His benevolence and charities were so extraordinary, that he never reserved any thing for his own future use: and had it not been for two thousand subscribers to his “Discourses on Natural Religion and Social Virtue,” he would have died extremely poor. His way of thinking is thus described by himself: “I always had,” says he, “I bless God, ever since I began to understand, or think, to any purpose, large and generous principles; and there never was any thing either in my temper or education, which might incline me to narrowness and bigotry: and I am heartily glad of this opportunity, which now offers itself, of making this public, serious profession, that I value those who are of different persuasions from me, more than those who agree with me in sentiment, if they are more serious, sober, and charitable.” His talent for preaching was very eminent and extraordinary. His voice was naturally sweet, strong, distinct, harmonious: and his ear enabled him to manage it exactly. He was also a perfect master of action; his action, however, was grave, expressive, natural, free from violence, free from distortions: in short, such as became the pulpit, and was necessary to give force and energy to the truths there delivered. The Sunday evening lecture, begun in 1728, which he carried on at the Old Jewry above twenty years, shewed indisputably, that nobody ever went beyond him for popularity in preaching. Hither resorted persons of every rank, station, and quality clergy, wits, freethinkers: and hither curiosity might probably draw Pope himself, who, in the epilogue to his satires, has taken occasion to praise him for this talent in the following lines:

Lord Bolingbroke has attributed to him, with commendation, that false aphorism which brings Christianity so near to Deism, “Where mystery begins religion ends;” and it is not improbable he might have been the author of it, as, whatever his personal virtues and popular talents, he neither professed, nor possessed, much zeal for the essential doctrines of Christianity.

, an excellent classic scholar, was born in 1731, at Windsor, the propinquity of which to Eton was, fortunately for him, the motive for sending him to that college for education, where, at a very early age, he manifested great abilities, and, in an uncommon manner, baffled all the hardships which other boys in their progress usually encounter. He, however, had two considerable advantages the first, being received as a pupil by the late rev. Septimius Plumptree, then one of the assistants and the second, that he was -noticed by the reverend and very learned Dr. John Burton, vice-provost of Eton; by the abilities of the former in the Greek language, and of the latter in the Hebrew, Mr. Foster profited exceedingly. It was a matter highly pleasing to them, that they did not throw their seed on a barren soil whatever instruction he received, he cultivated incessantly and it is but justice to add, that he in a great measure excelled his contemporaries. His learning and his sobriety recommended him to many friends while he continued at Eton, which was till 1748, when he was elected to King’s college in Cambridge; a college to which, as Mr. Pote observes in his advertisement to his " Registrum Regale,' 7 Eton annually sendeth forth her ripe fruit. Mr. Foster here improved himself under the provost Dr. Wm. George, an excellent Greek, and general scholar. At the expiration of three years he there (as usual) became a fellow, and shortly afterwards was sent for to Eton by the late Dr. Edward Barnard, to be one of his assistants. Great honour was sure to attend Mr. Foster from this summons, for no man distinguished better, or could form a stronger judgment of his abilities and capacity, than Dr. Barnard: and such was his attention to the school, that he made it his primary consideration, that it should be supplied with assistants the most capable and the most deserving. At the resignation of this great master, which happened Oct. 25, 1765, when he was chosen provost on the death of Dr. Sleech, he exerted his whole interest for Dr. Foster to succeed him in the mastership, and by his weight in the college he carried his point. But it did not prove fortunate for his successor, or for the seminary; the temper, the manner, the persuasion, the politeness, the knowledge of the world, which Dr. Barnard so eminently displayed, did not appear in his successor. His learning justly entitled him to the situation; but learning is not the sole ingredient to constitute the master of such a school; more, much more, is required and Dr. Foster appeared to the greater disadvantage, from immediately succeeding so great a man. Nor could he long support himself in his situation his passions undermined his health and, notwithstanding his abilities as a scholar, his government was defective, his authority insufficient, and he judged it best to resign, that he might not destroy a fabric which he found himself unequal to support. Dr. Foster, however, did not retire unrewarded; his majesty, on the death of Dr. Sumner in 1772, bestowed on him a canonry of Windsor. But this he did not long enjoy; his ill health carried him to the German Spa, where he died in September the year following, and where his remains were interred; but afterwards were removed to Windsor, and deposited near those of his father, who had been mayor of that corporation.

The following epitaph, composed by himself, is to be seen on a neat tomb erected m the church-yard of that place: the conception and expression of it, in themselves conveying a high notion of his talents.

Dr. Foster published “An Essay on the different nature of Accent and Quantity, with their use and application in the pronunciation of the English, Latin, and Greek Languages; containing, an account and explanation of the ancient tones, and a defence of the present system of Greek accentual marks, against the objections of Isaac Vossius, Henninius, Sarpedonius, Dr. Gaily, and others.” In this learned Essay, which sufficiently exalted his character as a scholar, not only Bentleian acuteness and variety of learning are conspicuous, but justness of composition, elegance united with spirit, and ingenuous and exemplary candour. It was printed for Pote in 1762. Several exercises of the doctor’s are extant in ms. which also do him peculiar honour.

, an eminent lawyer, was born at Marlborough in Wiltshire, Dec. 16, 1689. His father Michael, and his grandfather John, were attornies in that place. After attending the free-school there, Mr. Foster was matriculated at Oxford May 7, 1705, and studied about two years at Exeter college, but like many eminent men in the profession of the law, left it without taking a degree. On May 23, 1707, he was admitted into the society of the Middle Temple, and in due time was called to the bar, but not having much success as an advocate, he retired into the country, and settled in his native town. Here he contracted an intimacy with Algernon, earl of Hertford, afterwards duke of Somerset, which continued many years, and until the death of the noble duke, who by his will appointed his friend executor in trust with his son-in-law Hugh, earl (afterwards duke) of Northumberland. In 1725 he married Martha, the eldest daughter of James Lyde, esq. of Stantonwick in Somersetshire; and in a few years afterwards he removed to Bristol, where he exercised his profession with great reputation and considerable success; and in August 1735 he was chosen rer corder of the city, which office he retained many years. Soon after accepting this office in Easter term, 1736, he took on him the degree of serjeant at law. In 1720 he had published “A Letter of Advice to protestant Dissenters,” in which he is said to discover the most liberal and enlarged views; and in 1735 he published a pamphlet which engaged the public attention very much, entitled “An Examination of the scheme of Church power laid down in the Codex juris ecclesiastici Anglicani, &c.” In this he controverted the system of church power vested in the clergy, and which forms the ground-work of bishop Gibson’s “Codex.” Several answers, however, were published to Mr. Foster’s pamphlet, the principal one by Dr. Andrews, a civilian. Mr. Foster seems to have promised a continuation, in reply to him and others, but did not pursue the subject. In the postscript, however, to the third edition of his pamphlet, he adverts to “the personal severity,” with which Dr. Andrews had treated him; and adds, “It is not in my nature to make any return of that kind. I forgive him with all my heart. If, upon poor reflection, he can forgive himself, I pity him.”

Having greatly distinguished himself on many occasions after his settlement at Bristol, Mr. serjeant Foster, in the vacation after Hilary term J 8 Geo. II. (1745) on the recommendation of the lord chancellor Hardwicke, was appointed to succeed sir William Chappie, as one of the judges of the court of King’s Bench; and being knighted by the iking, was sworn into the office, April 22 of the above year. In this office he continued to Nov. 7, 1763, during which period many points of singular importance, as well in civil as criminal cases, in which he bore a considerable share, were determined. The criminal cases are reported by himself in his Crown Law, and many of the others may be seen in the Reports of Strange, Wilson, Burrow, and Blackstone. But although sir Michael Foster generally concurred in opinion with the other judges (who were in succession, sir William Lee, sir Martin Wright, sir Thomas Denison, sir Dudley Ryder, lord Mansfield, and sir John Eardley Wilmot) yet on several important questions, instances of which are given hy his biographer, he differed from some, if not from all of the judges. Indeed, his life, as drawn up by his nephew, Mr. Dodson, for the Biog. Britannica, and lately published separately, is merely a lawpamphlet, and contains, unless in a very general way, very little biography, very little of personal character, habits, or manners. At the conclusion, we are told that Mr. Justice Foster was blessed with a good constitution, and generally enjoyed a good state of health until some few years before his death. In no long time after the death of lady Foster (which happened in 1758) his health began to decline, and he complained of a loss of appetite, which made it necessary for him occasionally to spend some time at Bath. He received considerable benefit from the use of the Bath waters but wheresoever he was, he was patient and resigned, composed and cheerful rejoicing in the glorious prospect beyond the grave, which Christianity opened to his view. In Hilary, Easter, and Trinity terms, 1763, he seldom attended at Westminster-hall. He was confined to his bed a short time only, and on Monday, Nov. 7, he expired. He never had any children. By his own direction, he was buried in the parish church of StantonDrew, in Somersetshire, where lady Foster had been buried. The doctrines of our criminal law are very learnedly discussed by sir Michael Foster, in his “Report of the proceedings on the commission for the Trial of the Rebels in 1746, and other crown cases.” The first edition of these reports was published in folio, 1763; the second in 8vo, 1776, to which were added, some discourses on several branches of the crown law, with notes and references, by Michael Dodson, esq. his nephew; and the third, with a few discourses on high treason, on homicide, on accomplices, and some observations on the writings of lord Hale, and an appendix containing sir M. Foster’s opinion on several difficult and important cases, in royal 8vo, 1792, by the same Mr. Dodson.

, an English mathematician, and professor of astronomy at Gresham college, was born in Northamptonshire or as Aubrey says, at Coventry, where he adds that he was some time usher of the school and was sent to Emanuel college, Cambridge, in 1616. He took the degree of B. A. in 1619, and of master in 1623. He applied early to the mathematics, and attained to great proficiency in that kind of knowledge, of which he gave the first specimen in 1624. He had an elder brother at the same college with himself, which precluded him from a fellowship; in consequence of which, he offered himself a candidate for the professorship of astronomy in Gresham college, Feb. 1636, and was elected the 2 d of March. He quitted it again, it does not appear for what reason, Nov. 25, the same year, and was succeeded therein by Mr. Mungo Murray, professor of philosophy at St. Andrew’s in Scotland. Murray marrying in 1641, his professorship was thereby vacated; and as Foster bad before made way for him, so he in his turn made way for Foster, who was re-elected May 22, the same year. The civil war breaking out soon after, he became one of that society of gentlemen, who had stated meetings for cultivating philosophy, and afterwards were established by charter, under the name of the royal society, in the reign of Charles II. In 1646, Dr. Wallis, another member of that society, received from Foster a mathematical theorem, which he afterwards published in his “Mechanics.” Neither was it only in this branch of science that he excelled, but he was likewise well versed in the ancient languages; as appear! from his revising and correcting the “Lemmata” of Archimedes, which had been translated from an Arabic manuscript into Latin, but not published, by Mr. John Greaves. He made also several curious observations upon eclipses, both of the sun and moon, as well at Gresham college, as in Northamptonshire, at Coventry, and in other places; and was particularly famous for inventing, as well as improving, astronomical and other mathematical instruments. After being long in a declining state of health, he died in July 1652, at his own apartment at Gresham college, and, according to Aubrey, was buried in the church of St. Peter le poor. His works are, 1. “The Description and use of -a small portable Quadrant, for the more easy finding of the hour of azimuth/' 1624, 4to, This treatise, which has been reprinted several times, is divided into two parts, and was originally published at the end of Gunter’s” Description of the Cross Staffe in three hooks,“to which it was intended as an appendix. 2.” The Art of Dialling,“1638, 4to. Reprinted in 1675, with several additions and variations from the author’s own manuscript, as also a supplement by the editor William Leybourne. Our author himself published no more, yet left many other treatises, which, though not finished in the manner he intended, were published by his friends after his death as, 3.” Posthuinu Fosteri containing the description of a Ruler, upon which are inscribed divers scales, &c.“1652, 4to. This was published by Edmund Wingate, esq. 4.” Four Treatises of Dialling,“1654, 4to. 5.” The Sector altered, and other scales added, with the description and use thereof, invented and written by Mr. Foster, and now published by William Leybourne, 1661,“4to. This was an improvement of Gunter’s Sector, and therefore published among his works. 6.” Miscellanies, or Mathematical Lucubrations of Mr. Samuel Foster, published, and many of them translated into English, by the care and industry of John Twysden, C. L. M. D. whereunto he hath annexed some things of his own." The treatises in this collection are of different kinds, some of them written in Latin, some in English.

There have been two other persons of this name, who have published mathematical pieces. The first was William Foster, who was a disciple of Mr. Oughtred, and afterwards a teacher of mathematics in London. He distinguished himself by a book, which he dedicated to sir Kenelm Digby, with this title, “The Circles of Proportion, and the Horizontal Instrument, &c.” 1633, 4to, The other was Mark Foster, who published “A Treatise of Trigonometry,” but lived later in point of time than either of the other two.

, younger brother of the rev. Charles Fotherby, dean of Canterbury, was born at Great Grimsby, in Lincolnshise, in 1659, and was the son of Martin Fotherby, esq. of that place. He was educated at Trinity college, Cambridge, of which he became a fellow, and proceeded to the degree of D. D. He was collated by archbishop Whitgift in 1592 to the vicarage of Chiflet, on the resignation of his brother Charles, and in 1594 to the rectory of St. Mary-le-Bow, London. In 1596 he was presented by queea Elizabeth to the eleventh prebend of the church of Canterbury, and also to the rectory of Chartham, belonging to her by lapse. In 1601 he was collated by archbishop Whitgift to the rectory of Adistwm. He became afterwards chaplain to James I. by whom he was made one of the first fellows of Chelsea college in 1610, and was preferred by him to the bishopric of Sarum in March 1618. He died in March 1619, and was buried in the church of Allhallows, Lombard-street, London, where there was a monument erected to his memory, but which was destroyed by the great fire in 1666. The inscription, however, -which represents him as a man of remarkable merit, is preserved in “Antiqnitates Sarisburienses,” printed at Salisbury in 1771. Dr. Martin Fotherby published in 1608, “Four Sermons, -whereunto is added, an answere unto certaine objections of one unresolved, as concerning the use of the Crosse in Baptism.” He was also the author of “Atheomastix,” which was sent to the press before his death, but not published till 1622.

, D. D. and principal of St. Edmund Hall in Oxford, was the eldest of seven sons of Henry and Elizabeth Fothergill. He was born on the last day of 1705, N. S. at Lockholme in Ravenstonedale, in the county of Westmorland, where the family had long been situated and possessed of a competent estate, which had descended from father to son for many generations. He received the first part of his education in the place of his nativity, at a free grammar school, founded and endowed by a person of the same name and family. He was afterwards removed to Kendal-school, and from thence, at sixteen years of age, to Queen’s college in Oxford; where he became fellow, and an eminent tutor. On Oct. 17, 1751, he was elected principal of St. Edmund hall, an.d presented to the vicarage of Bramley in Hampshire. After having been long afflicted with an asthma, he died Oct. 5, 1760, and was buried in the chapel of Edmund hall, at the north end of the communion-table; where his modesty forbade any monument to be erected to his memory. He was author of two volumes of sermons, in octavo. The first consists of occasional discourses published by himself; the second was printed from his Mss. and published by his brother: both were reprinted in 1765.

, an eminent physician, son of John and Margaret Fothergill, quakers, was born March 8, 6r, according to Dr. Thompson’s account, Oct. 12, 1712, at Carr End in Yorkshire, where his father, who had been a brewer at Knaresborough (after having travelled from one end of America to the other), lived retired on a small estate which he cultivated. The eldest son Alexander, who studied the law, inherited that estate. John was the second son. Joseph, the third son, was an ironmonger at Stockport, in Cheshire, where he died a few years ago. Samuel, the fourth son, went to America, and became a celebrated preacher among the quakers. There was also a sister, Anne, who lived with the doctor, and survived him. John received his education under the kind care of his grandfather Thomas Hough, a person of fortune in Cheshire (which gave him a predilection for that county), and at Sedburg in Yorkshire. About 1718 he was put apprentice to Benjamin Bartlett, apothecary, at Bradford, whence he removed to London, Oct. 20, 1736, and studied two years as a pupil of doctor (afterwards sir Edward) Wilmot, at St. Thomas’s hospital. He then went to the university of Edinburgh, to study physic, and there took his doctor’s degree. His Thesis was entitled, “De emeticorum usu in variis morbis tractandis;” and it has been republished in a collection of theses by Smellie. From Edinburgh he went to Leyden, whence, after a short stay, he travelled through some parts of France and Germany, and, returning to England, began his practice in London about 1740, in a house in Whitehart-court, Lombard-street (where he resided till his removal to Harpur-street in 1767), and acquired both reputation and fortune. He was admitted a licentiate of the college of physicians of London, 1746, and in 1754, fellow of Edinburgh, to which he was a considerable benefactor. In 1753, he became a member both of the royal and antiquarian societies; and was at his death a member of the royal medical society at Paris. He continued his practice with uninterrupted success till within the last two years of his life, when an illness, which he had brought on himself by his unremitted attention, obliged him greatly to contract it. Besides his occupation in medical science, he had imbibed an early taste for natural history, improved by his -friend Peter Collinson, and employed himself particularly on the study of shells, and of botany. He was for many years a valuable contributor to the Gentleman’s Magazine; which in return considerably assisted his rising fame. His observations on the weather and diseases were begun there in April 1751, and discontinued in the beginning of 1756, as he was disappointed in his views of exciting other experienced physicians in different parts to imitate the example. Though, his practice was very extensive, he did not add to his art any great or various improvements. His pamphlet on the ulcerous sore throat is, on every account, the best of his publications, and that owes much of its merit to the information of the late doctors Letherland or Sylvester. It was first printed in 1748, on the re-appearance of that fatal disorder whick in 1739 had carried off the two only sons of Mr. Pelham. It may be here added, that 0r. Wilmot preserved lady Catherine Pelham, after her sons had died of it, by lancing her throat; a method which, he said, he had once before pursued with the same success. In 1762, Dr. Fothergill purchased an estate at Upton in Essex, and formed an excellent botanic garden, with hot-houses and green-houses, to the extent of 260 feet. In 1766, he began regularly to withdraw, from Midsummer to Michaelmas, from the excessive fatigue of his profession, to Lee Hall, near Middlewich in Cheshire; which, though he only rented it by the year, he had spared no expence to improve. During this recess he took no fees, but attended, to prescribe gratis at an inn at Middlewich once a week. Some time before his death he had been industrious to contrive a method of generating and preserving ice in the West Indies. He was the patron of Sidney Parkinson, and drew up the preface prefixed to his account of the voyage to the South Seas. At his expence also was made and printed an entire new translation of the whole Bible, from the Hebrew and Greek originals, by Anthony Purver, a quaker, in two volumes, 1764, folio, and also, in 1780, an edition of bishop Percy’s “Key to the New Testament,” adapted to the use of a seminary of young quakers, at Acworth, near Leeds, which the doctor first projected, and afterwards endowed handsomely by his will. It now contains above 300 children of both sexes, who are clothed and instructed. Among the other beneficent schemes suggested by Dr. Fothergill, was that of bringing fish to London by land carriage, which, though it did not in every respect succeed, was supposed to defeat a monopoly; and, that of rendering bread much cheaper, though equally wholesome, by making it with one part of potatoes, and three parts of household flour. But his public benefactions, his encouragements ef science, the instances of his attention to the health, the police, the convenience of the metropolis, &c. are too numerous to specify . The fortune which Dr. Fothergill acquired, was computed at 80,000l. His business when he was in "full practice, was calculated at near 7000l. per annum. In the Influenza of 1775 and 1776*, he is said to have had sixty patients on his list daily, and his profits were then estimated at 8000l. The disorder which hastened his death was an obstruction in the bladder, occasioned by a delicacy which made him unwilling to alight from his carriage for relief. He died at his house in Harpur-street, Dec. 26, 1780; and his remains were interred, Jan. 5, in the quakers burying-ground at Winchmore-hill. The executors, who were his lister, and Mr. Ghorley, linen-draper, in Gracechurch-street, who married one of his nieces, intended the burial to be private; but the desire of the quakers to attend the funeral rendered it impossible. Only ten coaches were ordered to convey his relations and friends, but there were more than seventy coaches and post-chaises attending; and many of the friends came above 100 miles, to pay their last tribute of respect. The doctor by his will appointed, that his shells, and other pieces of natural history, should be offered to the late Dr. Hunter at 500l. under the valuation he ordered to be taken of them. Accordingly, Dr. Hunter bought them for 1200l. The drawings and collections in natural history, which he had spared no expence to augment, were also to be offered to Mr. (now sir Joseph) Banks, at a valution. His English portraits and prints, which had been collected by Mr. John Nickolls of Ware, and purchased by him for 80 guineas, were bought for 200 guineas by Mr. Thane. His books were sold by auction, April 30, 1731, and the eight following days. His house and garden, at Upton, were valued at 10,000l. The person of Dr. Fothergill was of a delicate rather than an extenuate4 make. His features were all expressive, and his eye had a peculiar brilliancy. His understanding was comprehensive and quick, and rarely embarrassed on the most sudden occasions. There was a charm in his conversation and address that conciliated the regard and confidence of all who employed him; and so discreet and uniform was his conduct, that he was not apt to forfeit the esteem which he had once acquired. At his meals he was uncommonly abstemious, eating sparingly, and rarely exceeding two glasses of wine at dinner or supper. By this uniform and steady temperance, he preserved his mind vigorous and active, and his constitution equal to all his engagements.

Dr. Fothergill’s writings, with the exception of his inaugural thesis “De Emeticorum Usu,” and his “Account of the putrid sore-throat,” consist principally of papers printed in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, and in the “Medical Observations and Inquiries,” a work of which six volumes were published, and which is known and highly esteemed wherever medical science is successfully cultivated. Besides the numerous essays in this excellent collection to vThich the name of Dr. Fothergiil is prefixed, we learn that he was the author of the three anonymous papers in the fourth volume, which constitute the 8th, 10th, and 17th articles. He also published, as already remarked, several little essays, on the weather And reigning diseases, on the Simarouba, and other subjects, in the Gentleman’s Magazine, anil other periodical publications, which, however, were written in haste, and not publicly avowed. These works have been collected and reprinted by Dr. Elliott, 1781, 8vo, and by Dr. Letttorn, 1784, 4to.

, born at Paris Jan. 8, 1643, was a man of some political rank, advocate-general to the grand council, a celebrated intendant, and chief of the council to ber royal highness madame, duchess of Orleans, and in the literary world was an eminent antiquary, and an honorary member of the academy of belles-lettres; He was successively intendant of Montauban, of Pau, and of Caen, and within six miles of the latter place, discovered in 1704 the ancient town of the Vinducassians. An exact account of this discovery is inserted in the first volume of the history of the academy of inscriptions, with an enumeration of the coins, marbles, and other antiquities there found. His museum, formed from this and other sources, was of the most magnificent kind. Some time before this, he had made a literary discovery also, having found, in the abbey of Moissac in Querci, a ms. of “Lactantius de mortibus Persecutorum,” then only known by a citation of St. Jerom from it. From this ms. Baluce published the work. He died Feb. 7, 1721. He was of gentle manners, though austere virtue; and pleasing, though deeply learned.

, marquis of Belle-Isle, wag born in 1615. His father was a counsellor of state; his mother, Mary de Meaupeou, was almost canonized for her charities, and lived to the age of 91 (1681). Nicolas Foucquet was early distinguished for talents, and early advanced. At the age of twenty he was master of requests, at thirty-five procurator-general of the parliament of Paris, and at thirty-eight superintendant of the finances, at a time when they were much in want of management, in consequence of wars, and the peculation of Mazarin. Foucquet, however, was not the proper person to restore them; for he squandered the public money for his own use with so little remorse, that he expended near 36 millions of livres (150,000l.) to build and adorn his house at Vaux. This profusion raised suspicions of dangerous designs; and an attempt to rival his master, Louis XIV. in the affections of madame de la Valliere, contributed to irritate that monarch against him. His ruin was completed, like that of Wolsey, by his magnificence and pride. The king visited him at Vaux, and there saw a feast more splendid than he was used to give himself, and a place, more beautiful than St. Germain, or Fontainbleau. His motto and device were also offensive: the latter was a, squirrel pursued by a snake, (coleuvrc, the arms of Colbert), with these words, “Quo non ascendam” “Whither shall I not rise” From this moment his disgrace was fixed. The entertainment was given late in August 1661, and he was arrested at Nantes early in September. He was tried after a time by commissaries appointed for the purpose, and, in 1664, condemned to perpetual banishment; but the sentence was changed to perpetual imprisonment. He was confined in the citadel of Pignerol, where he is supposed to have died in March 1680, at the age of 65, a memorable example of the folly and danger of extravagance and ambition. It has been pretended by some authors, that he died in private, among his own family, but in the utmost obscurity. His best quality was that of liberality, during his elevation, to men of letters, some of whom he pensioned, who did not forget him, such, as Fontaine and Pelisson, which last has greatly extolled his resignation after his disgrace.

