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

, or Blind Harry, are the names given to a Scotch poet who lived in the fifteenth century, but of whom there are few memorials that can be relied on. It is conjectured that he wrote his celebrated “Actis & Deidis of Shyr Willam Wallace,” about 1446, and that he was then an old man. No surname is known; which belonged to Henry, nor is any thing known of his parentage or education. He discovers some knowledge in astronomy, in classical history, in the Latin and French languages, and in divinity; and some think he belonged to one or other of the religious orders, but this in a man blind from his infancy seems very improbable. He was a kind of travelling bard, visited the middle and south partsof Scotland, and probably the court of Scotland, and the great families. Wallace, his hero, was put to death in 1305, and Henry is supposed to have been born half a century later, but not too late for acquiring many particulars proper for his narrative, and it appears that he consulted with the descendants of some of Wallace’s contecaporaries. Besides this, he informs us that he followed very strictly a hook of great authority, a complete history of Wallace, written in Latin, partly hy John Blair and partly by Thomas Gray, both whom he mentions particularly, but no such work