, count of Belle-Isle, more known by the name of marechal Bellisle, grandson of the preceding, was born in 1684. Politics and history attracted his attention from his very infancy, to which studies he afterwards added that of mathematics. He had hardly finished his education when Louis XIV. gave him a regiment of dragoons. He signalized himself at the siege of Lisle, received other steps of promotion, and at the peace returned to court, where the king entirely forgot the faults of the grandfather in the merits of his descendant. When war again broke out, after the death of Louis XIV. he proceeded to distinguish himself, but a change of ministry put a check to his career. He shared the disgrace of the minister Le Blanc, was for a time im-prisoned in the Bastile, and then banished to his own estate. In this retreat he composed a complete justification of himself, was recalled to court, and from that time experienced only favour, fortune, and promotion. In the war of 1733, he obtained a principal command in Flanders, distinguished himself before Philipsburg, and commanded during the rest of the campaign in Germany. In 1735 he was decorated with the order of the Holy Ghost, and was the confidential adviser of the minister, cardinal Fleury. About this time, taking advantage of an interval of peace, he wrote memoirs of all the countries in which he had served: but on the death of the emperor Charles VI. in 1740, he urged the cardinal to declare war. Ambition prompted this advice, and his ambition was not long without gratification. In 1741, he was created marechal of France. The witlings attacked him on his elevation, but he despised their efforts: “These rhymers,” said he, “would gain their ends, should I do them the honour to be angry.” At the election of the emperor in 1742, marechal Bellisle was plenipotentiary of France at the diet of Francfort, where his magnificence was no less extraordinary than the extent of his influence in the diet. He appeared rather as a principal elector than an ambassador, and secured the election of Charles VII. Soon after, by the desertion of the Prussians and Saxons, the marechal found himself shut up in Prague, and with great difficulty effected a retreat. He was obliged to march his army over the ice, and three thousand troops left in Prague were compelled to surrender, though with honour. On his return to Francfort, Charles VII. presented him with the order of the golden fleece, having already declared him a prince of the empire. In December 1743, as he was going again into Germany, he was taken prisoner at Elbingerode, a small town encircled by the territory of Hanover, and was carried into England, where he remained till August 1744. He then served against the Austrians in Provence; and, returning to Versailles to plan the campaign of 1748, was created a peer of France. He had enjoyed the title of duke of Gisors, from 1742. Afterthe peace in 1743, his influence at court continued to increase, and in 1757 he became prime minister; but in this situation he lived only four years; falling a victim, it is said, to his application to business, his sorrow for the misfortunes of France, and his anxious cares to extricate her from them. This patriotic character coincides with other anecdotes related of him. Having lost his brother, whom he tenderly loved, at a very critical period of public affairs, he suppressed his private grief as soon as possible, saying, “I have no brother; but I have a country, let me exert myself to save her.” He died in January, 1761, at the age of 77.

Marechal Bellisle was a great character, equally formed for war and politics. He joined the politeness of a courtier to the frankness of a soldier, and persuaded without being eloquent, because he always seemed convinced of what he urged. He was haughty with the great, but affable to his inferiors; and protected merit, not through vanity, but real esteem. He had no vice, except too much inclination for women. He was twice married, but had only one son, by his second wife, who fell in battle in 1758.

, a learned Frenchman, and member of the academy of sciences, was born at Paris Oct. 10, 1732. He was the nephew of the celebrated Duhamel, and acquired a similar taste for those studies that end in objects of real utility. He travelled over Anjou and Brittany to investigate the nature of the slate-quarries, and then went to Naples to make observations on the alum mines and other natural productions. On his return he had the misfortune to lose his tutor and uncle Duhamel, to whose estate he succeeded, and on which he carried on very extensive agricultural improvements and experiments, and acquired by his amiable private character the esteem of every one who knew him. He died Dec. 28, 1789, leaving the following valuable publications: 1. “Memoires sur la formation de$ Os,” 1760, 8vo, in which, with some discoveries of his own, he ably defends his uncle’s theory on that part of physiology. 2. “L‘art de l’Ardoisier,” 1762. 2. “L'art de travailler les cuirs dorés.” 4. “L'art de Tonnelier,” 1752. 5. “L'art de Coutelier.” All these form part of the Memoirs of the Academy of Sciences. 6. “Recherches sur les ruines d'Herculaneum, et sur les lumieres qui peuvent en resulter; avec un traite” sur la fabrication des mosaiques,“1769, 8vo. 7.” Observations faites sur les cotes de Normaudie," 1773, 4to. He was the author also of a great number of miscellaneous papers in the Memoirs of the Academy.

, a celebrated licentiate of the Sorbonne, was born in 1670 at Rochelle, where he studied ethics in the Jesuits’ college. He went afterwards to> Paris, and continued his studies in the community of M. Gillot, at the college of St. Barbe, including the time of his being licentiate, and was immediately nominated theologal of Rochelle; this office, however, he declined, nor had he ever any benefice, but the commendatory priory of St. Martin de Prunieres, in the diocese of Mende. M. Fouillou having engaged in the affair of the “Case of Conscience,” was obliged to conceal himself in 1703, and to retire into Holland about 1705; but the air of that country not agreeing with him, he was seized with an asthma, which proved incurable. He returned to Paris about 1720, and died there September 21, 1736, aged sixty-six, leaving several theological works, all anonymous, and all discovering great opposition to the bull Unigenitus. The principal are, 1. “Considerations sur la Censure (of the Cas de Conscience) de M. TEveque d'Apt.” 2. “Defense des Theologiens centre M. de Chartres,” 12mo. 3. “Traite” sur le Silence respectueux,“3 vols. 12mo. 4.” La Chime-re du Jansenisme, et le Kenversement de la Doctrine de St. Augustin, par rOrdonuance de Luron, et de la Rochelle,“12mo. 5.” Traits de l'Equilibre,“a small piece containing observations on the 101 propositions censured by the bull Umgenitus. Fouillou had also a great share in the first edition of” L' Action de Dieu sur let Creatures,“4to, or 6 vols. 12mo;” Gemissemens sur PertRo'ial,“12mo;” Grands Hexaples,“1721, 7 vols. 4to, and” l'Histotre du Caa de Conscience," 1705, 8 vols. 12mo.

, two learned printers of Scotland, were, it is supposed, natives of Glasgow, and passed their early days in obscurity. Ingenuity and perseverance, however, enabled them to establish a press from which have issued some of the finest specimens of correct and elegant printing which the eighteenth century has produced. Even Bodoni of Parma, or Barbou of Paris, have not gone beyond some of the productions from the press of Robert and Andrew Foulis. It would b highly agreeable to trace the progress of these ingenious men, but their history has been neglected by their countrymen, and at this distance little can be recovered. Robert Foulis began printing about 1740, and one of his first essays was a good edition of Demetrius Phalereus, in 4to. In 1744 he brought out his celebrated immaculate edition, of Horace, 12mo, and soon afterwards was in partnership with his brother Andrew. Of this edition of Horace, the sheets, as they were printed, were hung up in the college of Glasgow, and a reward was offered to those who should discover an inaccuracy. It has been several times reprrnted at Glasgow, but not probably with the same fidelity. The two brothers then proceeded in producing, for thirty years, a series of correct and well printed books, particularly classics, which, either in Greek or Latin, are as remarkable for their beauty and exactness as any in the Aldine series. Among those classics we may enumerate J. “Homer,” 4 vols. fol. Gr. 2. “Herodotus,” 9 vols. J2mo. 3. “Thucydides,” 8 vols. 12mo. 4. “Xenophon,” 8 vols. 12mo. 5. “Epictetus,” 12mo. 6. “Longiniis,” 12mo. 7. “Ciceronis Opera,” 20 vols. 12mo. %. “Horace,” 12mo and 4to. 9. “Virgil,” I3mo. 10. ' Tibullus and Propertius,“12mo. 11.” Cornelius Nepos,“3 vols. 12mo. 12.” Tacitus,“4 vols. 12mo. 13. 11 Juvenal and Persius,” 12mo. 14. “Lucretius,” 12mo. To these may be added a beautiful edition of the Greek Testament, small 4to; Gray’s Poems; Pope’s Works; Hales of Eton, &c. &c. &c.

It is a melancholy reflection that the taste of these worthy men for the fine arts at last brought about their ruin; for having engaged in the establishment of an academy for the instruction of youth in painting and sculpture in Scotland, the enormous expence of sending pupiLs to Italy, to study and copy the ancients, gradually brought on their decline in the printing business; and they found the city of Glasgow no fit soil to transplant the imitative arts into, although the literary genius of Greece and Rome had already produced them ample fortunes. Unsuccessful as they were, however, in this project, it ought not to be forgot that Robert Foulis, with whom it originated, was the first who endeavoured to establish a school of the liberal arts in Great Britain. Andrew Foulis died in 1774 and Robert in 1776 exhibited andsold at Christie’s in. Pall Mall, the remainder of his paintings. The catalogue forms 3 vols.; and the result of the sale was, that after all the concomitant cxpences were defrayed, the balance in his favour amounted only to the sum of fifteen shillings, He died the same year, on his return to Scotland.

, a German divine and historian, was born at Liege, of an ancient and distinguished family, in 1609; and in 1625 he entered the order of the Jesuits. His tutors, observing that his qualifications were peculiarly adapted to the duties of a preacher, took care to instruct him in the requisites for undertaking the office, and be became celebrated for his public services for more than thirty years, as well as for his extensive knowledge, which embraced every branch of science. He was successively appointed rector of the colleges at Huy and Tournay, and died of a pestilential disorder in the latter city, in 1668. He is known as an author by many theological pieces, particularly “Commentarii Historici et Morales ad libros I. et II. Machabxorum, ndditis liberioribus Excursibus,” in 2 vols. folio; and by his “Historia Leodiensis, per Episcoporum et Principum Seriem digesta ab origine populiusque ad Ferdinandi Bavari tenipora,” &c. in 3 vols. fol. This work, though not very ably executed, is said to throw much light on the history of the Low Countries.

, a Dutch Latin poet, styled by himself, in allusion to his real name, Gulieluius Gnaphaus, was born in 14-S3, at the Hague, and became master of a school in that place. He wrote several comedies in Latin, which sometimes have been sought by foreign collectors, rather as rare than for their intrinsic merit; yet the “AcoJastus” is common and cheap in this country. We know of three of these comedies: 1. “Martyrium Johannis Pistorii,” Leyden. 2. “Hvpocrisis,” a tragi-comedy, 1554-. 3. “Acolastus, de filio prodigo,” a comedy all in 8vo. He died at Horden in FriezeJand, where he had arrived to the rank of a burgomaster, in 1558. Many critics would say that nothing very lively could be expected in the comedies of a Dutch burgomaster. His “Acolastus” was reprinted at Paris, in 1554, with elaborate notes by Gabriel Prateolus; and is said, in the title, to be formed so diligently of sentences from Plautus and Terence, that to interpret it might serve as an extensive comment on both those authors.

, knt. whose ancestors were seated at Narford, in Norfolk, so early as the reign of Henry III. was educated as a commoner of Christchurch, Oxford, under the care of that eminent encourager of literature, Dr. Aldrich. He at the same time studied under Dr. Hickes the Anglo-Saxon language, and its antiquities; of which he published a specimen in Hickes’s “Thesaurus,” under the title of “Numismata Anglo-Saxonica et Anglo-Danica, hreviter illustrataab Andrea Fountaine, eq. aur. & aedis Christi Oxon. alumno. Oxon. 1705,” in which year Mr. Hearne dedicated to him his edition of Justin the historian. He received the honour of knighthood from king William; and travelled over most parts of Europe, where he made a large and valuable collection of pictures, ancient statues, medals, and inscriptions; and, while in Italy, acquired such a knowledge of virtu, that the dealers in antiquities were not able to impose on him. In 1709 his judgment and fancy were exerted in embellishing the “Tale of a Tub” with designs almost equal to the excellent satire they illustrate. At this period he enjoyed the friendship of the most distinguished wits, and of Swift in particular, who repeatedly mentions him in the Journal to Stella in terms of high regard. In December, 1710, when sir Andrew was given, over by his physicians, Swift visited him, foretold his recovery, and rejoiced at it though he humourously says, “I have lost a legacy by his living for he told me he had left me a picture and some books,” &c. Sir Andrew was vice-chamberlain to queen Caroline while princess of Wales, and after she was queen. He was also tutor to prince William, for whom he was installed (as proxy) knight of the Bath, and had on that occasion a patent granted him, dated Jan. 14, 1725, for adding supporters to his arms. Elizabeth his sister, married colone.1 Clent of Knightwick, in Worcestershire. Of his skill and judgment in medals ancient and modern, he made no trifling profit, by furnishing the most considerable cabinets of this kingdom; but if, as Dr. Warton tells us, Annius in the “Dunciad” was meant for him, his traffic was not always of the most honourable kind. In 1727 he was appointed warden of the mint, an office which he held till his death, which happened Sept. 4, 1753. He was buried at Narford, in Norfolk, where he had erected an elegant seat, and formed a fine collection of old china ware, a valuable library, an excellent collection of pictures, coins, and many curious pieces of antiquity. Sir Andrew lost many miniatures by a fire at White’s original chocolate-house, in St. James’s-street, where he had hired two rooms for his collections. A portrait of him, by Mr. Hoare of Bath, is in the collection at Wilton house; and two medals of him are engraved in Snelling’s “English Medals,” 1776. Montfaucon, in the preface to “L'Antiquit6 Explique,” calls sir Andrew Fountaine an able antiquary, and says that, during his stay at Paris, that gentleman furnished him with every piece of antiquity that he had collected, which could be of use to his work; several were accordingly engraved and described, as appears by sir Andrew’s name on the plates.

, a Flemish painter of the 17th century, born at Antwerp in 1580, was one of the most learned and celebrated of landscape painters. Some have placed him so near Titian, as to make the difference of their pictures consist, rather in the countries represented, that) in the goodness of the pieces. The principles they went upon are the same, and their colouring alike good and regular. He painted for Rubens, of whom he learned the essentials of his art The elector palatine employed him at Heidelberg, and from thence he went to Paris, where, though he worked a long time, and was well paid, yet he grew poor for want of conduct, and died 1659, in the house of an ordinary painter called Silvain, who lived in the suburbs of St. Jaques.

, an eminent French chemist, was born at Paris June 15, 1755, where his father was an apothecary, of the same family with the subject of the succeeding article. In his ninth year he was sent to the college of Harcourt, and at fourteen he completed the studies which were at that time thought necessary. Having an early attachment to music and lively poetry, he attempted to write for the theatre, and had no higher ambition than to become a player, but the bad success of one of his friends who had encouraged this taste, cured him of it, and for two years he directed his attention to commerce. At the end of this time an intimate friend of his father persuaded him to study medicine, and accordingly he devoted his talents to anatomy, botany, chemistry, and natural history. About two years after, in. 1776, he published a translation of Ramazzini, “on the diseases of artisans,” which he enriched with notes and illustrations derived from chemical theories which were then quite new. In 1780, he received the degree of M. D. and regent of that faculty, in spite of a very considerable opposition from his brethren, and from this time his chemical opinions and discoveries rendered him universally known and respected. The fertility of his imagination, joined to a style equally easy and elegant, with great precision, attracted the attention of a numerous school. In 1784, on the death of Macquer, he obtained the professorship of chemistry in the Royal Gardens, and the year following he was admitted into the academy of sciences, of the section of anatomy, but was afterwards admitted to that of chemistry, for which he was more eminently qualified. In 1787, he in conjunction with his countrymen De Morveau, Lavoisier, and Berthollet, proposed the new chemical nomenclature, which after some opposition, effected a revolution in chemical studies. (See Lavoisier.) Although constantly occupied in scientific experiments, and in publishing various works on subjects of medicine, chemistry, and natural history, he fell into the popular delusion about the time of the revolution, and in 1792 was appointed elector of the city of Paris, and afterwards provisional deputy to the national convention, which, however, he did not enter until after the death of the king.

In Sept 1793, he obtained the adoption of a project for the regulation of weights and measures, was chosen secretary in October, and in December following president of the Jacobins, who denounced him for his silence in the convention. This he answered by pleading his avocations and chemical labours, by which, he who had been born without any fortune, had been able to maintain his father and sisters. In Sept. 1794, he became a member of the committee of public safety, and was again elected to it in Feb. 1795. Besides proposing some improvements in the equipment of the armies, which were then contending with all the powers of Europe, he was particularly engaged in schools and establishments for education, to which new names, as polytechnic, normal, &c. were given, that they might consign to oblivion as much as possible the ancient instituti&ns of France. The re-election of two thirds of the convention removed him to the council of elders, on$. of the fantastical modes of government established in I?y5, where, in November, he had to refute several charges levelled against him respecting the murder of Lavoisier. He was afterwards nominated professor of chemistry, and a member ofthe institute; and in May 1797, Jeft the council. Dyring the time he could spare from his public employments, he continued to cultivate his more honourable studies, and had attained the highest rank among the men of science whom the revolutionary tribunals had spared, when he died Dec. 16, 1809. At this period he was a counsellor of state for life, a count of the empire, a commander of the legion of honour, directorgeneral of public instruction, a member of the national institute, professor of chemistry in the medical and polytechnic schools, and in the museum of natural history, and a member of most of the learned societies of Europe.

Fourcroy’s works rank among the most considerable which France has produced in chemistry, and must be allowed in a great measure to confirm the high encomiums which his countrymen have bestowed on him, not only as a profound, but a pleasing and elegant writer. He published, 1. “The translation of Ramazzini,” before-mentioned. 2. “Lemons elementaires d'histoire naturelle et de chimie,” 1782, 2 vols. 8vo, of which there have been many editions, the last in 1794, 5 vols. 8vo. 3. “Memoires et observations pour servir de suite aux elemens de chimie,” 1784, 8vo. 4. “Principes de chimie a l‘usage de l’ecole veterinaire,” 2 vols. 12mo. 5. “L‘art de connoitre et d’employer les medicamens dans les maladies qui attaquent le corps humain,” 1785, 2 vols. 8vo. 6. “Entomologia Parisiensis” by Geoffrey, an improved edition, 1785, 2 vols. 12mo. 7. “Methode de nomenclature chimique proposer par Morveau, &c.” with a new system of chemical characters, 1787, 8vo. 8. “Essai sur le phlogistique, et sur la constitution des acides,” from the English of Kirwan, with notes by Morveau, Lavoisier, Bertholet, and Fourcroy, 1788, 8vo. 9. “Analyse chimique de l‘eau sulphureuse d’Enghein, pour servir a l'histoire des eaux sulphureuse en general,” by Fourcroy & La Porte, 1788, 8vo. 10. “Annales de Chimie,” by Fourcroy and all the French chemists, published periodically from 1789 to 1794, 18 vols. 8vo. 11. “La eclairée par les sciences physiques,” 1791, 1792, 12 vols. 12. “Philosophic chimique,” 1792. Fourcroy wrote also in the “Magasin encyclopeclique,” and the “Journal de l'ecole polytechnique,” and drew up several reports for the national convention, which were published in the Moniteur, &c. His last publications were, 13.“Tableaux pour servir de resume aux Ie9ons de chimie faites a l'ecole de medicine de Paris pendant 1799 et 1800. 14.” Systeme des connoissances chimiques, et de leurs applications aux phenomenes de la nature et de Part," 1800, 10 vols. 8vo, and 5 vols. 4to. To these extensive labours may be added the chemical articles in the Encyclopaedia. Fourcroy left a very valuable library, which was sold by auction at Paris, in 1810, and of which Messrs. Tilliard, the booksellers, published a well-arranged catalogue. Several of his works have been translated into English.

, marechal de camp, grand cross of the order of St. Louis, director of the royal corps of engineers, member of the council at war and of the naval council, and free associate of the academy of sciences, was born at Paris Jan. 19, 1715. He was the son of Charles de Fourcroy, an eminent counsellor at law, and Elizabeth L'Heritier. Destined to the bar as an hereditary profession, his inclination impelled him into the paths of science, and accident led him into the corps of engineers. An officer of that corps was involved in an important law-suit, which he chose M. de Fourcroy to conduct. M. de Fourcroy directed his son to converse with the officer for the purpose of procuring every information necessary to the success of his cause; but the youth, whose thirst of science was already conspicuous, shewed less attention to the particulars of the lawsuit, than desire to be acquainted with what concerned the service of an engineer; and being informed of the preliminary studies requisite to an admission into that body, he was soon enabled to offer himself for examination.

In 1736 he was admitted into the corps; and was employed under marshal d'Asfeld. His activity, zeal, and knowledge above his years, procured him the confidence of his commander; but, remarking an error in a project which the marshal communicated to him, he informed him of it For this at first be received thanks; but unluckily he was imprudent enough to entrust this little secret of his vanity to his mother, and her maternal tenderness was equally indiscreet. The marshal had not greatness of mind enough to be indulgent, or ability enough not to be afraid of avowing that he was liable to mistake; and it was long evident that he had not forgiven M. de Fourcroy, both from the commissions which he gave him, and his general regulations, which always tended to prevent his promotion. From this treatment M. de Fpurcroy learnt at an early period to expect nothing but from his services; and he was destined to prove by his example, that virtue is one of the roads to fortune, and perhaps not the least secure.

Engaged in every campaign of the war of 1740, he was charged, though young, with some important commissions and his application during the peace procured him employment in the succeeding war. He made three campaigns in Germany, and in 1761 was commander of the engineers on the coast of Brittany, when the English took BelJcisle. In 1762 be made a campaign in Portugal, where he was present at the siege of Almeyda. Every day M. de Fourcroy worked fourteen hours in his closet, when the duties of the service did not compel him to quit it. An irresistible propensity to the study of natural philosophy would have led him far, had he not been incessantly called from it to the duties of his station. From these he sometimes stole time for making observations; hut, guarding against the illusions of self-love, he communicated most of his researches to men of learning, who have inserted them in their works. The microscopical observations in the “Treatise on the Heart,” which does so much honour to Mr. Senac, are almost all by M. de Fourcroy. Many of his remarks and observations make a part of M. Duhamel’s “Treatise on Fishing,” in which we find the first traces of Spallanzani’s experiments on hybridous fish. IM. de Fourcroy had seen these experiments in a fish-pond in Germany, and gave an account of them to Mr. Duhamel. To him M. Duhamel was indebted also for some experiments with which he has enriched his “Treatise on Forests.” M. de la Lande, too, has acknowledged that he owes him many facts and reflections, of which he has availed himself in his work on Tides. Amongst the essays that M. de Fourcroy published separately, is one in which he examines how we may judge of the height to which certain birds of passage raise themselves, by knowing that of the point at which they cease to be visible. He published the “Art of Brick-making,” which forms a part of the collection of the academy, to which he also sent several essays that were approved and inserted in their works. The margin of his Collection of the Academy relative to the Arts he has filled with notes, as it was his practice when he read it to examine the calculations, and correct them if they were not accurate.

M. de Fourcroy was employed successively in various parts of the kingdom; principally, indeed, at Calais, at Rousillon, and in Corsica. Everywhere he served with diligence, and everywhere he acquired esteem and veneration. Of this conduct he received the reward in the most flattering manner. M. de St. Germain being appointed minister at war, wished to avail himself in his office of the abilities of some superior officer in the corps of engineers. On this he consulted the directors of that corps, then assembled at Versailles. All with an unanimous voice pointed out M. de Fourcroy, as the most capable of fulfilling the intentions of the minister. M. de St. Germain, who was scarcely acquainted with M. de Fourcroy, wrote to him to come to Perpignan, where he resided. When the minister told this gentleman that he had sent for him without knowing him, to fill a post near himself, and that he was recommended by the officers of his corps, his astonishment may easily be conceived. Of the opinion given of him he shewed himself worthy; and his conduct both public and private, made him honoured and respected.

A life thus busy was rendered more happy by a sentiment, which, born at an early period, expired but with his life. The daughter of M. Le Maistre, the neighbour and friend of his father, and like him famous at the bar, was the companion of his youthful sports, and insensibly chosen by him as the partner of his future days. Whilst M. de Fourcroy was studying under able masters to render himself useful to his country by his talents and acquirements, miss Le Maistre learned from a pious and charitable mother to succour and console the sufferings of her fellowcreatures. The vacations of each year brought together the two young friends, whose minds were so attuned to each other, as if they had never been separated. At that age, when the heart experiences the want of a more lively sentiment, the tender friendship which united them left them at liherty for no other choice. Both without fortune, they contented themselves with loving each other always, and seeing each other sometimes, till prudence should permit them a closer union. Both sure of themselves, as of the objects of their affection, fourteen years passed without any inquietude but what absence occasioned. After marriage, enjoyment weakened not their passion, as the sacrifice they had made of it to reason had not disturbed their tranquillity. Similar in opinion, their thoughts and their sentiments were common. Separated from the world equally by the simplicity of their tastes, and the purity of their principles, they reciprocally found in the esteem of each other the sole support, the sole reward, of which their virtue had need. Every day they tasted the pleasure of that intimate union of souls, which every day saw renewed. The difference of their characters, which offered the striking contrast of gentleness and inflexibility, served only to show them the power of the sympathy of their hearts. Different from most both in their love and in their virtues, time, which almost always seems to approach us to happiness only to carry us the farther from it afterwards, seemed to have fixed it with them. Perhaps we have not another instance of a passion continuing seventy years, always tender, always the chief (nay the sole, since that they bore for an only daughter constituted a part of it), which lasted uniformly from infancy to old age, not weakened, not once obscured by the least cloud, not once disturbed by the slightest coldness or negligence.

Employed to his last moment in his country’s service, M. de Fourcroy died January 12, 1791, regretted by his family, his friends, and his country.

, professor of the Arabic and Chinese languages at Paris, was the son of a surgeon, and born at Herbelai, near Paris, in 1683. He learned the elements of Latin from the curate of the place; but losing his father when very young, he came under the care of an uncle, who removed him to his house at Paris, and superintended his studies. He went through the courses of logic, rhetoric, and philosophy, in different colleges; and happening to meet with the abbé Sevin, who loved study as well as himself, they formed a scheme of reading all the Greek and Latin poets together. But as the exercises of the society employed most of their hours by day, they found means to continue this task secretly by night; and this being considered as a breach of discipline, the superior thought tit to exclude them from the community. Fourmont retired to the college of Montaigu, and had the very chambers which formerly belonged to Erasmus; and here the abbé Sevin continued to visit him, when they went on with their work without interruption. Fourmont joined to this pursuit the study of the oriental languages, in which he made a very uncommon progress.

He afterwards was employed in reading lectures: he explained the Greek fathers to some, and the Hebrew and Syriac languages to others. After. that, he undertook the education of the sons of the duke d'Antin, who were committed to his care, and studied in the college of Harcourt. He was at the same time received an advocate; but the law not being suited to his taste, he returned to his former studies. He then contracted an acquaintance with the abbé Bignon, at whose instigation he applied himself to the Chinese tongue, and succeeded beyond his expectations, for he had a prodigious memory, and a particular turn for languages. He now became very famous. He held conferences at his own house, once or twice a week, upon subjects of literature; at which foreigners, as well as French, were admitted and assisted. Hence he became known to the count de Toledo, who was infinitely pleased with his conversation, and made him great offers, if he would go into Spain; but Fourmont refused. In 1715 he succeeded M. Galland to the Arabic chair in the royal college. The same year he was admitted a member of the academy of inscriptions; of the royal society at London in 1738; and of that of Berlin in 1741. He was often consulted by the duke of Orleans, who had a particular esteem for him, and made him one of his secretaries. He died at Paris in 1743.

His most considerable works are, 1. “The Roots of the Latin tongue in metre.” 2. “Critical Reflections upon Ancient History, to the time of Cyrus,” 2 vois. 4to. 3. “Meditationes Sinicae,” fol. 4. “A Chinese Grammar, in Latin,” fol. 5. “Several Dissertations, printed in the Memoirs of the Academy of Inscriptions,” &c. He left several works in manuscript. In 1731 he published in 12mo, a catalogue of all his works, printed and manuscript, with notes, some particulars of his life, and some letters pretended to be addressed to him requesting him to publish such a work, and others which were so in reality. Fouriront appears to have been a scholar of vast industry and merit, but perfectly conscious of the rank he held. He had a younger brother, Michael Fourmont, who was an ecclesiastic, a professor of the Syriac tongue in the royal college, and a member also of the academy of inscriptions, who died in 1746.

, a French engraver and letter-founder, was born at Paris in 1712, and excelled in his profession. His letters not only embellished the typographical art, but his genins illustrated and enlarged it He published in 1737 a table of proportions to be observed between letters, in order to determine their height and relations to each other. This ingenious artist ascended to the very origin of printing, for the sake of knowing it thoroughly. He produced at different times several historical and critical dissertations upon the rise and progress of the typographical art, which have since been collected and published in 1 vol. 8vo, divided into three parts; the last including a curious history of the engravers in wood. But the most important work of Fournier, is his “Manuel Typographique, utile aux gens de Lettres, et a ceux qui exercent les differents parties de PArt de Plmprimerie,” in 2 vols. 8vo. The author meant to have added two more, but was prevented by his death, which happened in 1768. In this “Manuel” are specimens of all the different characters he invented. He was of the most pleasing manners, and a man of virtue and piety.

, a clergyman originally of the church of England, was the son of John Fowler of Marlborough, in Wiltshire, where he was born in 1610 or 1611. In 1627 he was admitted a servitor at Magdalencollege, Oxford, and continued there until he took his bachelor’s degree; and then went to Edmund-hall, and took that of master. Having entered into holy orders, he preached some time in and near Oxford; and afterwards at West-Woodhay, near Donnington castle, in Berkshire. In 1641 he took the covenant, and joined the presbyterians being then, as Wood imagines, minister of Margaret’s, Lothbury, but his name does not occur in the registers until 1652. In 1641 he became vicar of St. Mary’s, Reading, and an assistant to the commissioners of Berkshire, for the ejection of such as were then styled “scandalous, ignorant, and insufficient ministers and schoolmasters.” He was at length, a fellow of Eton college, though he had refused the engagement, as it was called. After the restoration, he lost his fellowship of Eton, and, being deprived of the vicarage of St. Mary’s for non-conformity, he retired to London, and afterwards to Kennington, in Surrey, where he continued to preach, although privately. For some time before his death, he was much disordered in his understanding, and died in Southwark, Jan. 15, 1676, and was buried within the precincts of St. John Baptist’s church, near Dowgate. He is said by Wood to have used odd gestures and antic behaviour in the pulpit, unbecoming the serious gravity of the place, but which made him popular in those times. His character by Mr. Cooper, who preached his funeral sermon, is more favourable, being celebrated “as an able, holy, faithful, indefatigable servant of Christ. He was quick in apprehension, solid in his notions, clear in his conceptions, sound in the faith, strong and demonstrative in arguing, mighty in convincing, and zealous for ther truth against all errors.” We are told, likewise, that “he had a singular gift in chronology, not for curious speculation or ostentation, but as a key and measure to know the signs of the times,” &c.

His works are, 1. “Daemonium meridianum, or Satan at noon; being a sincere and impartial relation of the pro-; ceedings of the commissioners of the county of Berks, authorized by the ordinance for ejection, against John Pordage, late minister of Bradfield, in the same county,'” Lond. 1655, 4to. This Pordage appeared to these commissioners to be unsound in the doctrine of the Trinity. 2. “Daemonium meridianum, the second part, discovering the slanders and calumnies cast upon some corporations, with forged and false articles upon the author, in at pamphlet entitled `The case of Reading rightly stated,' by the adherents and abettors of the said J. Pordage,” Lond. 1656, 4to. To this is subjoined “A Word to Infent Baptism,” &c. Fowler likewise published a few occasional Sermons; and “A sober answer to an angry epistle directed to all public teachers in this nation,” prefixed to a book called “Christ’s innocency pleaded against the cry of the Chief Priests,” by Thomas Speed, qnaker, &c. Lond. 1656. In this he was" assisted by Simon Ford, vicar of St. Laurence, Reading, and it was animadverted on by George Fox, in one of his publications.

, a learned English prelate, was born in 1632, at Westerleigh, in Gloucestershire; of which place his father was minister, but ejected for noncon formitjr after the restoration. He was sent to the College-school in Gloucester, where he was educated under William Russel, who had married his sister. In the beginning of 1650 he became clerk of Corpus Christi college, Oxford, and being looked upon, says Wood, “as a young man well endowed with the spirit, and gifted with extemporary prayer, he was admitted one of the chaplains thereof in 1653, and the same year took a bachelor of arts degree.” Afterwards removing to Cambridge, he took his master’s degree as a member of Trinity college, and returning to Oxford, was incorporated in the same degree July 5, 1656., About the same time he became chaplain to Arabella, countess dowager of Kent, who presented him to the rectory of Northill, in Bedfordshire. Having been educated a presbyterian, he scrupled about conformity at the restoration, but conformed afterwards, and became a great ornament to the church. His excellent moral writings renderedhim so considerable, that archbishop Sheldon, in order to introduce him into the metropolis, collated him in August 1673, to the rectory of All-hallows, Breadtreet. In February 1675-6, he was made prebendary of Gloucester; and in March IbSl, vicar of St. Giles’s, Cripplegate, on which he resigned the living of Allhallows. The same year, he accumulated the degrees of bachelor and doctor of divinity. During the struggle between protestantism and popery in this kingdom, he appeared to great advantage in defence of the former; but this rendered him obnoxious to the court, and in all probability tvas the secret cause of a prosecution against him, in 1685, by some uf his parishioners, who alledged that he was guilty of Whiggism, that he admitted to the communion excommunicated persons before they were absolved, &c. We are told this matter was carried so far, that, after a trial at Doctors’-couimons, he was suspended, under the pretence of having acted in several respects contrary to the canons of the church. This affront, however, did not intimidate him from doing what he thought his duty; for he was the second, who in 1688, sighed the resolution of the London clergy, not to read king James’s new declaration for liberty of conscience. He was rewarded for this and other services at the revolution; for in 1691, he was preferred to the see of Gloucester, and continued there till his death, which happened at Chelsea, Aug. 26, 1714, in his eighty-second year. His widow survived him some years, dying April 2, 1732. She was his second wife, the widow of the rev. Dr. Ezekiel Burton, and daughter of Ralph Trevor, of London, merchant. His first wife, by whom he had a large family, was daughter of Arthur Barnardiston, one of the masters in chancery. She died Dec. 19, 1696, and was buried, as well as the bishop, in Hendon church-yard, Middlesex, in the chancel of which church is a monument to his memory.

He was the author of many excellent works, as, 1. “The Principles and Practices of certain moderate divines of the Church of England, abusively called Latitudinarians, greatly misunderstood, truly represented and defended,” 1670, 8vo. This is written in the way of dialogue. 2. “The Design of Christianity or, a plain demonstration and improvement of this proposition, viz. that the enduing men with inward real righteousness and true holiness, was the ultimate end of our Saviour’s coming into the world, and is the great intendment of his blessed Gospel,” 1671, 8vo. John Bunyan, the author of the Pilgrim’s Progress, having attacked this book, the author vindicated it in a pamphlet with a very coarse title; 3. “Dirt wiped out; or, a manifest discovery of the gross ignorance, erroneousness, and most unchristian and wicked spirit of one John Bunyan, Lay-preacher in Bedford, c.” 1672, 4to. 4. “Libertas Evangelica; or, a Discourse of Christian Liberty. Being a further pursuance of The Design of Christianity,” 1630, 8vo. 5. Some pieces against popery; as, “The Resolution of this case of conscience, whether the Church of England’s symbolizing, so far as it doth with the Church of Rome, makes it lawful to hold communion with the Church of Rome?” 1683, 4to. “A Defence of the Resolution, &c.” 1684, 4to. “Examination of Cardinal Bellarmine’s fourth note of the Church, viz. Amplitude, or Multitude and Variety of Believers.” “The texts which Papists cite out of the Bible, for the proof of their doctrine concerning the obscurity of the Holy Scriptures, examined,” 1687, 4to. The two last are printed in “The Preservative against Popery,” folio. He published, also, 6. Two pieces on the doctrine of the Trinity, “Certain Propositions, by which the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is so explained, according to the ancient fathers, as to speak it not contradictory to natural reason. Together with a defence of them, &c.” 1694, 4to. “A Second Defence of the Propositions, &c.” 1695, 4to. 7. Eighteen Occasional Sermons; one of which was on “The great wickedness and mischievous effects of Slandering, preached in the parish church of St. Giles’s, Nov. 15, 1685, on Psalm ci. 5, with a large preface of the author, and conclusion in his own vindication,” 1685, 4to. 8. “An Answer to the Paper delivered by Mr. Ashton at his execution,” 1690, 4to. 9. “A Discourse on the great disingenuity and unreasonableness of repining at afflicting Providences, and of the influence which they ought to have upon us, published upon occasion of the death of queen Maw; with a preface containing some observations touching her excellent endowments and exemplary life,” 1695, 8vo.

In the registers of St. Giles’s, Cripplegate, which Mr. Malcolm appears to have examined with care, we find no mention made of any litigious proceedings of the parishioners against Dr. Fowler; but on the contrary, there arc the following entries, which show how much he was respected by them after the revolution: “Feb. 7, 1700. Ordered, that in consideration the bishop of Gloucester has a long time, at his own charge, provided a lecturer in this parish, and been otherwise kind and bountiful to the same, that the chancel of this parish church be forthwith put in good repair at the charge of the parish.” In 1708 he represented to the vestry that he was grown so extremely infirm and old, he could no longer preach in a morning; and having a large family, with but small profits from the vicarage, together with having provided a lecturer for twenty-five years past at his own charge, he now entreated them to elect one themselves, which they did, with many acknowledgments for his lordship’s fatherly conduct towards them.

, a celebrated English printer, was born at Bristol, educated at Winchester school, and admitted fellow of New college, in Oxford, in 1555, after two years of probation, where also he took his master’s degree. But refusing to comply with the terms of protestant conformity in queen Elizabeth’s reign, he resigned his fellowship, after holding it about four years, and, leaving England, took upon him the trade of printing, which he exercised partly at Antwerp, and partly at Louvain; and thus did signal service to the papists, in printing their books against the protestaut writers. Wood says that he was well skilled in Greek and Latin, a tolerable poet and orator, a theologist not to be contemned; and so versed also in criticism and other polite literature, that he might have passed for another Robert or Henry Stephens. He reduced into a compendium the “Summa Theologiæ” of Thomas Aquinas, under the title of “Loca Communia Theologica,” and wrote “Additiones in Chroiiica Genebrandi;” a “Psalter for Catholics,” which was answered by Sampson Dean, of Christ-church, Oxford, 1578; also epigrams, and other verses. He also translated from Latin into English, “The Epistle of Osorius,” and “.The Oration of Pet. Frarin, of Antwerp, against the unlawful insurrection of the protestants, under pretence to reform religion,” Antwerp, 1566. This was answered by William Fulke, divinity-professor in Cambridge. Fowler^died at Newmark, in Germany, Feb. 13, 1579.

, an English, physician, was born at York, Jan. 22, 1736, and, after having gone through a course of classical and medical education, set up as an apothecary in his native city, in 1760. In 1774, however, he relinquished this branch of practice, in order to apply himself more closely to the study of medical science; and for this purpose he went to Edinburgh, where he graduated in 1778. He then settled at Stafford, and was soon after elected physician to the infirmary at that place, where he practised with considerable reputation and success until 1791, when he returned to York. Here he met with the most flattering encouragement; but his ardent attention to his professional duties and studies was considerably interrupted in July 1793, by an attack of a painful anomalous disease of the chest, which he described as “fits of spasmodic asthma, attended with most of the painful symptoms of the angina pectoris.” After consulting many eminent physicians, and trying a variety of medicines, with partial and transient relief, for two years, he was agreeably surprised by a spontaneous and gradual decline of the symptoms, and was at length totally free from them. Notwithstanding the check to his exertions which he received from this complaint, his professional emoluments and reputation continued to increase; and m 1796 he was appointed, without solicitation, and even without his knowledge, physician to the lunatic asylum, near York, called the “Retreat,” established by the society of quakers, for the relief of the insane members of their community. He was a member of the medical societies of Edinburgh, of the medical society of London, and of the Bristol medical society. Dr. Fowler continued his useful career, active in every duty that benevolence could dictate, or friendship demand, and, in the exercise of his profession, an example of generosity, unwearied diligence and humanity, until 1901, when he died, on July 22d, while upon a visit to some friends in London.

In the course of his studies and practice, he exemplified the method recommended by lord Bacoir for the improvement of medicine, perhaps more than any of his predecessors or contemporaries; and some idea of his indefatigable labours may be conceived, when we mention that he left in manuscript the history of more than six thousand cases, which fell under his own inspection and treatment. From this store of experimental knowledge he published several works. The first of these was entitled “Medical Reports on the effects of Tobacco/' which was published in 1785; and in the year following his second treatise appeared, under the title of” Medical Reports on the Effects of Arsenic.“Both works tended in a considerable degree to instruct the profession in the means of rendering these medicines safe and manageable, and accordingly they are now, especially the latter, in daily and familiar use, and rank among the valuable articles of the materia medica. In 1795 he dedicated to the medical professors of Edinburgh a volume of” Medical Reports on the acute and chronic Rheumatism," and was the author of several papers printed in different volumes of the Medical Commentaries, and Annals of Medicine, edited by Drs. Duncan of Edinburgh.

, an eminent statesman, almoner to Henry VIII. and bishop of Hereford, was born at Dursley, in Gloucestershire; but it is not mentioned in what year. After passing through Eton school he was admitted of King’s college in Cambridge, 1512, where he was elected provost in 1528, and continued in that office till his death. Being recommended to cardinal Wolsey as a man of an acute spirit and political turn, he was taken into his service; and, according to Lloyd, was the person who encouraged the cardinal to aspire to the papacy. In 1528 he was sent ambassador to Rome, jointly with Stephen Gardiner, afterwards bishop of Winchester, in order to obtain bulls from Clement VII. for Henry’s divorce from Catherine of Arragon. He was then almoner to the king; and reputed, as Burnet says, one of the best diviues ia England. He was afterwards employed in embassies both in France and Germany; during which, as he was one day discoursing upon terms of peace, he said, “honourable ones last long, but the dishonourable, no longer than till kings have power to break them the surest?way, therefore, to peace, is a constant prepared ness for war.” Two things, he would say, must support a government, “gold and iron: gold, to reward its friends; and iron, to keep under its enemies.” It was to him that Cranmer owed his first introduction to court, with all its important results.

In 1530 he was employed with Stephen Gardiner at Cambridge, to obtain the university’s determination in the matter of Henry VIIL's divorce. In 1531 he was promoted to the archdeaconry of Leicester, and in 1533 to that of Dorset It was he that apprized the clergy of their having fallen into a prawunire, and advised them to make their submission to the king, by acknowledging him supreme head of the church, and making him a present of 1 -00,0001. In 1535 he was promoted to the bishopric of HerefordHe was the principal pillar of the reformation, as to the politic and prudential part of it; being of more activity, and no less ability, than Cranmer himself: but he acted more secretly than Cranmer, and therefore did not bring himself into danger of suffering on that account. A few months after his consecration he was sent ambassador to the protestaut princes in Germany, then assembled at Smalcald; whom he exhorted to unite, in point of doctrine, with the church of England. He spent the winter at Wirtemberg, and held several conferences with some of the German divines, endeavouring to conclude a treaty with them upon many articles of religion: but nothing was effected. Burnet has given a particular account of this negociation in his “History of the Reformation.” He returned to England in 1536, and died at London, May 8, 1533. He was a very learned man, as we are assured by Godwin, who calls him “vir egregie doctus.” Wood also styles him an eminent scholar of his time; and Lloyd represents him as a tine preacher, but adds, that “his inclination to politics brake through all the ignoble restraints of pedantique studies, to an eminency, more by observation and travel, than by reading and study, that made him the wonder of the university, and the darling of the court.” When he was called,“says he,” to the pulpit or chair, he came off not ill, so prudential were his parts in divinity; when advanced to any office of trust in the university, he came off very well, so incomparable were his parts for government."

Active as was his life, he found some time to write. He published a book, “De vera differentia Regiee Potestatis et Ecclesiastics, et quae sit ipsa veritas et virtus utriusque,” 1534, and 1538. It was translated into English by Henry lord Stafford. He also wrote annotations upon Mantuan, the poet. There is likewise an oration of his extant, in the story of Thomas lord Cromwell, in the second volume of Fox’s “History of the Acts and Monuments of the Church;” and a letter from him and Gardiner about their proceedings at Cambridge, when they were sent in 1530 to obtain that university’s determination concerning the king’s marriage and divorce, in the collection of records at the end of Burnet’s first volume of the “History of the Reformation.”

, an English clergyman, of whose early history we have no account, was educated at Edmund Hall, Oxford, where he took his master’s degree, July 5, 1704. He afterwards became vicar of Pottern, in Wiltshire, prebendary of that prebend in the church of Salisbury, and chaplain to lord Cadogan. In 1722 he published “The New Testament explained,” 2 vols. 8vo. This work has the several references placed under the text in words at length, so that the parallel passages may be seen at one view; to which are added, the chronology, the marginal readings, and notes on difficult or mistaken texts, with many more references than in any other edition then published, of the English New Testament. He likewise wrote “The duty of Public Worship proved, to which are added directions for a devout behaviour therein, drawn chiefly from the holy scriptures and the liturgy of the church of England; and an account of the method of the Common Prayer, by way of question and answer.” The fourth edition of this was printed in 1727, -and it is now in the list of books distributed by the society for promoting Christian knowledge. In 1726 he was presented to the vicarage of St. Mary’s, Reading. Having preached a sermon on moral obligations, from Matt, xxiii. 23, at the Reading lecture, he afterwards preached it as an assize sermon, at Abingdon, July 18, 1727. It was then printed, and dedicated to the chancellor. Some expressions in the discourse being liable to an unfavourable interpretation, it gave offence to several members of the lecture, and produced a controversy between the author and Mr. Joseph Slade, who had been curate of St. Mary’s, was then lecturer of St Lawrence’s, and afterwards vicar of South Molton. Mr. Slade published the letters which had passed between himself and the author; and preached a lecture sermon on Tuesday, Oct. 31, 1727, containing several severe strictures on Mr. Fox’s sermon, and some personal reflections, which he published. To this a reply was made by Lancelot Carleton, rector of Padworth, in “A Letter to the rev. Joseph Slade, &c.” printed at Reading. Mr. Fox published also a few other occasional sermons. He died at Reading in 1738, and was buried in St. Mary’s church.

, founder of the society of quakers, was born at Drayton, in Leicestershire, in 1624. His father was a weaver, who seems to have taken great pains in educating his son in the principles of piety and virtue. He was, at a proper age, apprenticed to a dealer in wool, and grazier, and being also employed in keeping sheep, he had many opportunities for contemplation and reflection. When he was about nineteen years of age he experienced much trouble and anxiety on observing the intemperance of some persons, professing to be religious, with whom he had gone to an inn for refreshment; and on the following night he was persuaded that a divine communication was made to him, urging him to forsake all, and devote his life to the duties of religion. He now quitted his relations, dressed himself in a leathern doublet, and wandered about from place to place. Being discovered in the metropolis, his friends persuaded him to return, and settle in some regular employment. But he did not remain with them many months; determining to embrace an itinerant mode of life. He fasted much and often, walked abroad in retired places, with no other companion but the bibje, and sometimes sat in the hollow of a tree for a day together, and walked in the fields by night, as if in a state of deep melancholy. He occasionally attended upon public teachers, but did not derive that benefit from them that he looked for: and hearing, as he supposed, a voice exclaiming, “There is one, even Christ Jesus, that canspeak to thy condition/' he forsook the usual outward means of religion; contending, that as God did not dwell in temples made with hands, so the people should receive the inward divine teaching of the Lord, and take that for their rule of life. About 1648 he felt himself called upon to propagate the opinions which he had embraced, and commenced public teacher in Manchester, and some of the neighbouring towns and villages, insisting on the certainty and efficacy of experiencing the coming of Christ in the heart, as a light to discover error, and the knowledge of one’s duty. He now made more extensive journeys, and travelled through the counties of Derby, Leicester, and Northampton, addressing the people in the market-places, and inveighing strongly against injustice, drunkenness, and the other prevalent vices of the age. About this time he apprehended that the Lord had forbidden him to take off his hat to any one; and required him to speak to the people in the language of thou and thee; that he must not bend his knee to earthly authorities; and that he must on no account take an oath. His peculiarities exposed him to much unjustifiable treatment, although it must be allowed that he sometimes provoked harsh usage by his intemperate zeal. At Derby the followers of Fox were first denominated” quakers,“as a term of reproach, either on account of the trembling accent used in the delivery of their speeches, or, because, when brought before the higher powers, they exhorted the magistrates and other persons present” to tremble at the name of the Lord." In 1655 Fox was sent prisoner to Cromwell, who contented himself with obtaining a written promise that he would not take up arms against him or the existing government; and having discussed various topics with mildness and candour, he ordered him to be set at liberty. Fox probably now felt himself bold in the cause, re-commenced his ministerial labours at London, and spent some time in vindicating his principles by means of the press, and in answering the books circulated against the society which he had founded, and which began to attract public notice in many parts of the kingdom. Notwithstanding the moderation of Cromwell towards Fox, he was perpetually subject to abuse and insult, and was frequently imprisoned and hardly used by magistrates in the country whither he felt himself bound to travel; and more than once he was obliged to solicit the interference of the Protector, to free him from the persecutions of subordinate officers. Once he wrote to Cromwell, soliciting his attention to the sufferings of his friends; and on hearing a rumour that he was about to assume the title of king, Fox solicited an audience, and remonstrated with him very freely upon the measure, as what must bring shame and ruin on himself and his posterity. He also addressed a paper to the heads and governors of the nation, on occasion of a fast appointed on. account of the persecutions of the protestants abroad, in which he embraced the opportunity that such appointment offered, of holding up, in proper colours, the impropriety and iniquity of persecution at home. The history of Fox, for several years previously to 1666, consists of details of his missions, and accounts of his repeated imprisonments. In this last-mentioned year he was liberated by order of the king, and he immediately set about forming the people who had embraced his doctrines into a compact and united body: monthly meetings were established, and other means adopted to provide for the various exigences to which they might be liable.

About 1669 he married Margaret, the widow of judge Fell, at whose house he had been entertained in his progress through Lancashire. The ceremony, on this occasion, was according to that simple form which is practised to this day among the people of his persuasion. He only acquainted their common friends of their intention; and having received their approbation, they took each other in marriage, by mutual public declarations to that intent, at a meeting appointed for the purpose at Bristol. After this Mr. Fox sailed for America, where he spent two years in making proselytes, and in confirming the faith and practice of those who had already joined in his cause. Soon after his return to England he was taken into custody, and thrown into Worcester gaol under the charge of having “held a meeting from all parts of the nation, for terrifying the king’s subjects.” After being acquitted, he went to Holland, and on his return a suit was instituted against him for refusing to pay tithes; his opponents were successful, and he was obliged to submit to the consequences. In 1684 Fox again visited the continent, and upon his return he found his health and spirits too much impaired by incessant fatigues, and almost perpetual persecutions, to contend any more with his enemies: he accordingly lived more retired; and in 1690 he died, in the sixty-seventh year of his age; having, however, performed the duties of a preacher till within a few days of his decease. His writings, exclusive of a few separate pieces, which were not printed a second time, were collected in 3 vols. folio; the first contains his “Journal;” the second a collection of his “Epistles;” the third, his “Doctrinal Pieces.” Fox was a man of good natural talents, and thoroughly conversant in the scriptures. The incessant zeal which he exhibited through life, affords abundant evidence of his piety, sincerity, and purity of intention; and his sufferings bear testimony to his fortitude, patience, and resignation to the Divine will. William Penn, speaking of him, says that “he had an extraordinary gift in opening the scriptures, but that, above all, he excelled in prayer. The reverence and solemnityof his address and behaviour, and the ferventness and fullness of his words, often struck strangers with admiration.” He also mentions, in terms of high commendation, his meekness, humility, and moderation; and he adds, that he was civil beyond all forms of breeding; in his behaviour very temperate, eating little, and sleeping less, though a bulky person.

, an eminent English divine and churchhistorian, was born at Boston in Lincolnshire, of honest and reputable parents in 1517, the very year that Luther began to oppose the errors of the church of Rome. His father dying when he was young, and his mother marrying again, he fell under the tutelage of a father-in-law, with whom he remained till the age of sixteen. He was then entered of Brazen Nose college in Oxford, where he had for his chamber-fellow, the celebrated dean Nowell, and perhaps the same tutor, Mr. John Hawarden or Harding, who was afterwards principaj of the college, and to whom Fox dedicated his work on the Eucharist. In May 1538, he took, the degree of bachelor of arts. He was soon distinguished for his uncommon abilities and learning; was chosen fellow of Magdalen college, and became master of arts in 1543. He discovered in his younger years a genius for poetry, and wrote in an elegant style several Latin comedies, the subjects of which were taken from the scriptures. We have a comedy of his, entitled, “De Christo Triumphante,” printed in 1551, and at Basil in 1556, 8vo; which was translated into English by Richard Day, son of John Day, the famous printer in the reign of queen Elizabeth, and published with this title, “Christ Jesus Triumphant, wherein is described the glorious triumph and conquest of Christ over sin, death, and the law,” &c. 1579; and in 1607, in 8vo. It was again published in the original in 1672, and dedicated to all schoolmasters, in order that it might be admitted into their respective schools, for the peculiar elegance of its style, by T. C. M. A. of Sidney-college, in Cambridge. The date of the first edition (1551), shows that Anthony Wood was mistaken in asserting that Fox wrote it at Basil, to which place he did not go until after the accession of queen Mary in 1553.

Mr. Fox, for some time after his going to the university, was attached to the popish religion, in which he had been brought up, but afterwards applied himself to divinity, with somewhat more fervency than circumspection; and discovered himself in favour of the reformation then going on, before he was known to those who maintained the cause, or those who were of ability to protect the maintainers of it. In order to judge of the controversies which then divided the church, his first care was to search diligently into the ancient and modern history of it; to learn its beginning, by what arts it flourished, and by what errors it began to decline; to consider the causes of those controversies and dissensions which had arisen in the churd), and to weigh attentively of what moment and consequence they were to religion. To this end he applied himself with such zeal and industry, that before he was thirty years of age, he had read over all the Greek and Latin fathers, the schoolmen, the councils, &c. and had also acquired a competent skill in the Hebrew language. But from this strict application by day and by night while at Oxford, from forsaking his friends for the most solitary retirement, which he enjoyed in Magdalen grove, from the great and visible distractions of his mind, and above all, from absenting himself from the public worship, arose suspicions of his alienation from the church; in which his enemies being soon confirmed, he was accused and condemned of heresy, expelled his college, and thought to have been favourably dealt with, that he escaped with his life. This was in 1545. Wood represents this affair somewhat differently he says in one place, that Fox resigned his fellowbliip to avoid expulsion, and in another that he was " in a manner obliged to resign his fellowship/ 1 The stigma, however, appears to have been the same, for his relations were greatly displeased at him, and afraid to countenance or protect one condemned for a capital offence; and his father-in-law basely took advantage of it to withhold his paternal estate from him, thinking probably that he, who stood in danger of the law himself, would with difficulty find relief from it. Being thus forsaken by his friends, he was reduced to great distress; when he was taken into the house of sir Thomas Lucy of Warwickshire, to be tutor to his children. Here he married a citizen’s daughter of Coventry, and continued in sir Thomas’s family, till his children were grown up; after which he spent some time with his wife’s father at Coventry. He removed to London a few years before king Henry’s death; where having neither employment nor preferment, he was again driven to great necessities and distress, but was reIjeved, according to his son’s account, in a very remarkable manner. He was sitting one day, he says, in St. Paul’s church, almost spent with long fasting, his countenance wan and pale, and his eyes hollow, when there came to him a person, whom he never remembered to have seen before, who, sitting down by him, accosted him very familiarly, and put into his hands an untold sum of money; bidding him to be of good cheer, to be careful of himself, and to use all means to prolong his life, for that in a few days new hopes were at band, and new means of subsistence. Fox tried all methods to find out the person by whom he was so seasonably relieved, but in vain; the prediction, however, was fulfilled, for within three days he was taken into the service of the duchess of Richmond, to be tutor to the children of her nephew, the celebrated earl of Surrey. Upon the commitment of this amiable nobleman and his father the duke of Norfolk to the Tower, these children were sent to be educated under the care and inspection of their unnatural aunt the duchess of Richmond.

In this family he lived, at Ryegate in Surrey, during the latter part of Henry’s reign, the five years reign of Edward, and part of Mary’s; being at this time protected by the duke of Norfolk, and Wood says he was restored to his fellowship of Magdalen college, under Edward VI. Gardiner, bishop of Winchester, was, however, now determined to have him seized, and laid many snares and stratagems for that purpose. The bishop was very intimate with the duke of Norfolk, often visited him, and frequently desired to see this tutor. The duke evaded the request, one while alleging his absence, another that he was indisposed, still pretending reasons to put him off. At length it happened, that Fox, not knowing the bishop to be within the house, entered the room, where the duke and he were in discourse; and seeing the bishop, with a shew of bashfulness, withdrew himself. The bishop asking who he was, the duke answered, his physician, who was somewhat uncourtly, being newly come from the university. “I like his countenance and aspect very well,” replied the bishop, “and upon occasion will make use of himf.” The duke, perceiving from hence that danger was at hand, thought it time for Fox to retire, and accordingly furnished him with the means to go abroad. He found, before he could put to sea, that Gardiner had issued out a warrant for apprehending him, and was causing the most diligent search to be made for him; nevertheless, he at length escaped, with his wife then big with child; got over to Newport Haven, travelled to Antwerp and Francfort, where he was involved in the troubles excited by Dr. Cox and his party; and the first settlers being driven from that place, he removed from thence to Basil, where numbers of English subjects resorted in those times of persecution. In this city he maintained himself and family, by correcting the press for Oporinus, a celebrated printer; and it was here, that he laid the plan of his famous work, “The History of the Acts and Monuments of the Church.” He had published at Strasburgh, in 1554, in 8vo, “Commentarii Rerum in Ecclesia gestarum, maximarumque per totam Europam persecution um a Wiclavi temporibus ad hanc usque aetatem descriptarum,” in one book: to which he added five more books, all printed together at Basil, 1559, in folio.

After queen Mary’s death, which bishop Aylrner says Fox foretold at Basil the day before it happened, and Elizabeth was settled on the throne, and the protestant religion established, Fox returned to his native country, where he found a very faithful friend in his former pupil, now fourth duke of Norfolk; who maintained him at his house, and settled a pension on him, which was afterwards confirmed by his son. In 1572, when this unhappy duke of Norfolk was beheaded for his treasonable connection with Mary queen of Scotland, Mr. Fox and dean Nowell attended him upon the scaffold. Cecil also obtained for Fox, in 1563, of the queen a prebend in the church of Salisbury, though Fox himself would have declined accepting it; and though he had many powerful friends, as Walsingham, sir Francis Drake, sir Thomas Gresham, the bishops Grindal, Pilkington, Aylmer, &c. who would have raised him to considerable preferments, he declined them: being always unwilling to subscribe the canons, and disliking some ceremonies of the church. When archbishop Parker summoned the London clergy to Lambeth, and inquired of them whether they would yield conformity to the ecclesiastical habits, and testify the same by their subscriptions, the old man produced the New Testament in Greek, “To this’ (says he) will I subscribe.” And when a subscription to the canons was required of him, he refused it, saying, “I have nothing in the church save a prebend at Salisbury and much good may it do you, if you will take it away from me.” Such respect, however, did the bishops, most of them formerly his fellow exiles, bear to his age, parts, and labours, that he continued in it to his death. But though Fox was a non-conformist, he was a very moderate one, and highly disapproved of the intemperance of the rigid puritans. He expresses himself to the following effect in a Latin letter, written on the expulsion of his son by the puritans from 'Magdalen-college, on the groundless imputation of his having turned papist; in which are the following passages. “I confess it has always been my great care, if I could not be serviceable to many persons, yet not knowingly to injure any one, and least of all those of Magdalen college. I cannot therefore but the more wonder at the turbulent genius, which inspires those factious puritans, so that violating the laws of gratitude, despising my letters and prayers, disregarding the intercession of the president himself (Dr. Humphreys), without any previous admonition, or assigning any cause, they have exercised so great tyranny against me and my son; were I one, who like them would be violently outrageous against bishops and. archbishops, or join myself with them, that is, would become mad, as they are, I had not met with this severe treatment. Now because, quite different from them, I have chosen the side of modesty and public tranquillity; hence the hatred, they have a long time conceived against me, is at last grown to this degree of bitterness. As this is the case, 1 do not so much ask you what you will do on my account, as what is to be thought of for your sakes: you who are prelates of the church again and again consider. As to myself, though the taking away the fellowship from my son is a great affliction to me, yet because this is only a private concern, I bear it with more moderation: I am much more concerned upon account of the church, which is public. I perceive a certain race of men rising up, who, if they should increase and gather strength in this kingdom, I am sorry to say what disturbance I foresee must follow from it. Your prudence is not ignorant how much the Christian religion formerly suffered by the dissimulation and hypocrisy of the monks. At present in these men I know not what sort of new monks seems to revive; so much more pernicious than the former, as with more subtle artifices of deceiving, under pretence of perfection, like stage-players who only act a part, they conceal a more dangerous poison; who while they require every thing to be formed according to their own `strict discipline' and conscience, will not desist until they have brought all things into Jewish bondage.” Conformably to these sentiments, he expresses himself on many other occasions, in which he had no private interest, and the two succeeding reigns proved that he had not judged rashly of the violent tempers and designs of some of the puritans. Those, however, who detest their proceedings against the son of a man who had done so much for the reformation, will be pleased to hear that he was restored to his fellowship a second time, by the queen’s mandate.

In 1564 he sent a Latin panegyric to the queen, upon her indulgence to some divines, who had scruples respecting a strict conformity, and yet were suffered to hold dignities in the church. In July 1575 he wrote a Latin letter to the queen, to dissuade her majesty from putting to death two anabaptists, who bad been condemned to be burnt. Fuller, who transcribed this letter from the original, has published it in his “Church History/' and Collier, who has too frequently joined the popish cry against Fox, yet allows that it is written in a very handsome Christian strain. Ib this letter, Fox declares,” that with regard to those fanatical sects, he does not think they ought to be countenanced in a state, but chastised in a proper manner; but that to punish with flames the bodies of those, who err rather from blindness than obstinacy of will, is cruel, and more suitable to the example of the Romish church, than the mildness of the gospel; and in short such a dreadful custom, as could never have been introduced into the meek and gentle church of Christ, except by the popes, and particularly by Innocent III. who first took that method of restraining heresy. He observes that he does not write thus out of an indulgence to error, but, as he is a man, out of regard to the lives of men, that they may have an opportunity of repenting of their errors. He declares a tenderness for the lives, not only of men, but even of brute animals themselves; and affirms, that he could never pass by a slaughter-house, without the strongest sense of pain and regret. He entreats her majesty, therefore, to spare the lives of these wretches,“&c. But Fuller tells us, that though the queen constantly called Mr. Fox” her Father," yet she gave him a flat denial as to the saving of their lives, unless they recanted their errors, which they refused, and were executed.

Fox was a man of great humanity and uncommon liberality. He was a most laborious student, and remarkably abstemious; a most learned, pious, and judicious divine, and ever opposed to all methods of severity in matters of religion. That he was not promoted was entirely owing to his retaining some opinions adverse to the habits and ceremonies of the church, which he had imbibed abroad. “Although,” says Fuller, “the richest mitre in England would have counted itself preferred by being placed upon his head, he contented himself with a prebend of Salisbury. How learnedly he wrote, how constantly he preached, how piously he lived, and how cheerfully he died, may be seen at large in the life prefixed to his book.” Wood and Strype are united in their praises of his talents and personal character; the former only, like his successor Collier, cannot forgive him for being “a severe Calvinist, and a bitter enemy to popery.” Of his liberality many anecdotes may be found in our authorities.

This excellent man died in 1587, in the 70th year of his age, and was buried in the chancel of St. Giles, Cripplegate, of which, it is said, he was sometime vicar; but, as Wood thinks, if he had it at all, he kept it but a little while, in the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign. He left two sons, Samuel and Thomas. Samuel became demy, and afterwards fellow of Magdalen-college, in Oxford. In 1610, he wrote his father’s life, prefixed to his “Acts and Monuments of the Church.” Thomas was fellow of King’s college, in Cambridge, and" became afterwards an eminent physician at London.

Besides what has been mentioned, Fox wrote, 1. “De Censura, seu Excommunicatione Ecclesiastica, Interpellatio ad Archiepiscopum Cantuariensem, 1551,” 8vo. 2. “Tables of Grammar, 1552.” Wood tells ns, that these “Tables were subscribed in print by eight lords of the privy council but were quickly laid aside, as being far more too short, than king Henry the VHIth’s Grammar was too long.” 3. “Articuli sive Aphorismi aliquot Joannis Wiclevi sparsim aiit ex variis illius opusculis excerpti per adversaries Papicolas, ac Concilio Constantiensi exhibiti.” 4. “Collectanea qusedam ex Reginaldi Pecocki Episcopi Cicestriensis opusculis exustis conservata, et ex antique psegmate transcripta.” 5. “Opistographia ad Oxonienses.” The three last are printed with his “Commentarii rerum in Ecclesia gestarum,” at Strasburg, 1554, in 8vo, mentioned above. 6. “Concerning Man’s Election to Salvation, 1581,” 8vo. 7. “Certain Notes of Election, added to Beza’s Treatise of Predestination, 1581,” 8vo. 8. “The Four Evangelists in the old Saxon Tongue, with the English thereunto adjoined, 1571,” 4to, and many other pieces, which were levelled against the Papists.

None of these, however, are likely to add much to his fame, which is now exclusively founded on his “Acts and Monuments,” 'more familiarly known as “Fox’s Book of Martyrs.” Of this vast undertaking, some brief account cannot be uninteresting. We have before noticed that he conceived the plan, and executed some part of it when he was at Basil, but reserved the greatest part of it until his return home, when he might avail himself of living authorities. It appears by his notes that the completion of it occupied him for eleven years, during which his labour must have been incessant. His assistants, however, were numerous. Among those who pointed out sources of information, or contributed materials, was Grindal, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, who, when an exile for his religion, established a correspondence in England for this purpose, and received accounts of most of the acts and sufferings of the martyrs in queen Mary’s reign. It is said also to have been owing to GrindaPs strict regard to truth, that the publication of the work was so long delayed, as he rejected all common reports that were brought over, unless confirmed by the most satisfactory evidence. It was this scrupulous fidelity which induced him to advise Fox at first only to print separately, such memoirs of certain individuals as could be authenticated, which accordingly was done, although these separate publications are now seldom to be met with. At length after a residence of some years in England, employed in collecting written and oral information, the first edition was published at London in 1563, in one thick vol. folio, with the title “Acts and Monuments of these latter and periilous days touching matters of the Churcbe, wherein are comprehended and described the great persecutions and horrible troubles, that have been wrought and practised by the Romish prelates, speciallye in this realms of England and Scotland, from the year of our Lorde a thousand unto the time now present, &c. Gathered and collected according to the true copies and wrytinges certificatorie, as well of the parties themselves that suffered, as out of the bishops registers, which were the doers thereof.” Mr. Fox presented a copy of this edition to Magdalen-college, Oxford, and at the same time wrote a Latin letter to Dr. Lawrence Humphreys, printed by Hearne in his Appendix, No. V. to his preface to “Adami de Domersham Hist, de rebus gestis Glastonensibus,” Oxon. 1727. This volume, which relates principally to the history of martyrdom in England, was afterwards enlarged, first to two, and at length to three volumes, folio, embracing a history of the Christian church, from the earliest times, and in every part of the world. The ninth edition appeared in 1684, with copper-plates, those in the former editions being in wood, which last, however, are preferred by collectors, some of them containing real portraits. The publishers of the last editioa had almost obtained a promise from Charles II. to revive the order made in queen Elizabeth’s time for placing the work in the common halls of archbishops, bishops, deans, colleges, churches. But, if we look at the date, 1684, and recollect the hopes then entertained, of re-establishing popery, we shall 'not be much surprized that this order was not renewed, nor perhaps, from the improved state of the press, and of education, was it necessary. Since that time, however, there has been no republication of the complete work, although the English part continues to this day a standard book among the publishers of works in the periodical way, who have also furnished their readers with innumerable abridgments in every form. Yet as the original has long been rising in price, we may hope that the liberal spirit of enterprise which has lately produced new editions of the English Chronicles, will soon add to that useful collection a reprint of Fox, with notes, corrections, and a collation of the state papers and records.

The effect of Fox’s work, in promoting, or rather confirming the principles of the reformation, to which we owe all that distinguishes us as a nation, is acknowledged with universal conviction. It is proved even by the antipathy of his enemies, who would not have taken such pains to expose his errors, and inveigh against the work 2t large, if they had not felt that it created in the public mind an abhorrence of the persecuting spirit of popery, which has suffered little diminution, even to the present day. All the endeavours of the popish writers, however, from Harpsfield to Milner, “have not proved, and it never will be proved, that John Fox is not one of the most faithful and authentic of all historians.” And in the words of the writer from whom we borrow this assertion, we add, although with some reluctance from respect to the gentleman’s name, “We know too much of the strength of Fox’s book, and of the weakness of those of his adversaries, to be farther moved by Dr. John Milner’s censures, than to charge them with falsehood. All the many researches and discoveries of later times, in regard to historical documents, have only contributed to place the general fidelity and truth of Fox’s’ melancholy narrative on a rock which cannot be shaken.”

, an eminent prelate, and the munificent founder of Corpus Christi college, Oxford, was the son of Thomas Fox, and born at Ropesley, near Grantham, in Lincolnshire, about the latter end of the reign of Henry VI. His parents are said to have been in mean circumstances, but they must at least have been able to afford him school education, since the only dispute on this subject between his biographers, is, whether he was educated in grammar learning at Boston, or at Winchester. They all agree that at a proper age he was sent to Magdalen-college, Oxford, where he was acquiring distinction for his extraordinary proficiency, when the plague, which happened to break out about that time, obliged him to go to Cambridge, and continue his studies at Pembrokehall. After remaining some time at Cambridge, he repaired to the university at Paris, and studied divinity and the canon law, and here, probably, he received his doctor’s degree. This visit gave a new and important turn to his life, and introduced him to that eminence which he preserved for many years as a statesman. In Paris he became acquainted with Dr. Morton, bishop of Ely, whom Richard III. had compelled to quit his native country, and by this prelate he was recommended to the earl of Richmond, afterwards Henry VII. who was then providing for a descent upon England. Richmond, to whom he devoted himself, conceived such an opinion of his talents and fidelity, that he entrusted to his care a negotiation with France for supplies of men and money, the issue of which he was not able himself to await; and Fox succeeded to the utmost of his wishes. After the defeat of the usurper at the battle of Bosworth, in 1485, and the establishment of Henry on the throne, the latter immediately appointed Fox to be one of his privy-council, and about the same time bestowed on him the prebends of Bishopston and South Grantham, in the church of Salisbury. In 1487, he was promoted to the see of Exeter, and appointed keeper of the privy seal, with a pension of twenty shillings a day. He was also made principal secretary of state, and master of St. Cross, near Winchester. His employments in. affairs of state both at home and abroad, were very frequent, as he shared the king’s confidence with his early friend Dr. Morton, who was now advanced to the archbishopric of Canterbury. In 1487, Fox was sent ambassador, with sir Richard Edgecombe, comptroller of the household, to James III. of Scotland, where he negociated a prolongation of the truce between England and Scotland, which was to expire July 3, 1488, to Sept. 1, 1489. About the beginning of 1491, he was employed in an embassy to the king of France, and returned to England in November following. In 1494 he went again as ambassador to James IV. of Scotland, to conclude some differences respecting the fishery of the river Esk, in which he was not successful. Having been translated in 1492 from the see of Exeter to that of Bath and Wells, he was in 1494 removed to that of Durham. Jn 1497, the castle of Norham being threatened by the king of Scotland, the bishop caused it to be fortified and supplied with troops, and bravely defended it in person, until it was relieved by Thomas Howard, earl of Surrey, who compelled the Scots to retire. Fox was then, a third time, appointed to negociate with Scotland, and signed a, seven years truce between the two kingdoms, Sept. 30, 1497. He soon after negociated a marriage between James IV. and Margaret, king Henry’s eldest daughter, which was, after many delays, fully concluded Jan. 24, 1501-.

In 1500, the university of Cambridge elected him their chancellor, which he retained till 1502; and in the same year (1500) he was promoted to the see of Winchester. In 1507 he was chosen master of Pembroke-hall, Cambridge, which he retained until 1519. In 1507 and 1508 he was employed at Calais, with other commissioners, in negociating a treaty of marriage between Mary, the king’s third daughter, and Charles, archduke of Austria, afterwards the celebrated Charles V. In 1509-10, he was sent to France with the earl of Surrey, and Ruthal, bishop of Durham, and concluded a new treaty of alliance with Lewis XII. In 1512 he was one of the witnesses to the foundation charter of the hospital in the Savoy. In 1513 he attended the king (Henry VIII.) in his expedition to France, and was present at the taking of Teroiiane, and in October following, jointly with Thomas Grey, marquis of Dorset, he concluded a treaty with the emperor Maximilian against France. In 1514, he was one of the witnesses to the renunciation of the marriage with prince Charles of Spain by the princess Mary; one of the commissioners for the treaty of peace between Henry VIII. and Lewis XII. of France; and for the marriage between the said king of France and the princess Mary, the same year. He was also one of the witnesses to the marriage treaty, and to the confirmation of both treaties; to the treaty of friendship with Francis I. and to its continuation in the following year.

This appears to be the last of his public acts. During the reign of Henry VII. he enjoyed the unlimited favour and confidence of his sovereign, and bore a conspicuous share, not only in the political measures, but even in the court amusements and ceremonies of that reign. Henry likewise appointed him one of his executors, and recommended him strongly to his son and successor. But although he‘ retained his seat in the privy-council, and continued to hold the privy-seal, his influence in the new reign’ gradually abated. Howard, earl of Surrey and lord treasurer, had been his rival in Henry the Seventh’s time, and learned now to accommodate himself to the extravagant passions of his new master, with whom he was for a considerable time a confidential favourite; and the celebrated Wolsey, who had been introduced to the king by Fox, in order to counteract the influence of Surrey, soon became more powerful than either. After remaining some time in office, under many mortifications, our prelate, together with archbishop Warham, retired from court in 1515. Such was the political life of bishop Fox, distinguished by high influence and talent, but embittered at length, by the common intrigues and vicissitudes to which statesmen are subject.

His retirement at Winchester was devoted to acts of charity and munificence, although he did not now for the first time appear as a public benefactor. He had bestowed large sums on the repairs of the episcopal palace at Durham, while bishop of that see, and on every occasion of this kind discovered a considerable taste for architecture. In 1522 he founded a free-school at Taunton, and another at Grantham, and extended his beneficence to many other foundations within the diocese of Winchester. But the triumphs of his munificence and taste are principally to be contemplated in the additions which he built both within and without the cathedral of Winchester. Of these we shall borrow a character from one whose fine enthusiasm cannotbe easily surpassed. “Itis impossible to survey the works of this prelate, either on the outside of the church, or in the inside, without being? struck with their beauty and magnificence. In both of them we see the most exquisite art employed to execute the most noble and elegant designs. We cannot fail in particular of admiring the vast but well-proportioned and ornamented arched windows which surround this (the eastern) part, and give light to the sanctuary; the bold and airy flying buttresses that, stretching over the said ailes, support the upper walls; the rich open battlement which surmounts these walls; and the elegant sweep that contracts them to the size of the great eastern window: the two gorgeous canopies which crown the extreme turrets, and the profusion of elegant carved work that covers the whole east front, tapering up to a point, where we view the breathing statue of the pious founder resting upon his chosen emblem, the Pelican. In a word, neglected and mutilated as this work has been during the course of nearly three centuries, it still warrants us to assert, that if the whole cathedral had been finished in the style of this portion of it, the whole island, and perhaps all Europe, could not have exhibited a gothic structure equal to it.”

His last appearance in parliament was in 1523; he had then been nearly five years deprived of his sight, which he never recovered. Wolsey endeavoured to persuade him to resign his bishopric to him, and accept of a pension, but this he rejected, asserting, according to Parker, that “Tho' by reason of his blindness he was not able to distinguish white from black, yet he could discern between true and false, right and wrong; and plainly enough saw, without eyes, the malice of that ungrateful man, which be did not see before. That it behoved the cardinal to take care not to be. so blinded with ambition as not to foresee his own end. He needed not trouble himself with the bishopric of Winchester, but rather should mind the king’s affairs.”

His last days were spent in prayer and meditation, which at length became almost uninterrupted both day and night. Me died Sept. 14, 1528, and was buried in the fine chantry which he built for that purpose in Winchester cathedral, immediately behind the high altar, on the south side. During his residence here, he was indefatigable in preaching, and exciting the clergy to their duty. He was also unbounded in his charities to the poor, whom he assisted with food, clothes, and money; at the same time excrcising hospitality, and promoting the trade of the city, by a large establishment which he kept up at Wolvesey, of two hundred and twenty servants.

“His character,” says Mr. Gough, “may be briefly summed up in these two particulars: great talents and abilities for business, which recommended him to one of the wisest princes of the age; and not less charity and munificence, of which he has left lasting monuments.” Of his writings, we have only an English translation of the “Rule ofSt. Benedict,” for the use of his diocese, printed by Pinson, 1516, and a Letter to cardinal Wolsey, the subject of which is the cardinal’s intended visitation and reformation of the clergy. Fox expresses his great satisfaction at any measures which might produce so desirable an effect. The general and respectful style of this letter either affords a proof of Fox’s meek and conciliatory temper, or suggests a doubt whether our historians have not too implicitly followed each other in asserting that Wolsey’s ingratitude was the principal cause of his retiring from court. That Wolsey was ungrateful may be inferred from the preceding quotation from archbishop Parker, but Fox’s discovery of it, there implied, was long subsequent to his leaving the court;and it is certain that in the letter now mentioned, and in another written in 1526, he addresses the cardinal in terms of the utmost respect and affection. Of these circumstances Fiddes and Grove, the biographers of Wolsey, have not neglected to avail themselves, but they have suppressed all notice of his offer to Fox respecting the resignation of the bishopric.

The foundation of Corpus Christi college was preceded by the purchase of certain pieces of land in Oxford, belonging to Merton college, the nunnery of Godstow, and the priory of St. Fridesvvyde, which he completed in 1513, But his design at this time went no farther than to found a college for a warden and a certain number of monks and secular scholars belonging to the priory of St. Svvithin, in Winchester, in the manner of Canterbury and Durham colleges, which were similar nurseries in Oxford for the priories of Canterbury and Durham. The buildings for this purpose were advancing under the care of William Vertue, mason, and Humphrey Cook, carpenter and master of the works, when the judicious advice of Hugh Oldham, bishop of Exeter, induced him to enlarge his plan to one pf more usefulness and durability. This prelate, an emir nent patron of literature, and a man of acute discernment, is said to have addressed him thus: “What! my lord, shall we build houses, and provide livelihoods fo/ a company of monks, whose end and fall we ourselves may live to see? No, no, it is more meet a great deal, that we should have care to provi.de for the increase of learning, and for such as who by their learning shall do good to the church and commonwealth.” These arguments, strengthened probably by others of a similar tendency, induced Fox to imitate those founders who had already contributed so largely to the fame of the university of Oxford. Accordingly, by licence of Henry VIII. dated Nov. 26, 1516, he obtained leave to found a college for the sciences of divinity, philosophy, and arts, for a president and thirty scholars, graduate and not graduate, more or less according to the revenues of the society, on a certain ground between Mefton college on the east, a lane Dear Canterbury college (afterwards part of Christ-church), and a garden of the priory of St. Frideswyde on the west, a street or lane of Oriel college on the north, and the town wall on the south, and this new college to be endowed with 3 50l. yearly. The charter, dated Cal. Mar. 151 G, recites that the founder, to the praise and honour of God Almighty, the most holy body of Christ, and the blessed Virgin Mary, as also of the apostles Peter, Paul, and Andrew, and of St. Cuthbert and St. Swithin, and St. Birin, patrons of the churches of Exeter, Bath and Wells, Durham, and Winchester, (the four sees which he successively rilled) doth found and appoint this college always to be called Corpus Christi College. The statutes are dated Feb. 13, 1527, in the 27th year of his translation to Winchester, and according to them, the society was to consist of a president, twenty fellows, twenty scholars, two chaplains, two clerks, and two choristers.

But what conferred an almost immediate superiority of reputation on this society, was the appointment of two lectures for Greek and Latin, which obtained the praise and admiration of Erasmus and the other learned men who urere now endeavouring to introduce a knowledge of the classics as an essential branch of academic study. With this enlightened design, the founder invited to his new college Ludovicus Vives, Nicholas Crucher the mathematician, Clement Edwards and Nicholas Utten, profes-f ors of Greek; Thomas Lupset, Richard Pace, and other men of -established reputation. This, Mr. Warton observes, was a new and noble departure from the narrow plan of academical education. The course of the Latin lecturer was not confined to the college, but open to the students of Oxford in general. He was expressly directed to drive barbarism from the new college, barbarieme nostro alveario pro virili si quando pullulet cxtirpet et ejiciat. The Greek lecturer was ordered to explain the best Greek classics, and those which Fox specified on this occasion, are the purest in the opinion of modern times. But such was the temper of the age, that Fox was obliged to introduce his Greek lectureship, by pleading that the sacred canons had commanded, that a knowledge of the Greet tongue should not be wanting in public seminaries of education. By the sacred canons he meant a decree of the council of Vienne, in Dauphiny, promulgcd so early as 1311, which enjoined that professorships of Greek, Hebrew, and Arabic, should be instituted in the universities of Oxford, Paris, Bononia, Salamanca, and the court of Rome. This, however, was not entirely satisfactory. The prejudices against the Greek were still, so inveterate, that the university was for some time seriously disturbed by the advocates of the school-learning. The persuasion and example of Erasmus, who resided about this time in St. Mary’s college, had a considerable effect in restoring peace, and more attention was gradually bestowed on the learned languages, and this study, so curiously introduced under the sanction of pope Clement’s decree of Vienne, proved at no great distance of time, a powerful instrument in effecting the reformation. Those who would deprive Clement of the liberality of his edict, state his chief motive to have been a superstitious regard for the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, because the superscription on the cross was written in these languages.

, Lord Holland, the first nobleman of that title, was the second and youngest son of the second marriage, of sir Stephen Fox, and brother of Stephen first earl of Ilchester. He was born in 1705, and was chosen one of the members for Hendon, in Wiltshire, on a vacancy, in March 1735, to that parliament which met Jan. 23, 1734; and being constituted surveyor-general of his majesty’s board of works, a writ was ordered June 17, 1737, and he was re-elected. In the next parliament, summoned to meet June 25, 1741, he served for Windsor; and in 1743, being constituted one of the commissioners of the treasury, in the administration formed by the Pelhams, a writ was issued Dec. 21st of that year, for a new election, and he was re-chosen. In 1746, on the restoration of the old cabinet, after the short administration of earl Granville, he was appointed secretary at war, and sworn one his majesty’s most honourable privy-council. On tbis occasion, and until he was advanced to the peerage, he continued to represent Windsor in parliament. In 1754, the death of Mr. Pelham produced a vacancy in the treasury, which was filled up by his broker the duke of Newcastle, who, though a nobleman of high honour, unblemished integrity, and considerable abilities, yet was of too jealous and unstable a temper to manage the house of commons with equal address and activity, and to guide the reins of government without a coadjutor at so arduous a conjuncture. The seals of chancellor of the exchequer and secretary of state, vacant by the death of Mr. Pelham, and by the promotion of the duke of Newcastle, became therefore the objects of contention. The persons who now aspired to the management of the house of commons, were Mr. Fox and Mr. Pitt (afterwards earl of Chatham) whose parliamentary abilities had for some time divided the suffrages of the nation; who had so long fosterod reciprocal jealousy, and who now became public rivals for power. Both these rival statesmen were younger brothers, nearly of the same age; both were educated at Eton, both distinguished for classical knowledge, both commenced their parliamentary career at the same period, and both raised themselves to eminence by their superior talents, yet no two characters were ever more contrasted. Mr. Fox inherited a strong and vigorous constitution, was profuse and dissipated in his youth, and after squandering his private patrimony, went abroad to extricate himself from his embarrassment*. On his return he obtained a seat in parliament, and warmly attached himself to sir Robert Walpole, whom he idolized; and to whose patronage he was indebted for the place of surveyor-general of the board of works. His marriage in 1744 with lady Caroline Lennox, daughter of the duke of Richmond, though at first displeasiug to the family, yet finally strengthened his political connections. He was equally a man of pleasure and business, formed for social and convivial intercourse; of an unruffled temper, and frank disposition. No statesman acquired more adherents, not merely from political motives, but swayed by his agreeable manners, and attached to him by personal friendship, which he fully merited by his zeal in promoting their interests. He is justly characterized, even by Lord Chesterfield, “as having no fixed principles of religion or morality, and as too unwary in ridiculing and exposing them.” As a parliamentary orator, he was occasionally hesitating and perplexed; but, when warmed with his subject, he spoke with an animation and rapidity which appeared more striking from his former hesitation. His speeches were not crowded with flowers of rhetoric, or distinguished by brilliancy of diction; but were replete with sterling sense and sound argument. He was quick in reply, keen in repartee, and skilful in discerning the temper of the house. He wrote without effort or affectation; his public dispatches were manly and perspicuous, and his private letters easy and animated. Though of an ambitious spirit, he regarded money as a principal object, and power only as a secondary concern. He was an excellent husband, a most indulgent father, a kind master, a courteous neighbour, and one whose charities demonstrated that he possessed in abundance the milk of human kindness. Such is said to have been the character of lord Holland, which is here introduced as a prelude to some account of his more illustrious son. It may therefore suffice to add, that in 1756 he resigned the office of secretary at war to Mr. Pitt, and in the following year was appointed paymaster of the forces, which he retained until the commencement of the present reign; his conduct in this office was attended with some degree of obloquy; in one instance, at least, grossly overcharged. For having accumulated a considerable fortune by the perquisites of office, and the interest of money in hand, he was styled in one of the addresses of the city of London, “the defaulter of unaccounted millions.” On May 6, 1762, his lady was created baroness Holland; and on April 16, 1763, he himself was created a peer by the title of lord Holland, baron Holland, of Foxley, in the county of Wilts. In the latter part of his life he amused himself by building, at a vast expence, a fantastic villa at Kingsgate, near Margate, His lordship was also a lord of the privy-council, and clerk of the Pells, in Ireland, granted him for his own life and that of his two sons. Lord Holland died at Holland-house, near Kensington, July 1, 1774, in the sixty-ninth year of his age, leaving three sons, Stephen, his successor; Charles James, the subject of the next article; and Henry Edward, a general in the army. Stephen, second lord Holland, survived his father but a few months, dying Dec. 26, 1774, and was succeeded by Henry Richard, the present peer.

, one of the most illustrious statesmen of modern times, the second son of the preceding lord Holland, was born Jan. 13, O. S. 1748. We have already noticed that lord Holland was an indulgent father, and it has been said that his partiality to this son was carried to an unwarrantable length. That his father might have been incited by parental affection, a feeling of which few men can judge but for themselves, by the early discovery he made of his son’s talents, to indulge him in the caprices of youth, is not improbable; but that this indulgence was not excessive, may with equal probability be inferred from the future conduct of Mr. Fox, which retained no traces of the “spoiled child,” and none of the haughty insolence of one to whom inferiors and servants have been ordered to pay obsequious obedience. Nor was his education neglected. At Eton, where he had Dr. Barnard for his master, he distinguished himself by some elegant exercises, which are to be found in the *' Musce Etonenses,“and at Hertford college, Oxford, where he studied under the tutorage of Dr. Newcome, afterwards primate of Ireland, his proficiency in classical and polite literature must have been equal to that of any of his contemporaries. The fund indeed of classical learning which he accumulated both at Eton and Oxford was such as to remain inexhausted during the whole of his busy and eventful political career; and while it proved to the last a source of elegant amusement in his leisure hours, it enabled him to rank with some of the most eminent scholars of his time. This we may affirm on the authority of Dr. Warton, with whom he frequently and keenly contested at the literary club, and on that of a recent publication of his letters to Gilbert Wakefield, with whom he corresponded on subjects of classical taste and criticism. From Oxford, where, as was the custom with young men intended for public life, he did not remain long enough to accumulate degrees, he repaired to the continent. In his travels it is said that he acquired more of the polish of foreign intercourse than those who knew him only in his latter days could have believed, and returned a fashionable young man, noted for a foppish gaiety of dress and manner, from which he soon passed into the opposite extreme. As his father intended him to rise in the political world, he procured him a seat for the borough of Midhurst, in 1768, before he had attained the legal age; a circumstance which, if known, appears to have been then overlooked. Two years afterwards, his father’s interest procured him the office of one of the lords commissioners of the admiralty; but in May 1772, he resigned that situation, and in January 1773, was nominated a commissioner of the treasury. At this time it cannot be denied that his political opinions were in unison with those of his father, who was accounted a tory, and were adverse to the turbulent proceedings of the city of London, which at this time was deluded by the specious pretences to patriotism displayed by the celebrated Wilkes. It was in particular Mr. Fox’s opinion, in allusion to the public meetings held by the supporters of” Wilkes and liberty,“that” the voice of the people was only to be heard in the house of commons." That he held, however, some of the opinions by which his future life was guided, appears from his speech in favour of religious liberty, when sir William Meredith introduced a bill to give relief from subscription to the thirty-nine articles; and perhaps other instances may be found in which his natural ingenuousness of mind, and openness of character, burst through the trammels of party; and although it must be allowed that the cause he now supported was not that which he afterwards espoused, it may be doubted whether he was not even at this time, when a mere subaltern in the ministerial ranks, more unresirained in his sentiments than at some memorable periods of his subsequent life.

After having displayed his talents to the greatest advantage in favour of the minister for about six years, the latter (lord North) procured his dismissal from office in a manner not the most gracious, and which, if it did not leave in Mr. Fox’s mind some portion of resentment, he must have been greatly superior to the infirmities of our nature, a pre-eminence which he never arrogated. It is said, that on Feb. 19, 1774, while he was actually engaged in conversation with the minister on other subjects in the house of commons, he received the following laconic note by the hands of one or the messengers of the house:

This event was not occasioned by any opposition on the part of Mr. Fox to lord North’s measures, but to a difference of opinion as to the best mode of carrying them into effect, and that in an instance of comparatively smalt importance. This was a question respecting the committal of Mr. H. S. Woodfall, the printer of the Public Advertiser, who had been brought to the bar of the house for inserting a letter supposed to have been written by the rev. J. Home, afterwards J. Home Tooke, in which most unjustifiable liberties had been taken with the character of the speaker, sir Fletcher Norton, with a coarse virulence of language peculiar to Tooke. Mr. Woodfall having given up the author, and thrown himself on the mercy of the house, it was moved by Mr. Herbert that he should be committed to the custody of the serjeant at arms. Mr. Fox, at that period a zealous advocate for the privileges of the house, declared that the punishment was not sufficiently severe, and moved “that he be committed to Newgate, as the only proper place to which offenders should be sent; though hints,” he said, “had been thrown out that the sheriffs would not admit him.” To this lord North replied, that he was very sorry that hints had been thrown out of what the sheriffs would or would not do; he hoped there were no persons who would dispute the power of that house; he therefore moved that the printer be committed to the Gate-house, as he thought it imprudent to force themselves into a contest with the city; but Mr. Herbert carried his motion in opposition both to lord North and Mr. Fox, by a majority of 152 to f>8, to the great displeasure of lord North, who asserted that it was entirely owing to the interference of Mr. Fox, that he was left in a minority.

To this trifling dispute, we are left to refer the whole of Mr. Fox’s subsequent conduct, and as he appears to have immediately commenced hostilities with the minister and his friends, -it has been recorded, as peculiarly fortunate for him, that he had no occasion to degrade his consistency by opposing any of the measures he had formerly supported, in detail at least; and that a new sera of political hostility had just commenced on which he could enter with all the apparent earnestness of honest conviction. This, we need scarcely add, originated in the dispute between Great Britain and her American colonies. During the whole of this period, and of the war which followed, Mr. Fox spoke and voted in direct opposition to the ministerial system, which ended at last in the separation of the colonies from the mother state. It was now that Mr. Fox’s talents appeared in their fullest lustre, and that he took the foremost rank among the speakers of the house, although it could at that time, and in his own. party, boast of a Burke, a Barre, and a Dunning.

At the general election in 1780, Mr. Fox became candidate for the city of Westminster, in which, after a violent contest, he succeeded, though opposed, as we are told, by the formidable interest of the Newcastle family, and by the whole influence of the crown. Being now the representative of a great city, it is added, “he appeared in parliament in a more dignified capacity, and acquired a considerable increase of consequence to his political character. In himself he was still the same: he now necessarily lived and acted in the bosom of his constituents; his easiness of access, his pleasant social spirit, his friendly disposition and conciliating manners, which appeared in, all he said, and the good temper which predominated in all he did, were qualities that rendered him the friend and acquaintance, as well as the representative, of those who sent him into parliament; his superior talents, and their powerful and frequent application to popular purposes, made him best known among political men, and gave him a just claim to the title so long applied to him, of * The man of the people.'” Notwithstanding all this, it might not be difficult to prove that Mr. Fox was upon the whole no great gainer by representing a city in which the arts of popularity, even when most honestly practised, are no security for its continuance; and indeed the time was not far distant when he had to experience the fatal effects of preferring a seat, which the purest virtues only can neither obtain nor preserve, and in contesting which, corruption on one side must be opposed by corruption on the other. The subjects of debate in the new parliament affording the opposition opportunities for the display of their eloquence, they now became formidable by an increase of numbers. Ministers were assailed in the house by arguments which they could neither repel nor contradict, and from without they were overwhelmed by the clamours of that same people to whom the war was at first so acceptable; till at length lord North and his adherents were obliged to resign, and it was thought, as such vengeance had been repeatedly threatened both by Mr. Fox and Mr. Burke, that they would have been made responsible for all the mischiefs and bloodshed that had occurred during their calamitous administration. The Rockingham party, however, who came into power in the spring 1782, and whose resentments the* attainment of that object seems to have sofiened, contented themselves with the defeat of their opponents. Mr. Fox obtained the office of secretary of state for foreign affairs, and the marquis of Rockingham was nominated the first lord of the treasury. Still the expectation of the nation was raised to the highest pitch; with this party, they hoped to see an end to national calamity, and the interests of the country supported and maintained in all quarters of the globe. Much indeed was performed by them considering the shortness of their administration. Though they had succeeded to an empty exchequer, and a general and most calamitous war, yet they resolved to free the people from some of their numerous grievances. Contractors were excluded by act of parliament from the house of commons; custom and excise officers were disqualified from voting at elections; all the proceedings with respect to the Middlesex election were rescinded; while a reform bill abolished a number of useless offices. A more generous policy was adopted in regard to Ireland; a general peace was meditated, and America, which could not be restored, was at least to he conciliated. In the midst of these promising appearances, the marquis of Hockingham, who was the support of the new administration, suddenly died, an event which distracted and divided his party. The council board was instantly torn in pieces by political schisms, originating id a dispute respecting the person who should succeed as 6rsfc lord of the treasury. The candidates were, lord Sbelburne, afterwards marquis of Lansdowne, and the Jgrte duke of Portland; the former, supposed to have the ear of the King, and a majority in the cabinet, was immediately entrusted with the reins of government, and Mr. Fox retired in disgust, declaring that “he had determined never to connive at plans in private, which he could not publicly avow.” What these plans were, we know not, but he now resumed his station in opposition, and joined the very man whose conduct he had for a series of years deprecated as the most destructive to the interests of his coqntry, and most baneful to the happiness of mankind; while his former colleague, the earl of Shelburne, was busied in concluding a peace with France, Spain, Holland, and the United States of America. But as this nobleman, though by no means deficient in political wisdom, had omitted to take those steps which preceding ministers had ever adopted to secure safety, a confederacy was formed against him by the union of the friends of Mr. Fox and lord North, known by the name of “The Coalition,” which proved in the event as impolitic, as it was odious to the great mass of the people. Never indeed in this reign has any measure caused a more general expression of popular disgust; and although it answered the temporary purpose of those who adopted it, by enabling them to supplant their rivals, and to seize upon their places, their success was ephemeral; they had, it is true, a majority in the house of commons, but the people at large were decidedly hostile to an union which appeared to them to be bottomed on ambition only, and destitute of any common public principle. It was asserted, with too much appearance of truth, that they agreed in no one great measure calculated for the benefit of the country, and the nation seemed to unite against them as one man. Their conduct in the cabinet led the sovereign to use a watchful and even jealous eye upon their acts; and the famous India bill proved the rock on /which they finally split, and on account of which they forfeited their place Mr. Fox had now to contend for the government of the empire with William Pitt, a stripling scarcely arrived at the age of manhood, but who nevertheless succeeded to the post of premier, and maintained that situation with a career as brilliant as that of his opponent, for more than twenty years.

The tide of popularity had set in so strongly against Mr. Fox, that at the general election about seventy of his most active friends and partizans lost their seats in the house of commons, and be himself was forced into a long and turbulent contest for the city of Westminster. He had, as we have seen, been originally returned for that place by the voice of the inhabitants, in opposition to the influence of the crown; but his junction with lord North had now lost him the affections of a considerable number of his voters, and although he ultimately succeeded, it was at an expence to his friends which some of them felt for many years afterwards. He lost also, what, we are persuaded, must have affected him more than all, the support of that class without doors of independent men, and able writers on constitutional questions, who had revered him during the American war as the patron of liberty. Still, although in the new parliament which met in 1784, Mr. Pitt had a decided majority, Mr. Fox made his appearance at the head of a very formidable opposition, and questions of general political interest were for some years contested with such a display of brilliant talents, as had never been known in the house of commons.

In 1788, Mr. Fox repaired to the continent, in company with the lady who was afterwards acknowledged as his wife, and after spending a few days with Gibbon, the historian, at Lausanne, departed for Italy, but was suddenly recalled home, in consequence of the king’s illness, and the necessity of providing for a regency. On this memorable occasion, Mr. Fox, and his great rival, Mr. Pitt, appeared to have exchanged systems; Mr. Pitt contending for the constitutional measure of a bill of limitations, while Mr. Fox was equally strenuous for placing the regency in the hands of the heir apparent, without any restrictions; and powerful as he and his party were at this time, and perhaps they never shone more in debate, Mr. Pitt was triumphant in every stage of the bill, and was supported by the almost unanimous voice of the nation. Yet the ministers must have retired, as it was well known that Mr. Fox and his party stood high in favour with the future Regent, and Mr. Pitt had actually meditated on the ceconomy of a private station, when the intemperance of Mr. Burke, who was never less Joyal than at this crisis, delayed the passing of the bill, on one pretence or another, until by his majesty’s recovery, it became happily useless. On this great question Mr,' Fox had again the misfortune to forfeit the regard of those who have been considered as the depositories of constitutional principles, and consequently appeared to have traversed the system of which he had been considered,as the most consistent and intrepid advocate. In 1790 and 1791 he recovered some of the ground he had lost, by opposing with effect a war with Spain, and another with Russia, for objects which he thought too dearly purchased by such an experiment; and in 1790 he appeared again the friend of constitutional liberty, by his libel bill respecting the rights of juries in criminal cases. This, although strongly opposed, terminated at last in a decision that juries are judges of both the law and the fact. But the time was now arrived when he was, by a peculiarity in [his way of thinking, to be for ever separated from the political friends who had longest adhered to him, and many of whom he loved with all the ardour of affection.

When the revolution took place in France, Mr. Fox perhaps was not singular in conceiving that it would be attended with great benefit to that nation; in some of his speeches he went farther; and continued an admirer of what was passing in France long after others had begun to foresee the most disastrous consequences. While Mr. Fox perceived nothing but what was good, Mr. Burke predicted almost all, indeed, that has since happened, and an accidental altercation in the house of commons, (See Burke,) separated these two friends for ever. “This,” says one of his biographers, “was a circumstance that affected Mr. Fox more than any other through life; he had seen his plans for the public good disappointed; he had been deserted by a crowd of political adherents; a thousand times his heart and his motives had been slandered, still he had abundant resources in himself to bear up against the tide setting in against him. No opposition, no injuries could excite in him the spirit of revenge, or the principles of acrimony; even when his friend, on whom he hung with almost idolatrous regafd, broke from him in the paroxysm of political madness, and with furious cruelty explored, in his attack on him, every avenue to pain, far from repelling enmity with enmity, he discovered his sensibilities of wrong only with tears, and he subsequently wept, with a pertinacity of affection almost vrithout example, over the sepulchre of that very man, who had unrelentingly spurned all his offers of reconciliation, and who, with reference to him, had expired in the bitterness of resentment.” We have little scruple in adopting these sentiments; for whatever may be thought of Mr. Fox’s opinions, there are few, we hope, whose hearts would hav permitted them to act the part of Mr. Burke in this interesting scene.

The policy of the war which followed, belongs to history. On its concluision in 1801, after the resignation of Mr. Pitt, when Mr. Addington, (since lord Sid mouth,) concluded the treaty of Amiens, Mr. Fox and his friends gave him his support. When hostilities were again meditated, Mr. Fox at first expressed his doubts of their necessity; but when, on the death of Mr. Pitt, in 1806, he came again into power, as secretary of state for the foreign department, in conjunction with the Grenville party, he found it necessary to support the war by the same means and in the same spirit as his predecessor. Some measures of a more private nature, which he was obliged to adopt in order to satisfy the wishes of the new coalition he had formed, served rather to diminish than increase his popularity but his health was now decaying; symptoms of dropsy appeared, and within a few months he was laid in the grave close by his illustrious rival. He died Sept. 13, 180G, without pain and almost without a struggle, in the 58th year of his age.

The present lord Holland has said, in the preface to Mr. Fox’s historical work, that although “those who admired Mr. Fox in public, and those who loved him in private, must naturally feel desirous that some memorial should be preserved of the great and good qualities of his head and heart;” yet, “the objections to such an undertaking ai present are obvious, and after much reflection, they have appeared to those connected with him insuperable.” Such a declaration, it is hoped, may apologize for what we have admitted, and for what we have rejected, in this sketch of Mr. Fox’s life. We have touched only on a few memorable periods, convinced that the present temper of the times is unfavourable to a more minute discussion of the merits of his long parliamentary life. Yet this consideration has not had much weight with those who profess to be his admirers, and soon after his death a number of “Characters” of him appeared sufficient to fill two volumes 8vo, edited by Dr. Parr. Of one circumstance there can be no dispute. Friends and foes are equally agreed in the amiable, even, and benign features of his private character. “He was a man,” said Burke, “made to bo loved,” aud he was loved by all who knew him. Mr. Fox must now be considered as an author. While at Eton, his compositions were highly distinguished, some of which are in print; as one composed in or about 1761, beginning, “Vocat ultimus labor;” another, “I, fugias, celeri volitans per nubila cursu,” written in 1764; and his “Quid miri faciat Natura,” which was followed by a Greek dialogue in 1765. See “Musse Etonenses,” &c. He was also author of the 14th, 16th, and perhaps, says the present lord Holland, his nephew, a few other numbers of a periodical publication in 1779, called the “Englishman.” In 1793 he published “A Letter to the Electors of Westminster,” which passed through thirteen editions within a few months. This pamphlet contains a full and ample justification of his political conduct, with respect to the discussions in which he had engaged on the French revolution.

It does not appear that the parliamentary speeches, printed separately as his, of which there are many, were ever revised by him, but were taken from the public papers. But “A Sketch of the Character of the late most noble Francis duke of Bedford, as delivered in his introductory speech to a motion for a new writ for Tavistock, on the 16th of March, 1802,” was printed by his authority, and from his own manuscript copy; and it is said, that he observed on that occasion, “that he had never before attempted to make a copy of any speech which he had delivered in public.” After that he wrote an epitaph on the late bishop of Downe, which is engraved on his tomb in. the chapel of St. Jatnes, in the Hampstead road. “There are,” says lord Holland, “several, specimens of his composition in verse, in different languages; but the lines on. Mrs. Crewe, and those on Mrs. Fox, on his birth-day, are, as far as I recollect, all that have been printed.” An ode to Poverty, and an epigram upon Gibbon, though very generally attributed to him, are certainly not his com,-' positions.

To lord Holland, however, the world is indebted for an important posthumous publication of this great statesman, entitled “A History of the early part of the Reign of James the Second, with an introductory chapter,” &c. It is not known when Mr. Fox first formed the design of writing a history; but in 1797 he publicly announced in parliament his intention of devoting a greater portion of his time to his private pursuits, and when he had determined to oonscv crate a part in writing history, he was naturally led, from his intimate knowledge of the English constitution, to prefer the history of his own country, and to select a period favourable to the general illustration of the great principles of freedom on which it is founded. With this view he fixed on the revolution pf 1688, but had made a small progress in this work when he was called to take a principal part in the government of the country. The volume comprehends only the history of the transactions of the first year of the reign of James II. with an introductory chapter on the character and leading events of the times immediately preceding. Whatever opinion may be entertained of the views Mr. Fox takes of those times, or of some novel opinions advanced, there is enough in this work to prove that he might have proved an elegant and sound historian, and to make it a subject of regret that he did not employ his talents on literary composition when they were in their full vigour.

, or Sebastianus Foxius Morzillus, a learned Spaniard, originally of the family of Foix, in Aquitaine, was born at Seville in 1528, and passed the whole of his short life in the study of philosophy and the belles lettres, acquiring such reputation from his works as made his untimely death a subject of unfeigned regret with his countrymen. After being educated in grammar learning at Seville, he studied at Lou vain e and other universities, and acquired the esteem of some of the most eminent professors of his time. Before he was twenty years of age he had published his “Paraphrasis in Ciceronis topica,” and in his twenty-fourth year his Commentary on the Timaeus of Plato. About this time the reputation he had acquired induced Philip II. king of Spain, to invite him home, and place his son the infant Carlos under his care; but returning by sea, he unhappily perished by shipwreck in the flower of his age, leaving the following works as a proof that his short space of life had been employed in arduous and useful study: 1. “De Studii philosnphici ratione,” of which there is an edition joined to Nunnesius’s “De recte conficiendo curriculo Philosophico,” Leyden, 1621, 8vo. 2. “De usu et exercitatione Dialectica,” and “De Demonstratione,” Basil, 1556, 8vo. 3. “In Topica Ciceronis paraphrasis et scholia,” Antwerp, 1550, 8vo. 4. “De naturae philosophise seu de Platonis et Aristotelis consensione, libri quinque,” Louvaine, 1554, 8vo, often reprinted. 5. “De Juventute atqtie de Honore,” Basil. 6. “Compendium Ethices, &c.” Basil, 1554, 8vo. 7. “In Platonis Timaeum seu de universo commentarius,” ibid. 1554, fol. 8. “In Phaedonem; et in ejusdem decem libros de republica commentarii,” Basil. 9. “De Imitatione,” Antwerp, 1S54, 8vo. 10. “De conscribenda historia,” Antwerp and Paris, 1557, 8vo, and Antwerp again, 1564. Mirseus, Gerard Vossius, Gabriel Naudeus, and others, speak of this author as one of the most learned men of his time.

an eminent Italian poet and physician, was born at Verona in 1483. Two singularities are related of him in his infancy; one, that his lips adhered so closely to each other when he came into the world, that a surgeon was obliged to divide them with his knife; the other, that his mother, Camilla Mascarellia, was killed by lightning, while he, though in her arms at the very moment, escaped unhurt. Fracastorio was of parts so exquisite, and made so wonderful a progress in every thing he undertook, that he became eminently skilled, not only in the belles lettres, but in all arts and sciences. He was a poet, a philosopher, a physician, an astronomer, and a mathematician. He was a man also of great political consequence, as appears from pope Paul Ill.'s making use of his authority to remove the council of Trent to Bologna, under the pretext of a contagious distemper, which, as Fracastorio deposed, made it no longer safe for him to continue at Trent. He was intimately acquainted with cardinal Bembo, Julius Scaliger, and all the great men of his time. He died of an apoplexy, at Casi near Verona, in 1553; and in 1559 the town of Verona erected a statue in honour of him.

He was the author of many productions, both as a poet and as a physician; yet never man was more disinterested in both these capacities, evidently so as a physician, for he practised without fees; and as a poet, whose usual reward is glory, no man could be more indifferent. It is owing to this indifference that we have so little of his poetry, in comparison of what he wrote; and that among other compositions his odes and epigrams, which were read in manuscript with infinite admiration, and would have been most thankfully received by the public, yet not being printed, were lost. He wrote in Latin, and with great elegance. His poems now extant are the three books of “Siphilis, or De Morbo Gallico,” a book of miscellaneous poems, and two books of his^ poems, entitled “Joseph,” which he began at the latter end of his life, but did not live to finish. And these works, it is said, would have perished with the rest, if his friends had not taken care to preserve and communicate them: for Fracastorius, writing merely for amusement, never took any care respecting his works, when they were out of his hands.

His astronomical, critical, and philosophical treatises are enlivened with occasional poems. Several of them are composed in the form of conversations: a species of writing sanctioned by some of the finest models of antiquity, and much used in those early periods of the revival of letters. Their titles are borrowed from the names of the speakers, The “De Anima Dialogus” is denominated Fracastorius; the treatise “De Poetica” is entitled Naugerius; and the books “De Intellectione” have the title of Turrius. A young man, in the character of a minstrel, who is supposed to be more especially subject to the authority of Naugerius, sings to his lyre the verses that are occasionally introduced. The pretence is merely relaxation from severer thought; and the poeius are often unconnected with the main subject.

Perhaps the productions of no modern poet have beea more commended by the learned, than those of Fracastorio. His poems are, in general, written with a spirit which never degenerates into insipidity. But on his “Siphilis” the high poetical reputation of Fracastorio is principally founded. Sannazarius, on reading this poem, declared he thought it superior to any thing produced by himself, or his learned contemporaries, and Julius Scaliger was not content to pronounce him the best poet in the world next to Virgil, but affirmed him to be the best in every thing else; and, in sh.-irt, though he was not generally lavish of his praise, ith respect to Fracastorio he scarcely retained himself within the bounds of adoration. Fracastorio’s medical pieces /are, “De sympathia et antipathia, De contagione et contagiosis morbis, De causis criticorum dierum De vim temperature, &c.” His works have been printed separately and collectively. The best edition of them is that of Padua, 1735, in 2 vols. 4to.

, an eminent political writer, was a native of Rovigno in Italy, and spent several years at Rome, where he was greatly esteemed by Sessa, ambassador of Philip II. king of Spain. He was employed in civil as well as military affairs, and acquitted himself always with great applause; yet he had like to have been ruined, and to have even lost his Hfe, by his enemies. This obliged him to withdraw to Naples; and still having friends to protect his innocence, he proved it at length to the court of Spain, who ordered count de Benevento, viceroy of Naples, to employ him, and Frachetta lived in a very honourable manner at Naples, where a handsome pension was allowed him. He gained great reputation by his political works, the most considerable of which is that entitled “II Seininario de Governi di Stato, et di Guerra.” In this work he has collected, under an hundred and ten chapters, about eight thousand military and state maxims, extracted from the best authors; and has added to each chapter a discourse, which serves as a commentary to it. This work was printed twice, at least, by the author, reprinted at Venice in 1647, and at Genoa in 1648, 4to; and there was added to it, “II Principe,” by the same writer, which was published in 1597. The dedication informs us, that Frachetta was prompted to write this book from a conversation he had with the duke of Sessa; in which the latter observed, among other particulars, that he thought it as important as it was a difficult task, to inform princes truly pf such transactions as happen in their dominions. His other compositions are, “Discorso della Ragione di Stato: Discorso della Ragione di Guerra: Esposizione di tutta l'Opera di Lucrezio.” He died at Naples in the beginning of the seventeenth century, but at what age is unknown.

, a French writer, was born of a noble family at Paris in 1666. His first studies were under the Jesuits; and father La Baune had the forming of his taste to polite literature. He was also a v disciple of the fathers Rapin, Jouvenci, La Rue, and Commire; and the affection he had for them induced him to admit himself of their order in 1683. After his noviciate, and when he had finished his course of philosophy at Paris, he was sent to Caen to teach the belles lettres, where he contracted a friendship with Huet and Segrais, and much improved himself under their instructions. The former advised him to spend one part of the day upon the Greek authors, and another upon the Latin: by pursuing which method, he became an adept in both languages. Four years being passed here, he was recalled to Paris, where he spent other four years in the study of divinity. At the end of this course, he was shortly to take upon him the occupation of either preaching, or teaching; but finding in himself no inclination for either, he quitted his order in 1694, though he still retained his usual attachment to it. Being now at liberty to indulge his own wishes, he devoted himself solely to improve and polish his understanding. He soon after assisted the abbé Bignon, under whose direction the “Journal des Scavans” was conducted; and he had all the qualifications necessary for such a work, a profound knowledge of antiquity, a skill not only in the Greek and Latin, but also Italian, Spanish, and English tongues, a soundjudgment, an exact taste, and a very impartial and candid temper. He afterwacds formed a plan of translating the works of Plato; thinking, very justly, that the versions of Ficinus and Serranus had left room enough for correction and amendments. He had begun this work, but was obliged to discontinue it by a misfortune which befel him in 1709. He had borrowed, as we are told, of his friend father Hardouin, a manuscript commentary of his upon the New Testament, in order to make some extracts from it; and was busy at work upon it one summer evening, with the window half open, and himself inconsiderately almost undressed. The cold air had so unhappy an efiect in relaxing the muscles of his neck, that he could never afterwards hold his head in its natural situation. The winter increased his malady; and he was troubled with involuntary convulsive motions of the head, and with pains which often hindered him from sleeping; yet he lived nineteen years after; and though he could not undertake any literary work, constantly received visits from the learned, and conversed with them not without pleasure. He died suddenly of an apoplexy, 1728, in his sixty-second year. He had been made a member of the academy of inscriptions in 1705, and of the French academy in 1708. His works consist of Latin poems, and a great number of very excellent dissertations in the Memoirs of the French academy . His poems were published at Paris in 1729, in 12mo, with the poems of Huet, under the care of the abbé d'Olivet, who prefixed an eulogy of Fraguier; and at the end of them are three Latin dissertations concerning Socrates, which is all that remains of the Prolegomena he had prepared for his intended translation of Plato. These dissertations, with many others upon curious and interesting subjects, are printed in the Memoirs above-mentioned.

, commonly called Francesco Dal Borgo A San Sepolcro, a painter of considerable renown, was born at Borgo in Umbria, in 1372. In his youth he studied the mathematics; but at fifteen years of age determined on being a painter, when he was patronised by Gindobaldo Fettro, duke of Urbino. He did not, however, so completely devote his time to painting as to neglect his former studies, but wrote several essays on geometry and perspective, which were long preserved in the duke’s^ library at Urbino. He afterwards painted in Pesara, Ancona, and Ferrara; but few of his works remain at either of these places. Having obtained much reputation, he was sent for to Rome by pope Nicholas V. to paint two historical subjects in the chambers of the Vatican, in concurrence with Bramante di Milano, called Bramantino; but Julius II. destroyed these to make room for Raphael’s Miracle of Bolsena, and St. Peter in Prison. Notwithstanding this degradation of his labours, before the superior powers of Raphael, he was very deserving of esteem, if the account which Vasari gives of him be true, and we consider the imperfect state of the art at the time in which he lived. He exhibited much knowledge of anatomy, feeling of expression, and of distribution of light and shade. The principal work of Franceses was a night scene, in which he represented an angel carrying a cross, and appearing in vision to the emperor Constantine sleeping in his tent with his chamberlain near him, and some of his soldiers. The light which issued from the cross and the angel illuminated the scene, and was spread over it with the utmost discretion. Every thing appeared to have been studied from nature, and was executed with great propriety and truth. He also painted a battle, which was highly commended for the spirit and fire with which it was conducted; the strength of the expression, and the imitation of nature; particularly a groupe of horsemen, which, Vasari says, “considering the period, cannot be too highly commended.”

, an historical painter, born at Bologna in 1648, was at first a disciple of G. Battista Galli, and from him entered the school of Carlo Cignani, who soon discovered the talents of his pupil, and not only formed his style, but made him his relation by macrying him to his niece, and he soon became his principal assistant. He was employed in embellishing many churches and convents in his native city, and in other parts of Italy; and particularly at Modena, he painted the grand hall of the duke’s palace so much to the satisfaction of that prince, that he wished to retain him at his court by an offer of a large pension, and such honours as were due to his merit. But Franceschini preferred his freedom and ease to the greatest acquisitions of wealth, and with polite respect refused the offer. At Genoa he painted, in the great council chamber, a design that at once manifested the fertility of his invention, and the grandeur of his ideas; for most of the memorable actions of the republic were there represented with a multitude of figures nobly designed, judiciously grouped and disposed, and correctly drawn. And in the Palazzo Monti at Bologna is a small gallery painted by him, of which the colouring is exceedingly lovely, though the figures appear to want roundness. Franceschini, though of the school of Cignani, is original in the suavity of his colour, and the facility of his execution. He is fresh without being cold, and full without being crowded. As he was a machinist, and in Upper Italy what Cortona was in the Lower, symptoms of the mannerist appear in his works. He had the habit of painting his cartoons in chiaro-scuro, and, by fixing them to the spot where the fresco was to be executed, became a judge of their effect. He preserved the powers 6f his mind and pencil unaltered at a very advanced age; and when he was even seventy-eight years old, he designed and coloured his pictures with all that fire and spirit for which he had been distinguished in his best time. He died in 1729, at the age of eighty-one.

, an historical painter, whose real name was Raibolini, was born at Bologna in 1450, and wa bred to the profession of a goldsmith, which he exercised for some time with very considerable celebrity, having the coinage of the city of Bologna under his care. His desire of reputation, and his acquaintance with Andrea Mantegna and other painters, led him to the study of painting-, but from whom he received the first elements of instruction is not known. In 1490 he produced a picture of the Virgin seated, and surrounded by several figures; among whom is the portrait of M. Bart. Felisini, for whom the picture was painted. In this he still calls himself “Frauciscus Francis, aurifex,” and it, with another picture of a similar subject, painted for the chapel Bentivoglio a St. Jacopo, gained him great reputation. He painted many pictures for churches, &c. in Bologna, Modena, Parma, and other cities; but they were in the early, Gothic, dry manner, called “stila antico moderuo,” which he greatly improved upon in his latter productions. On Pietro Perugino he formed his characters of heads, and his choice of tone and colour; on Gian. Bellino, fullness of outline and breadth of drapery; and if the best evidence of his merit, the authority of Raphael, be of weight, in process of time he excelled them both. In a letter dated 1508, edited by Malvasia, Raphael declares that the Madonnas of Francia were inferior, in his opinion, to none for beauty, devoutness, and form. His idea of Francia’s talents exhibited itself still stronger in his entrusting his picture of St. Cecilia, destined for the church of St Gio da Monte at Bologna, to his care, by letter soliciting him as a friend to See it put in its place, and if he found any defect in it, that he would kindly correct it. Vasari says that Francia died with grief in 1518, upon seeing by this picture that he was as nothing in the art, compared with the superior genius of Raphael; but Malvasia proves that he lived some years afterwards, and in an improved style produced his celebrated St. Sebastian, which Caracci describes as the general model of proportion and form for the students at Bologna. A copy of this figure still exists in the church della Misericordia.

, or Fiuncia Bigio, was an historical painter, born in 1483. He studied for a short time under Albertinelli, but is chiefly known as the competitor, and in some works the partner of Andrea del Sarto. Similar in principle, but inferior to him in power, he strove to supply by diligence the defects of nature; with what success, will appear on comparison of his work in the cloister of the Nunziata at Florence, with those of Andrea at the same place. On its being uncovered by the monks, the painter in a fit of shame or rage gave it some blows with a hammer, nor ever after could be induced to finish it. He appears to have succeeded better in two histories which he inserted among the frescos of Andrea at the Scalzo, nor is he there much inferior. He likewise emulated him at Poggio a Cajano, where he represented the return of M. Tullius from exile, a work, which though it remained unfinished, shews him to great advantage. This artist died in 1524, in the prime of life.

, a celebrated saint of the Romish church, and founder of one of the four orders of mendicant friars, called Franciscans, was born at Assisi in Umbria, in 1182. He was the son of a merchant, and was christened John, but had the name of Francis added, from his facility of talking French, which he learned to qualify him for his father’s profession. He was at first a young man of dissolute manners, but in consequence of an illness about 1206, he became so strongly affected with religious zeal, that he took a resolution of retiring from the world. He now devoted himself so much to solitude, mortified himself to such a degree, and contracted so ghastly a countenance, that the inhabitants of Assisi thought him distracted. His father, thinking to make him resume his profession., employed a very severe method for that purpose, by throwing him into prison; but finding this made no impression on him, he took him before the bishop of Assisi, in order to make him resign all claim to his paternal estate, which he not only agreed to, but stripped off all his clothes, even to his shirt. He then prevailed with great numbers to devote themselves, as he had done, to the poverty which he considered as enjoined by the gospel; and drew up an institute or rule for their use, which was approved by pope Innocent III. in 1210. The year after, he obtained of the Benedictines the church of Portiuncula, near Assisi, and his order increased so fast, that when he held a chapter in 1219, near 5000 friars of the order of Minors (so they were called) were present. Soon after he obtained also a bull in favour of his order from pope Honorius III. About this time he went into the Holy Land, and endeavoured in vain to convert the sultan Meledin. It is said, that he offered to throw himself into the flames to prove his faith in what he taught. He returned soon after to his native country, and died at Assiai in 1226, being then only fortyfive. He was canonized by pope Gregory IX. the 6th of May, 1230; and Oct. the 4th, on which his death happened, was appointed as his festival.

His order soon rose to great splendor, and has done great services to the Roman pontiffs. Some popes, several cardinals, and a great number of prelates, and celebrated authors, have been of it. It is divided into several bodies, some of which are more rigid than others; and all strongly inherit the ancient emulation, which soon broke out between the children of St. Francis and those of St. Dominic. Before the reformation, the Franciscans had in England about eighty convents, besides some nunneries. Those who are desirous to know more of St. Francis and his order, besides our authorities at the bottom of the page, may be referred to his life written by Bonaventure. But perhaps the most ample and circumstantial accounts are given by Luke Wadding, in the first volume of his “Annales Ordinis Minorum,” which contains a complete history of the Franciscan order, confirmed by a great numbep of authentic records. The best edition of this work is that published at Rome in 1731, and following years, in 18 vols. fol. by Joseph Maria Fonseca ab Ebora. It is to the same Wadding that we are indebted fur the “Opuscula S. Francisci,” and the “Bibliotheca ordinis Minorum,” the former of which appeared in 4to, at Antwerp, 1625, and the latter at Rome in 1650. The history of these orders will, it is hoped, be of less consequence hereafter, when a more enlightened state of society has shown their insufficiency in the advancement of real religion, but it can never be uninteresting to know the early rise of those formidable bodies of ecclesiastics which once held the world in awe. The life of St Francis, like that of most of the Romish saints, is rendered incredible and ridiculous by the addition of miracles and prodigies, the fictions of after-times, but could they be separated from what is genuine, he might probably appear an enthusiast, yet sincere in what he believed and practised.

, another Romish saint, who to exceed his predecessor in humility, founded the order of Minims (least), as he had that of Minors (inferiors). He was born in 1416, at Paulo in Calabria. He began his career of mortification by retiring to a cell on a desert part of the coast, where his sanctity soon obtained followers, and they ere long constructed a monastery round his cell. Thus was his order commenced. He formed a rule for it, which was approved by pope Alexander VI. and confirmed by Julius II. His rule was extremely rigorous, enjoining perpetual abstinence from wine, fish, and meat. His disciples were always to go bare-footed, never to sleep upon a bed, and to use many other mortifications. He died in France, to which country be went at the earnest solicitation of Louis XI. who hoped to be cured of a dangerous malady by his presence. This event took place at Plessisdu-Parc, in 1508, when he was at the age of ninety-one. He was canonized in 1519, by Leo X. By the confession of his admirers he was perfectly illiterate.

, was born at the castle of Sales, in the diocese of Geneva, August 21, 1567. He descended from one of the most ancient and noble families of Savoy. Having taken a doctor of law’s degree at Padua, he was first advocate at Chambery, then provost of the church of Geneva at Annecy. Claudius de Granier, his bishop, sent him as missionary into the valleys of his diocese to. convert the Zuinglians, and Calvinists, which he is said to have performed in great numbers, and his sermons were attended with wonderful success. The bishop of Geneva chose him afterwards for his coadjutor, but was obliged to use authority before he could be persuaded to accept the office. Religious aftairs called him afterwards into France, where he was universally esteemed; and cardinal du Perron said, “There were no heretics whom he could not convince, but M. de Geneva must be employed to convert them.” Henry IV. being informed of his merit, made him considerable offers, in hopes of detaining hioi in France; but he chose rather to return to Savoy, where he arrived in 1602, and found bishop Grimier had died a few days before. St. Francis then undertook the reformation of his diocese, where piety and virtue soon flourished through his zeal; he restored regularity in the monasteries, and instituted the order of the Visitation in. 1610, which was confirmed by Paul V. 1618, and of whicli the baroness de Chantal, whom he converted by his preaching at Dijon, was the foundress. He also established a congregation of hermits in Chablais, restored ecclesiastical discipline to its ancient vigour, and converted nnmerous heretics to the faith. At the latter end of 1618 St. Francis was obliged to go again to Paris, with the cardinal de Savoy, to conclude a marriage between the prince of Piedmont and Christina of France, second daughter of Henry IV. This princess, herself, chose de Sales for her chief almoner; but he -would accept the place only on two conditions; one, that it should not preclude his residing in his diocese; the other, that whenever he did not execute his office, he should not receive the profits of it. These xinusual terms the princess was obliged to consent to, and immediately, as if by way of investing him with his office, presented him with a very valuable diamond, saying, “On condition that you will keep it for my sake.” To which he replied, “I promise to do so, madam, unless the poor stand in need of it.” Returning to Annecy, he continued to visit the sick, relieve those in want, instruct the people, and discharge all the duties of a pious bishop, till 1622, when he died of an apoplexy at Lyons, December 28, aged fifty-six, leaving several religious works, collected in 2 vols. fol. The most known are, “The Introduction to a devout Life;” and “Philo,” or a treatise on the love of God. MarsoHier has written his life, 2 yols. 12mo, which was translated into English by Mr. Crathornc. He was canonized in 16 65.

king of France, surnamed “the Great, and the restorer of learning,” succeeded his father-in-law Louis XII. who died without a son in 1515. Francis I. was the only son of Charles duke of Orleans, constable of AngoulSroe, and born at Cognac, September 12, 1494. Immediately after his coronation he took the title of cluke of Milan, and put himself at the head of a powerful army to assert his right to that duchy. The Swiss, who defended it, opposed his enterprize, and attacked him. near Marignana; but they were cut to pieces in a sanguinary contest, and about 15,000 left dead on the field. The famous Trivulce, who had been engaged in eighteen battles, called this “The battle of the Giants,” and the others “Children’s play.” It was on this occasion that the king desired to be knighted by the famous Bayard. That rank was originally the highest that could be aspired to: princes of the blood were not called monseigneur, nor their wives madaine, till they had been knighted; nor might any one claim that honour, unless he could trace his nobility at least three generations back, both on his father’s and mother’s side, and also bore an unblemished character, especially for military courage and valour. The creation of a knight was attended with few ceremonies, except at some festivals, inwhich case a great number were observed. This institution, which may be traced up to the first race, contributed not a little to polish the minds of the French, by restraining them within the bounds of a benevolent morality. They swore to spare neither life or fortune in defence of religion, in fighting against the infidels, and in protecting the widow, the orphan, and all who were defenceless. By this victory at Marignana, Francis I. became master of the Milanese, which was ceded to him by Maximilian Sforza, who then retired into France. Pope Leo X. alarmed by these conquests, held a conference with the king at Bologna, obtained from him the abolition of the Pragmatic Sanction, and settled the Concordate, which was confirmed the year following in the Latcran council. From that time the kings of France appointed to all consistorial benefices, and the pope received one year’s income upon every change. The treaty of N.oyon was concluded the same year between Charles V. and Francis I. one principal article or' which was the restoration of Navarre. Charles V. on the death of Maximilian I. being elected emperor, 1519, in opposition to Francis, the jealousy which subsisted between those two princes broke out immediately, and kindled a long war, which proved fatal to all Europe. The French, commanded by Andrew de Foix, conquered Navarre in 1520, and lost it again almost directly; they drove the English and Imperialists from Picardy; took Hesdin, Fontarabia, and several other places; but lost Milan and Tournay in 1521. The following year, Odet de Foix, viscount of Lautrec, was defeated at the bloody battle of Bicoque, which was followed by the loss of Cremona, Genoa, and a great part of Italy. Nor did their misfortunes end here. The constable of Bourbon, persecuted by the duchess of Angouleme, joined the emperor 1523, and, being appointed commander of his forces in 1524, defeated admiral Bonevet’s rear at the retreat of Rebec, and retook all the Milanese. He afterwards entered Provence with a powerful army, but was obliged to raise the siege of Marseilles, and retired with loss. Francis I. however, went into Italy, retook Milan, and was going to besiege Pavia; but, having imprudently detached part of his troops to send them to Nappies, he was defeated by the constable de Bpurbon in a bloody battle before Pavia, February 24, 1525, after, having two horses killed under him, and displaying prodigious valour. His greatness of mind never appeared more conspicuously than after this unfortunate engagement. In a letter to his mother he says, “Every thing is lost but honour.” He was conducted as a prisoner to Madrid, and returned the following year, after the treaty which was concluded in that city, January 14, 1526. This treaty, extorted by force, was not fulfilled; the emperor had insisted on the duchy of Burgundy being ceded to him but, when Lannoi went to demand it in his master’s name, he was introduced to anaudience given to the deputies of Burgundy, who declared to the king, that he had no power to give up any province of his kingdom. Upon this the war re-commenced immediately. Francis I. sent forces into Italy, under the command of Lautrec, who rescued Clement VII. and at first gained great adVantages, but perished afterwards, with his army, by sickness. The king, who had been some years a widower, concluded the treaty of Cambray in 1529, by which he engaged to marry Eleanor of Austria, the emperor’s sister; and his two sons, who had been given as hostages, were Ransomed at the king’s return for two millions in gold. The ambition of possessing Milan, caused peace again to be broken. Francis took Savoy in 1535, drove the emperor from Provence in 153G, entered into an alliance with 8olyman II. emperor of the Turks; took Hesdin, and seyeral other places, in 1537, and made a truce of ten years with Charles V. at Nice, 1538, which did not, however, Jast long. The emperor, going to punish the people of Ghent, who had rebelled, obtained a passage through France, by promising Francis the investiture of the duchy of Milan for which of his children he pleased; but. after being received in France with the highest honours in 1539, he was no sooner arrived in Flanders than he refused to keep his promise. This broke the truce; the war was renewed, and carried on with various success on both sides. The king’s troops entered Italy, Roussillorr, and Luxemburg. Francis of Bourbon, comte d‘Enguien, won the battle of Cerizoles in 154*, and took Montferrat. Francis I. gained over to his side Barbarossa, and Gustavus Vasa, Icing of Sweden; while, on the other hand, Henry VIII. of England espoused the interests of Charles V. and took Bologna, ’1544. A peace was at last concluded with he emperor at Cressy, September 18, 1544, and with Henry VIII. June 7, 154fi; but Francis did not long enjoy the tranquillity which this peace procured him; he died at the castle of Rambouillet the last day of March, 1547, aged fifty-three. This prince possessed the most shining qualities: he was witty, mild, magnanimous, generous, and benevolent. The revival of polite literature in Europe was chiefly owing to his care; he patronized the learned, founded the royal college at Paris, furnished a library at Fountainbleau at a great expence, and built several palaces, which he ornamented with pictures, statues, and costly furniture. When dying, he particularly requested his son to dimiuish the taxes which he had been obliged to levy for defraying the expences of the war; and put it in his power to do so, for he left 400,000 crowns of gold in his coffers, with a quarter of his revenues which was then due. It was this sovereign who ordered all public acts to "be written in French. Upon the whole he appears to have been one of the greatest ornaments of the French throne.

, an English clergyman, and the able translator of Horace and Demosthenes, was of Irish extraction, if not born in that kingdom, where his father was a dignified clergyman, and, among other preferments, held the rectory of St. Mary, Dublin, from which he was ejected by the court on account of his Tory principles. His son, our author, was also educated for the church, and obtained a doctor’s degree. His edition of “Horace” made his name known in England about 1743, and raised him a reputation as a classical editor and translator, which no subsequent attempts have greatly diminished. Dr. Johnson, many years after other rivals had started, gave him this praise: “The lyrical part of Horace never can be properly translated; so much of the excellence is in the numbers and the expression. Francis has done it the best: I'll take his, five out of six, against them all.”

Some time after the publication of Horace, he appears to have come over to England, where, in 1753, he published a translation of part of the “Orations of Demosthenes,” intending to comprise the whole in two quarto volumes. It was a matter of some importance at that time to risk a large work of this kind, and the author had the precaution therefore to secure a copious list of subscribers. Unfortunately, however, it had to contend with the acknowledged merit of Leland’s translation, and, allowing their respective merits to have been nearly equal, Leland’s had at least the priority in point of time, and upon comparison, was preferred by the critics, as being more free and eloquent, and less literally exact. This, however, did not arise from any defect in our author’s skill, but was merely an error, if an error at all, in judgment; for he conceived, that as few liberties as possible ought to be taken with the style of his author, and that there was an essential difference between a literal translation, which only he considered as faithful, and an imitation, in which we can never be certain that we have the author’s words or precise meaning. Jn 1755 he completed his purpose in a second volume, which was applauded as a difficult work well executed, and acceptable to every friend of genius and literature; but its success was by no means correspondent to the wishes of the author or of his friends. The year before the first volume of his “Demosthenes” appeared, he determined to attempt the drama, and his first essay was a tragedy entitled “Eugenia.” This is profesedly an adaptation of the French “Cenie” to English feelings and habits, hut it had not much success on the stage. Lord Chesterfield, in one of his letters to his Son, observes that he did not think it would have succeeded so well, considering how long our British audiences had been accustomed to murder, racks, and poison in every tragedy; yet it affected the heart so much, that it triumphed over habit and prejudice. In a subsequent letter, he says that the boxes were crowded till the sixth night, when the pit and gallery were totally deserted, and it was dropped. Distress without death, he repeats, was not sufficient to arlect a true British audience, so long accustomed to daggers, racks, and bowls of poison; contrary to Horace’s rule, they desire to see Medea murder her children on the stage. The sentiments were too delicate to move them; and their hearts were to be taken by storm, not by parley. In 1754, Mr. Francis brought out another tragedy at Cuvent-garden theatre, entitled “Constantino,” which was equilly unsuccessful, but appears to have suffered principally by the improper distribution of the parts among the actors. This he alludes to, in the dedication to lord Chesterfield, with whom he appears to have been acquainted, and intimates at the same time that these disappointments bad induced him to take leave of the stage.

During the political contests at the beginning of the present reign, he employed his pen in defence of government, and acquired the patronage of lord Holland, who rewarded his services by the rectory of Barrow, in Suffolk, and the chapiujnship of Chelsea hospital. What were his publications on political topics, as they were anonymous, and probably dispersed among the periodical journals, cannot now be ascertained. They drew upon him, however, the wrath of Churchjjl, who in his “Author” has exhibited a portrait of Mr. Francis, probably overcharged by spleen and. envy. Churchill, indeed, was so profuse of his calumny, that he seldom gained credit, and long before he died, his assertions had begun to lose their value. He is said to have intended to write a satirical poem, in which Francis was to make his appearance as the Ordinary of Newgate. The severity of this satire was better under. ­stood at that time, when the ordinaries of Newgate were. held in very little esteem, and some of them were grossly ignorant and dissolute. Mr. Francis died at Bath, March 5, 1773, leaving a son, who in the same year was appointed one of the supreme council of Bengal, and is now sir Philip Francis, K. B.

Of all the classical writers, “Horace” is by general consent allowed to be the most difficult to translate, yet so universal has been the ambition to perform this task, that scarcely an English poet can be named in whose works we do not find some part of Horace. These efforts, however, have not so frequently been directed to give the sense and local meaning of the author, as to transfuse his satire, and adapt it to modern persons and times. But of the few who have exhibited the whole of this interesting poet in an Eirglish dress, Mr. Francis has been supposed to have succeeded best in that which is most difficult, the lyric part, and likewise to have conveyed the spirit and sense of the original in the epistles and satires, with least injury to the genius of the author. In his preface he acknowledges his obligations to Dr. Dunkin, a poet of some celebrity, and an excellent classical scholar.

, a Greek and Latin poet, of much reputation on the continent, was born at Amsterdam, Aug. 19, 1645. He received his early education under Adrian Junius, rector of the school of Amsterdam, who had the happy art of discovering the predominant talents of his scholars, and of directing them to the most adrantageous method of cultivating them. To young Francius he recommended Ovid as a model, and those who have read his works are of opinion that he must have “given his days and nights” to the study of that celebrated poet. From Amsterdam he went to Leyden, where he became a pupil of Gronovius the elder, who soon distinguished him from the rest of his scholars, and treated him as a friend, which mark of esteem was also extended to him by Gronovius the son. After this course of scholastic studies, he set out on his travels, visiting England and France, in which last, at Angers, he took his degree of doctor of civil and canon Jaw. While at Paris he acquired the esteem of many learned men, and when he proceeded afterwards to Italy, improved his acquaintance with the literary men of that country, and wa.s very respectfully received by Cosmo III. grand duke of Tuscany. After his return to Amsterdam, the magistrates, in 1674, elected him professor of rhetoric and history, and in 1686 professor of Greek. In 1692 the directors of the academy of Leyden made him an offer of one of their professorships, but the magistrates of Amsterdam, fearing to lose so great an ornament to their city, increased his salary, that he might be under no temptation on that account to leave them. He accordingly remained here until his death, Aug. 19, 1704, when he was exactly fifty-nine years old. Francius particularly excelled in declamation, in which his first master, Junius, the ablest declaimer of his time, had instructed him, and in which he took some lessons afterwards from a famous tragic actor, Adam Caroli, who, he used to say, was to him what Koscius was to Cicero. His publications consist of, 1. “Poemata,” Amsterdam, 1682, 12mo; ibid. 1697, 8vo. These consist of verses in various measures, which were highly esteemed, although some were of opinion that he succeeded better in the elegies and epigrams, and lighter pieces, than in the heroic attempts. The first of the editions above-mentioned has some translations from the 4< Anthology“omitted in the second, because the author had an intention of giving a complete translation of that celebrated collection, which, however, he never executed. In other respects, the second edition is more ample and correct. 2.” Orationes,“Amst. 1692, 8vo, of which an enlarged edition appeared in 1705, 8vo. His emulation of the style of Cicero is said to be very obvious in these orations. Some of them had been published separately, particularly a piece of humour entitled” Encomium Galli Gallinacei.“3.” Specimen eloquentiac exterioris ad orationem M. T. Ciceronis pro A. Licin. Archia accommoclatnm,“Amst. 1697, 12mo. 4.” Specimen eloquentia exterioris ad orationem Ciceronis pro M. Marcello accommodatum,“ibid. 1699, 12mo. These two last were reprinted in 1700, 8vo, with his” Oratio de ratione declamandi.“5.” Epistola prima ad C. Valerium Accinctum, vero nomine Jacobum Perizonium, professorem Leyden­*em,“&c. Amst. 1696, 4to. This relates to a personal dispute between Francius and Perizonius, of very little consequence to the public, and was answered by Perizonius. 6.” The Homily of S. Gregoire of Nazianzen, on charity to our neighbour,“translated from Greek into German, Axnstt 1700, 8vo. 7.” A discourse on the Jubilee, Jan. 1700,“in German, ibid., 1700, 4to. 8.” Posthums, quibus accedunt illustrium eruditorum ad eutn Epistolse," ibid. 1706, 8vo.

, an eminent German physician, was born at Naumburg, in Upper Saxony, May 3, 1643. His father, although living as a simple peasant, was of a noble family. After going through his school education, George went to Jena at the age of eighteen, and was crowned a poet by count palatine llichter, in consequence of his extraordinary talent for writing verses in the German, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew Jauguages. But he exhibited still greater talents during his course of medical studies, and the canons of Naumburg, who recognized his merits, afforded him liberal means of subsistence while he applied himself to this science. Before he took his doctor’s degree^(in 1666), he was deemed eligible to give lectures in botany, chemistry, and anatomv, and acquired great reputation. In 1672, the elector palatine appointed him to the vacant professorship of medicine at Heidelberg, and a few years afterwards nominated him his own physician. But the troubles occasioned by the war obliged him in 1688, to retire to Francfort on the Main. John George III. elector of Saxony, then received him into his service, and appointed him professor of medicine at Wittemberg; an office which he filled with so much eclat, that the principal professorship, and the title of dean of the faculty at Leipsic, were soon offered to him. This, however, he refused, by the instigation of his friends, who sought to retain him at Wittemberg. The two succeeding electors likewise loaded this physician with so many favours, that it was supposed he could never dream of quitting Heidelberg. Nevertheless, he was induced by the offers of Christian V. king of Denmark, to remove to Copenhagen, where he was received most graciously by the royal family, and was honoured with the title of Aulic counsellor, which was continued to him by Frederick IV. the successor of Christian. Death, however, terminated his brilliant career on the 16th of June, 1704, in the six-" tieth year of his age.

Franck was a member of several learned societies, and was ennobled by the emperor Leopold in 1692, and in 1693 was created count palatine, by the title of “De Franckenau.” His principal works are, 1. “Institutionum Medicarum Synopsis,” Heidelberg, 1672. 2. “Lexicon Vegetabilium usualium,” Argentorati, T672. This was re-published several times. In the edition of Leipsic, 161)8, the title of “Flora Francica” was given to it. 3, ?' Bona nova Anatomica,“Heidelberg, 1680. 4.” Parva Bibliotheca Zootomica,“ibid. 1680. 5.” De caVumniis in Medicos et Medicinam,“ibid. 1686. 6. * De Medicis Philologis,” Wittebergse, 1691. 7. “De palingenesis, five resuscitatione artiBciali planlarum, hominum, et amuialiuiii, e sure cineribus, liber singularis,” Hala-, 1717, edited by Nehring. 8. “Satyra; Medictc XX.” Leipsic, 1722. These pieces, which had begun to appear in 1673, were published by his son, George Frederic Franck, whp was also a teacher of medicine at Wittemberg, and wrote several works qn botany and physip.

, or Franciscus Francken, but more generally called Old Francks, was an artist of the sixteenth century. Very few circumstances relative to him are handed down, although his works are as generally known in these kingdoms as they are in the Netherlands: nor are the dates of his birth, death, or age, thoroughly ascertained; for Dcscamps supposes him to be born in 1544, to be admitted into the society of painters at Antwerp in 1561, which was at seventeen years of age; and fixes his death in 1666, by which computation Francks must have been a hundred and twenty-two years old when he died, which appears utterly improbable; though others fix his birth in 1544, and his death in 1616, aged seventy-two, which seems to be nearest the truth. He painted historical subjects taken froni the Old orNewTestameut, and was remarkable for introducing a great number of figures into his compositions, which he had the skill to express very distinctly. He had a fruitful invention, and composed readily; but he wanted grace and elegance in his figures, and was apt to crowd too many histories into one scene. His touch was free, and the colouring of his pictures generally transparent; yet a predominant brown or yellowish tinge appeared over them, neither natural nor agreeable. But, in several of his best performances, the colouring is clear and lively, the design good, the figures tolerably correct, and the whole together very pleasing. -At Wilton is his “Belshazzar’s Feast,” a very curious composition.

Vandyck often commended the works of this master, and esteemed them worthy of a place in any collection. Many of them are frequently seen at public sales, which render him well known, though several are also to be met with in those places, which are unjustly ascribed to Francks, and are really unworthy of him.

, commonly called Young Francks, the son of the preceding, and of both his names, was born in 1580, and instructed in the art of painting by his father, whose style and manner he imitated in a large and small size; but when he found himself sufficiently skilled to be capable of improvement by travel, he went to Venice, and there perfected his knowledge of colouring, by studying and copying the works of those artists who were most eminent. But it seems extraordinary that a painter so capable of great things in his profession, should devote his pencil to the representation of carnivals and other subjects of that kind, preferably to historical subjects of a much higher rank, which might have procured for him abundantly more honour. At his return, however, to Flanders, his works were greatly admired and coveted, being superior to those of his father in many respects; his colouring was more clear, his pencil more delicate, his designs had somewhat more of elegance, and his expression was much better. The taste of composition was the same in both, and they seemed to have the same ideas, and the same defects’, multiplying too many historical incidents into one subject, and representing a series of actions, rather than one principal action or event. The subjects of both painters were usually taken from the Old and New Testament, and also from the Roman history (except the subjects of young Francks while he continued in Italy); and it might have been wished that each of them had observed more order and propriety in the disposition of their subjects.

He had a great particularity in touching the white of the eyes of his figures, which appears as if a small lump of unbroken white was touched on, with the point of a fine pencil, and it gives the figures a great deal of spirit. liven that particularity, well attended to, may be a means of determining the hand of this master. It ought to ht observed, that from the similarity of names, taste, style, and colouring of the Old and Young Francks, their works are often mistaken and miscalled, and the work of the one purchased for the work of the other. The most capital performance of this painter, is a scriptural subject in the church of Notre Dame at Antwerp; and an excellent picture, in the small size, is “Solomon’s Idolatry,” in which that king is represented as kneeling before an altar, on which is placed the statue of Jupiter. There is a noble expression in the figure of Solomon, apd the drapery of the figure is broad and flowing; the altar is exceedingly enriched with fine bas-relief in the Italian style, and it exquisitely finished; the penciling is neat, the colouring clear and transparent, and the whole picture appears to have been painted on leaf gold. Young Francks died in 1642.

, a learned and pious German divine, and a great benefactor to his country, was born at Lubeck, March 12, O. S. 1663. His father, John Francke, was then one of the magistrates of Lubeck, and afterwards entered into the service of Ernest the Pious, duke of Saxe Gotha, as counsellor of the court and of justice. His mother, Anne Gloxin, was the daughter of one of the oldest burgomasters of Lubeck. Young Francke had the misfortune to lose his father in 1670, when he was between six and seven years old, and at this early age had shown such a pious disposition, that he was intended for the church, and with this view his mother placed him under the instructions of a private tutor. His proficiency in classical studies was such, th.'t at the age of fourteen he vvas considered as well qualified to go to the university. It was not, however, until 1679, that he went to that of Erfurt, and from thence to Kiel, where he st-idied some years under Kortholt and Morhoff. In 1682, he returned to Gotha, and visited Hamburgh in his way, where he remained two months to improve his knowledge of the Hebrew language, under Esdras Edzardi. In 1684 he went to Leipsic, and took his degree of M. A. in the following year. During his stay l;ere, he formed a society for literary conversation among his friends, which long subsisted under the name of “Collegium Philobiblicum,” their favourite topic being the study of the* Holy Scriptures. Some time after he went to Wittemberg, where he was received with great respect by the literati of that university, and thence to Luueburg, where he attended the divinity lectures of the celebratd Sandhagen. From Lunebourg he returned to Leipsic, and gave a course of lectures on the holy scriptures, practical as well as critical, which were frequented by above three hundred students. This success, with a more than common earnestness and seriousness in his method and address, occasioned some jealousy, and created him enemies likewise at Erfurt, whither, in 1690, he was invited to become pastor of St. Austin. The objection to him was that of pietism, and it increased with so much violence, that in 1691 he was deprived of his charge, and ordered to quit the city within two days. How little he deserved this treatment, had already appeared in some of his writings, and was more manifest afterwards in his conduct and services.

The court of Gotha, uninfluenced by these clamours, and convinced of his innocence and worth, lost no time in offering a suitable employment for his talents. He was About the same time offered a professorship in the college of Cobourg, and another at Weimar, but he preferred the offers made to him by the elector of Brandenbourg, (afterwards Frederic I. of Prussia), the very day that he was ordered to quit Erfurt. The university of Halle, in Saxony, had been just founded, and Mr. Francke was in 1691 appointed professor of the Greek and oriental languages, and pastor of Glaucha, a suburb of Halle. In 1698 he resigned Iiis professorship of the languages for that of divinity, but although he had a principal hand in establishing the new university, which soon became pre-eminent among the eminaries of Germany, he acquired greater fame as the founder of the celebrated school, hospital, or rather college, for the poor at Glaucha. The wholehistory of education does not produce an instance more remarkable in its origin and progress than this singular foundation, by the labour, industry, and perseverance, of professor Francke.

There was a very ancient custom in the city and neighbourhood of Halle, for such persons as give relief to the poor, to appoint a particular day on which they were to come to their doors to receive it. When professor Fraucke came to be settled at Glaucha, he readily adopted this practice, and fixed on Thursday as his day. But, as his profession led him, he endeavoured to confer with the poor on the subject of religion, in which he found them miserably deficient, and incapable of giving their children any religious instruction whatever. His first contrivance to supply their temporal wants was by supplicating the charity of well-disposed students; but finding that mode inconvenient, he contented himself with fixing up a box in his parlour, with one or two suitable texts of scripture over it. In 1695, when this box had been set up about a quarter of a year, he found in it the donation of a single person amounting to 1 8.s. 6d. English, which he immediately determined should be the foundation of a charity, school. Unpromising as such a scheme might appear, he began the same day by purchasing eight-shillings-worth of school-books, and then engaged a student to teach the poor children two hours each day. He met at first with the common fate of such benevolent attempts; most of the children making away with the books entrusted to them, and deserting the school; for this, however, the remedy was easy, in obliging the children to leave them behind them; but still his pious endeavours were in a great measure frustrated by the impressions made on their minds in school being effaced by their connections abroad. To remedy this greater evil, he resolved to single out some of the children, and to undertake their maintenance, as well as instruction. Such of the children, accordingly, as seemed most promising, he put out to persons of known integrity and piety to be educated by them, as he had as yet no house to receive them. The report of so excellent a design, induced a person of quality to contribute the sum of 1000 crowns, and another 400, which served to purchase a house into which twelve orphans, the whole number he had selected, were removed, and a student of divinity appointed master and teacher. This took place in 1696. The number of children, however, which demanded his equal sympathy, increasing, he conceived the project of buildiopr an hospital, such as might contain about two hundreirpeople, and this at a time, he informs us, when he hauf not so much in hand as would answer the cost of a small cottage, and when his project was consequently looked upon as visionary and absurd. His reliance on Providence, however, was so firm, that having procured piece of ground, he laid the foundation stone on July 5, 1698, and within the space of a year the workmen were ready to cover it with the roof. During this time as well as the time it subsequently required to complete it, the expences were defrayed from casual donations. He never appears to have had any kind of annual subscription, or other help on which the least dependence could be placed; he sometimes knew the names of his benefactors, but more generally they were totally unknown to him, and yet one succeeded another at short intervals, and often when he was reduced to the utmost distress. By such unforeseen and unexpected supplies, an establishment was formed, in which, in 1727, 2196 children were provided for, under 130 teachers. The whole progress of this great work, as related by professor Francke, is beyond measure astonishing and unprecedented; for he had applied none of the methods which have since been found useful in the foundation of similar establishments, and appears to have had nothing to support his zeal, but the strongest confidence in the goodness of Providence; and although the assistance he received was great in the aggregate, it not unfrequently happened that his mornings were passed in anxious fears lest the subjects of his care might want bread in the day. These supplies consisted principally in money, but many to whom that mode of contribution was inconvenient, sent in provisions, clothing, and utensils of various sorts, and a very considerable number sold trinkets of all kinds, lace, jewels, plate^ &c. for the benefit of an hospital, the good effects of which were now strikingly visible, as its progress advanced. Some very considerable contributions came even from England, in consequence of a short account of the hospital having been sent over and published there in 1705. Dr. White Kennett, in particular, noticed it with high commendation, from the pulpit, and added that “nothing in the world seemed to him more providential, or rather more miraculous.” In the following year, 1706, it had grownup, not only into an hospital for orphans, and a refuge for many other distresse'd objects, but into a kind of university, in which all the languages and sciences were taught, and a printing-house established on a liberal plan, an infirmary, &c.

The establishment of this great undertaking fills up many years of professor Francke’s history. The remaining events of his life are but few. He associated with himself John Anastasius Freylinghausen, in his charge as pastor, and had him and other men of character and talents as assistants in his school. The variety of his employments, however, injured his health, although he derived occasional benefit from travelling. One instance of his pious zeal is thus recorded: The duke Maurice, of Saxe-Zeitz, had embraced the Roman catholic religion, and professor Francke, at the request of the duchess, went to his court iti 1718, and in several, conferences so completely satisfied his mind, as to induce him to make a public profession of his return to the Protestant church. Francke’s death was occasioned by profuse sweats, which were checked by degrees, but followed by a retention of urine, and a paralytic attack, which proved fatal June 8, 1727. Amidst much weakness and pain, ie lectured as late as the 15th of May preceding. It would be difficult to name a man more generally regretted. Halle, Elbing, Jena, DeUxPonts, Augsbourgh, Tubingen, even Erfurt, where he was-so shamefully persecuted, Leipsio, Dresden, Wittemberg, &c. all united in expressing their sense of his worth, by culogiums written by the most eminent professors of these schools. By his wife, Anne Magdalene, the daughter of Otho Henry de Worm, a person of distinction, he left Gotthelf Augustus Francke, professor of divinity and pastor of the church of Notre- Dame, and a daughter who was married to M. Freylinghausen. In his learning, talents, eloquence, and piety, all his contemporaries seem agreed. As a public benefactor he has had few equals.

, D. D. chaplain in ordinary to his majesty, born 1721, was the son of Richard Francklin, well known as the printer of an anti-ministerial paper caUed “The Craftsman,” in the conduct of which he received great assistance from lord Bolingbroke, Mr. Pulteney, and other excellent writers, who then opposed sir Robert Waipole’s measures. By the advice of the second of these gentlemen, young Francklin was devoted to the church, with a promise of being provided for by Mr. Pulteney, who afterwards forgot his undertaking. Yet his father had a claim, from his sufferings at least, to all that these patriots could do for him. While engaged in their service, he was prosecuted by the crown several times, and had been confined several years in the King’s-bench prison for a letter written from the Hague, and printed by him at their desire. It is true, indeed, that several noblemen; and gentlemen subscribed a sum of 50l. each to Francklin, as a compensation for his losses, but it is as true that no more than three of them paid their money, of whom Mr. Pulteney was one.

Young Francklin, however, was educated at Westminster school, where he was admitted a scholar in 1735, and whence in 1739 he was elected to Trinity-college, Cambridge, of which he became a fellow. He was afterwards for some time an usher at Westminster-school, and first appeared as an author, in a translation of “Phalaris’s Epistles,” 1749, 8vo, and of “Cicero on the Nature of the Gods.” About the same time he is said to have published “An Inquiry into the. Astronomy and Anatomy of the Ancients,” which was reprinted in 1775, 8vo. In June 1750, he was chosen Greek professor of Cambridge, in opposition of Mr. Barford, of King’s-college, and in the same year became involved in a dispute with the university on the following occasion. On the 17th of November, he with a number of gentlemen educated at Westminster school, having met at a tavern, according to custom, to celebrate queen Elizabeth’s anniversary, they were interrupted by the senior proctor, who came into the company after 11 o'clock at night, and ordered them to depart, it being an irregular hour. For disobeying this order, some of them were reprimanded by the vice-chancellor, and others fined. Francklin, who was one of the party, had his share in the business, and is supposed to have written a pamphlet entitled “An Authentic Narrative of the late extraordinary proceedings at Cambridge, against the Westminster Club,” Loud. 1751, 8vo, denying the charge of irregularity, and laying the blame on the proctor. This dispute engaged the attention of the university for some time, as those who plead for the relaxation of discipline will never be without abettors.

In 1753, he published a poem called “Translation,” in which he announced his intention of giving a translation of “Sophocles.” In January 1757, on the periodical paper called “The World” being finished, he engaged to publish a similar one, under the title of “The Centinel,” but after extending it to twenty-seven numbers, he was obliged to drop it for want of encouragement, The next year he published “A Fast Sermon” preached at Queen-street chapel, of which he was minister, and at St. Paul’s Coveut-garden, of which he was lecturer; and he afterwards published a few sermons on occasional topics, or for charities. In 1759 appeared his translation of “Sophocles,” 2 vols. 4to, which was allowed to be a bold and happy transfusion into the English language of the terrible simplicity of the Greek tragedian. This was followed by a “Dissertation on ancient Tragedy,” in which he mentioned Arthur Murphy by name, and in terms not the most courtly. Murphy, a man equally, or perhaps more irritable, replied in a poetical “Epistle addressed to Dr. Johnson,” who calmly permitted the combatants to settle their disputes in their own way, which, we are told, amounted to a cessation of hostilities, if not to an honourable peace. At this time Francklin is said to have been a writer in the Critical Review, which indeed is acknowledged in an article in that review, and might perhaps be deduced from, internal evidence, as, besides his intimacy with Smollet, his works are uniformly mentioned with very high praise. In 1757 he had been preferred by Trinity-college to the livings of Ware and Thundrich, in Hertfordshire, and although his mind was more intent on the stage than the pulpit, he published in 1765 a volume of “Sermons on the relative duties,” which was well received by the publick. Next year he produced at Drury-lane theatre, the tragedy of “The Earl of Warwick,” taken, without any acknowledgement, from the French of La Harpe. In Nov. 1767, he was enrolled in the list of his majesty’s chaplains. In 1768 he published apiece of humour, without his name, entitled “A Letter to a Bishop concerning Lectureships,” exposing the paltry shifts of the candidates for this office at their elections; and next year he wrote “An Ode on the Institution of the Royal Academy.” In March of the same year, he translated Voltaire’s “Orestes” for the stage. In July 1770 he took the degree of D. D. but still debased his character by producing dramatic pieces of no great fame, and chiefly translations; “Electra,” “Matilda,” and “The Contract,” a farce. About 1776 he was presented to the living of Brasted, in Surrey, which he held until his death. He had for some years employed himself on his excellent translation of the works of *' Lucian,“which he published in 1780, in 2 vols. 4to. He was also concerned with Smollet, in a translation of Voltaire’s works, but, it is said, contributed little more than his name to the title-pages. There is a tragedy of his still in ms. entitled” Mary Queen of Scots.“Dr. Francklin died at his house in Great Queen-street, March 15, 1784. He was unquestionably a man of learning and abilities, but from peculiarities of temper, and literary jealousy, seems not to have been much esteemed by his contemporaries. After his death 3 volumes of his” Sermons" were published for the benefit of his widow and family. Mrs. Francklin died in May 1796. She was the daughter of Mr. Venables, a wine-merchant.

, an Italian poet of the infamous class which disgraced the sixteenth century, was born at Benevento, in 1510, and under his father, who was a schoolmaster, acquired a knowledge of the learned languages. In his youth he became acquainted with Peter Aretino, and from being his assistant in his various works, became his rival, and whilst he at least equalled him in virulence and licentiousness, greatly surpassed him in learning and abilities. His first attempt at rivalship was his “Pistole Vulgari,” in 1539. A fierce war was commenced between them, and sustained on each side with the greatest rancour and malignity. Franco left Venice, and took up his abode at Montserrat, where he published a dialogue, entitled “Delle Belleze;” and a collection of sonnets against Aretino with a “Priapeia Italiana,” which contained the grossest obscenity, the most unqualified abuse, and the boldest satire against princes, popes, the fathers of the council of Trent, and other eminent persons. Yet all this did not injure his literary reputation; he was a principal member of the academy of Argonauti at Montserrat, and in this capacity wrote his “Rime Maritime,” printed at Mantua in 1549. At Mantua he followed the profession of a schoolmaster thence he removed to Rome, where he published commentaries on the “Priapeia,” attributed to Virgil, the copies of which were suppressed and burned by order of pope Paul IV, Under Pius IV. he continued to indulge his virulence, and found a protector in cardinal Morone. His imprudence, however, in writing a Latin epigram against Pius V. with other defamatory libels, brought upon him the punishment which he amply deserved. He was taken from his study in his furred robe, and hanged on the common gallows without trial or ceremony. He was author of several other works besides those already enumerated, and he left behind him in ms. a translation of Homer’s Iliad.

, a French abbé and very useful writer, was born at Arinthod, in Franche-comte, Nov. 2, 1698, and for some time belonged to the chevaliers of St. Lazarus, but quitting that society, came to Paris and engaged in teaching. He afterwards wrote several works, in a style perhaps not very elegant, but which were admired either for their intrinsic usefulness, or as antidotes to the pernicious doctrines of the French philosophers and deists, who, conscious of his superiority in argument, affected to regard him as a man of weak understanding, and a bigot; reproaches that are generally thrown upon the advocates of revealed religion in other countries as well as in France. The abbé François, however, appears from his works to have been a man of learning, and an able disputant. He died at Paris, far advanced in years, Feb. 24, 1782, escaping the miseries which those against whom he wrote, were about to bring on their country. His principal works are, I. “Geographic,” 12tno, an excellent manual on that subject, often reprinted, and known by the name of “Crozat,” the lady to whom he dedicated it, and for whose use he first composed it. 2. “Prenves de la religion de Jesus Christ,” 4 vols. 12mo. 3. “Defense de la Religion,” 4 vols. 12mo. 4. “Examen du Catechisme de i'honnete homme,” 12mo. 5. “Examen des faits qui servent de fondement a la religipn Chretienne,” 1767, 3 vols. 12mo. 6. “Observation sur la philosophic de i'histoire,” 8vo. He left also some manuscripts, in refutation of the “.Philosophical Dictionary,” the “System of Nature,” and other works which emanated from the philosophists of France.

, an historical painter, born at Imola, and known by the name of Innocenzio da Iinola, became a disciple of Francesco Francia, in 1506; then passed some time with Albertinelli at Florence; and from the evidence of his works, and the testimony of Vasari, studied much after Fra. Bartolomeo and Andrea del Sarto: for though the main disposition of his altar-pieces be still gothic, he no longer used the ancient gilding; he placed, the Virgin on high in the centre, and surrounded her with saints and angels, architecture, and back grounds skilfu.lly grouped and arranged with novelty and taste. Such is his style in the surprizing picture of the Duomo at Fagnza, and in another at Pesaro. The aerial perspective and back ground remind us of Leonardo da Vinci. He sometimes placed smaller pictures under his altar-pieces, like that at St. Giacorno of Bologna, which breathes the very spirit of Raphael; that spirit he seems indeed to have aimed at in the greater part of his works, and to have approached it nearer than most of Raphael’s own scholars. He excelled Francia and his fellow-scholar Bagnacavallo in erudition, majesty, and correctness. Subjects of novel combination and fiery fancy he has not produced; nor seem they to have been congenial with that mildness and tranquillity of character which history ascribes to. him. He wks fifty-six: years old at the time of his death, but that is not known.

, an English physician and historian of singular character, was born in Lancashire in 1633, and was entered a student in Brasenose college, Oxford, in 1649. He took a degree in arts, and obtained a fellowship in 1654. Afterwards studying divinity, he became a preacher according to the form of ordination during the usurpation. In 1662 he served the office of proctor, and the year after, having taken orders regularly, he was, but with much difficulty, admitted to the reading of the sentences. He afterwards studied physic, and settled in London, where he imposed upon the public for some time, by pretending to have taken his doctor’s degree in that faculty, and at length offering himself as a candidate for fellow of the college of physicians, he produced a forged diploma, was admitted fellow, and afterwards was censor. His ungracious manners, however, procuring him enemies, an inquiry was made at Oxford in 1677, which discovered the fraud, and although by the connivance of some of the college of physicians, he remained among them, yet his credit and practice fell off, and being reduced in circumstances, he was imprisoned in the Fleet, where he died in 1690, and was interred in St. Vedast’s church, Foster-lane. He wrote, “The Annals of King James and King Charles I. containing a faithful history and impartial account of the great affairs of state, and transactions of parliament in England, from the tenth of king James, 1612, to the eighteenth of king Charles, 1642. Wherein several passages relating to the late civil wars (omitted in former histories) are made known,” Lond. 1681, fol. He was supposed also to be the author of a folio pamphlet, Lond. 1679, entitled “The honours of the Lords Spiritual asserted, and their privileges to vote in capital cases in parliament maintained by reason and precedents;” but Wood does not give this as certain. Dr. Frankland was esteemed a good scholar while at Oxford, but in the subsequent part of his character appears deserving of little esteem.

, the celebrated American philosopher, was sprung, as he himself informs us, from a family settled for a long course of years in the village of Ecton, in Northamptonshire, where they had augmented their income, arising from a small patrimony of thirty acres, by adding to it the profits of a blacksmith’s business. His father, Josias, having been converted by some nonconformist ministers, left England for America, in 1682, and settled at Boston, as a soap-boiler and tallow-chandler. At this place, in 1706, Benjamin, the youngest of his sons, was born. It appeared at first to be his destiny to become a tallow-chandler, like his father; but, as he manifested a particular dislike to that occupation, different plans were thought of, which ended in his becoming a printer, in 1718, under one of his brothers, who was settled at Boston, and in 1721 began to print a newspaper. This was a business much more to his taste, and he soon shewed a talent for reading, and occasionally wrote verses which were printed in his brother’s newspaper, although unknown to the latter. He wrote also in the same some prose essays, and had the sagacity to cultivate his style after the model of the Spectator. With his brother he continued as an apprentice, until their frequent disagreements, and the harsh treatment he experienced, induced him to leave Boston privately, and take a conveyance by sea to New York. This happened in 1723. From New York he immediately proceeded, in quet of employment, to Philadelphia, not without some distressing adventures. His own description of his first entrance into that city, where he was afterwards in so high a situation, is too curious, to be omitted.

"On my arrival at Philadelphia, I was in my working dress, my best clothes being to come by sea. I was covered with dirt; my pockets were filled with shirts and stockings; I was unacquainted with a single soul in the place, and knew not where to seek for a lodging. Fatigued with walking, rowing, and having passed the night without sleep, I was extremely hungry, and all my money consisted of a Dutch dollar, and about a shilling’s-worth of coppers, which I gave to the boatmen for my passage. As I had assisted them in rowing, they refused it at first, but I insisted on their taking it. A man is sometimes more generous when he has little, than when he has much money; probably because in the first case he is desirous of concealing his poverty.

“I walked towards the top of the street, looking eagerly on both sides, till I came to Market-street, where I met a child with a loaf of bread. Often had I made my dinner on dry bread. I enquired where he bought it, and went straight to the baker’s shop which he pointed out to me. I asked for some biscuits, expecting to find such as we had 0t Boston; but they made, it seems, none of that sort at Philadelphia. I then asked for a three-penny loaf. They made no loaves of that price. Finding myself ignorant of the prices as well as of the different kinds of bread, I desired him to let me have three-pennyworth of bread of some kind or other. He gave me three large rolls. I was surprised at receiving so much: I took them, however, and having no room in my pockets, I walked on with a roll under each arm, eating the third. In this manner I went through Market-street to Fourth-street, and passed the house of Mr. Read, the father of my future wife. She was standing at the door, observed me, and thought, with reason, that I made a very singular and grotesque appearance.”

Notwithstanding this unpromising commencement, Franklin soon met with employment in his business, working under one Keimer, a very indifferent printer, though at that time almost the only one in Philadelphia. In 1724, encouraged by the specious promises of sir William Keith, governor of the province, Franklin sailed for England, with a view of purchasing materials for setting up a press; though his father, to whom he had applied, prudently declined encouraging the plan, on account of his extreme youth, as he was then only eighteen. On his arrival in England, he had the mortification to find that the governor, who had pretended to give him letters of recommendation, and of credit for the sum required for his purchases, had only deceived him; and he was obliged to work at his trade in London for a maintenance. The most exemplary industry, frugality, and temperance, with great quicknets and skill in his business, both as a pressman and as a compositor, made this rather a lucrative situation. He reformed the workmen in the houses where he was employed, which were, first Mr. Palmer’s, and afterward* Mr. Watty’s, in Wild-street, Lincoln’s-inn-fields, by whom he was treated with a kindness which he always remembered. l)rirmis, however, of returning to Philadelphia, he engaged himself as book-keeper to a merchant, at fifty pounds a year; “which,” says he, “was less than I earned as a compositor.” He left England July 23, 1726, and reached Philadelphia early in October. In 1727, Mr. Deuharn the merchant died, and Franklin returned to his occupation as a printer, under Keimer, his first master, with a handsome salary. But it was not long before he set up for himself in the same business, in concert with one Meredith, a young man whose father was opulent, and supplied the money required.

A little before this, he had, gradually associated a number of persons, like himself, of an eager and inquisitive turn of mind, and formed them into a club, or society, to hold meetings for their mutual improvement in all kinds of useful knowledge, which was in high repute for many years after. Among many other useful regulations, they agreed to bring such books as they had into one place, to form a common library; but this furnishing only a scanty supply, they resolved to contribute a small sum monthly towards the purchase of books for their use from London. In this way their stock began to increase rapidly; and the inhabitants of Philadelphia, being desirous of profiting by their library, proposed that the books should be lent out on paying a small sum for this indulgence. Thus in a fewyears the society became rich, and possessed more books than were perhaps to be found in all the other colonies; and the example began to be followed in other places.

About 1728 or 1729, Franklin setup a newspaper, the second in Philadelphia, which proved very profitable, and afforded him an opportunity of making himself known as a political writer, by his inserting several attempts of that kind in it. He also set up a shop for the sale of books and articles of stationary, and in 1730 he married a lady, now a widow, whom he had courted before he went to England, when she was a virgin. He afterwards began to have some leisure, both for reading books, and writing them, of which he gave many specimens from time to time. In 1732, he began to publish “Poor Richard’s Almanack,” which was continued for many years. It was always remarkable for the numerous and valuable concise maxims which it contained, for the Œconomy of human life; all tending to industry and frugality; and which were comprized in a well-known address, entitled “The Way to Wealth.” This has been transiated into various languages, and inserted in almost every magazine and newspaper in Great Britain or America. It has also been printed on a large sheet, proper to be framed, and hung up in conspicuous places in all houses, as it very well deserves to be. Mr. Franklin became gradually more known for his political talents. In 1736, he was appointed clerk to the general assembly of Pennsylvania; and was re-elected by succeeding assemblies for several years, till he was chosen a representative for the city of Philadelphia; and in 1737 he was appointed post-master of that city. In 1738, he formed the first fire-company there, to extinguish and prevent fires and the burning of houses; an example which was soon followed by other persons, and other places. And soon after, he suggested the plan of an association for insuring houses and ships from losses by fire, which was adopted; and the association continues to this day. In 1744, during a war between France and Great Britain, some French and Indians made inroads upon the frontier inhabitants of the province, who were unprovided for such an attack; the situation of the province was at this time truly alarming, being destitute of every means of defence. At this crisis Franklin stepped forth, and proposed to a meeting of the citizens of Philadelphia, a plan, of a voluntary association for the defence of the province. This was approved of, and signed by 1200 persons immediately. Copies of it were circulated through the province; and in a short time the number of signatures amounted to 10,000. Franklin was chosen colonel of the Philadelphia regiment; but he did not think proper to accept of the honour.

Pursuits of a different nature now occupied the greatest part of his attention for some years. Being always much addicted to the study of natural philosophy, and the discovery of the Leyden experiment in electricity having rendered that science an object of general curiosity, Mr. Franklin applied himself to it, and soon began to distinguish himself eminently in that way. He engaged in a course of electrical experiments with all the ardour and thirst for discovery which characterized the philosophers of that day. By these he was enabled to make a number of important discoveries, and to propose theories to account for various phenomena; which have been generally adopted, and which will probably endure for ages. His observations he communicated in a series of letters to his friend Mr. Peter Collinson; the first of which is dated March 28, 1747. In these he makes known the power of points in drawing and throwing off the electric matter, which had hitherto escaped the notice of electricians. He also made the discovery of a plus and minus, or of a positive and negative state of electricity; from whence, in a satisfactory manner he explained the phenomena of the Leyden phial, first observed by Cuneus or Muschcnbroeck, which had much perplexed philosophers. He shewed that the bottle, when charged, contained no more electricity than before, but that as much was taken from one side as was thrown on the other; and that, to discharge it, it was only necessary to make a communication between the two sides, by which the equilibrium might be restored, and that then no signs of electricity would remain. He afterwards demonstrated by experiments, that the electricity did not reside in the coating, as had been supposed, but in the pores of the glass itself. After a phial was charged, he removed the coating, and found that upon applying a new coating the shock might still be received. In 1749, he first suggested his idea of explaining the phenomena of thunder-gusts, and of the aurora borealis, upon electrical principles. He points out many particulars in which lightning and electricity agree; and he adduces many facts, and reasoning from facts, in support of his positions. In the same year he conceived the bold and grand idea of ascertaining the truth of his doctrine, by actually drawing down the forked lightning, by means of sharp-pointed iron rods raised into the region of the clouds; from whence he derived his method of securing buildings and ships from being damaged by lightning. It was not until the summer of 1752 that he was enabled to complete his grand discovery, the experiment of the electrical kite, which being raised up into the clouds, brought thence the electricity or lightning down to the earth; and M. D'Alibard made the experiment about the same time in France, by following the track which Franklin had before pointed out. The letters which he sent to Mr. Collinson, it is said, were refused a place among the papers of the royal society of London; and Mr. Collinson published them in a separate volume, under the title of “New Experiments and Observations on Electricity, made at Philadelphia, in America,” which were read with avidity, and soon translated into different languages. His theories were at first opposed by several philosophers, and by the members of the royal society of London; but in 1755, when he returned to that city, they voted him the gold medal which is annually given to the person who presents the best paper on some interesting subject. He was also admitted a member of the society, and had the degree of LL. D. conferred upon him by different universities; but at this time, by reason of the war which broke out between Britain and France, he returned to America, and interested himself in the public affairs of that country. Indeed, he had done this long before; for although philosophy was a principal object of Franklin’s pursuit for several years, he did not confine himself to it alone. In 1747 he became a member of the general assembly of Pennsylvania, as a burgess for the city of Philadelphia. Being a friend to the rights of man from his infancy, he soon distinguished himself as a steady opponent of the unjust schemes of the proprietaries. He was soon looked up to as the head of the opposition; and to him have been attributed many of the spirited replies of the assembly to the messages of the governors. His influence in the body was very great, not from any superior powers of eloquence; he spoke but seldom, and be never was known to make any thing like an elaborate harangue; but his speeches generally consisting of a single sentence, or of a well-told story, the moral was always obviously to the point. He never attempted the flowery fields of oratory. His manner was plain and mild. His style in speaking was, like that of his writings, simple, tmadorned, and remarkably concise. With this plain manner, and his penetrating and solid judgment, he was able to confound the most eloquent and subtle of his adversaries, to confirm the opinions of his friends, and to make converts of the unprejudiced who had opposed him. With a single observation he has rendered of no avail a long and elegant discourse, and determined the fate of a question of importance.

In 1749 he proposed a plan of an academy to be erected in the city of Philadelphia, as a foundation for posterity to erect a seminary of learning, more extensive and suitable to future circumstances; and in the beginning of 1750, three of the schools were opened, namely, the Latin and Greek school, the mathematical, and the Eng. lish schools. This foundation soon after gave rise to another more extensive college, incorporated by charter May 27, 1755, which still subsists, and in a very flourishing condition. In 1752 he was instrumental in the establishment of the Pennsylvania hospital, for the cure and relief of indigent invalids, which has proved of the greatest use to that class of persons. Having conducted himself so well as post-master of Philadelphia, he was in 1753 appointed deputy post-master general for the whole British colonies. The colonies being much exposed to depredations in their frontier by the Indians and the French; at a meeting of commissioners from several of the provinces, Mr. Franklin proposed a plan for the general defence, to establish in the colonies a general government, to be administered by a president-general, appointed by the crown, and by a grand council, consisting of members chosen by the representatives of the different colonies; a plan which was unanimously agreed to by the commissioners present. The plan, however, had a singular fate: it was disapproved of by the ministry of Great Britain, because it gave too much power to the representatives of the people; and it was rejected by every assembly, as giving to the president general, who was to be the representative of the crown, an influence greater than appeared to them proper, in a plan of government intended for freemen. Perhaps this rejection on both sides is the strongest proof that could be adduced of the excellence of it, as suited to the situation of Great Britain and America at that time. It appears to have steered exactly in the middle, between the opposite interests of both. Whether the adoption of this plan would have prevented the separation of America from Great Britain, is a question which might afford much room for speculation.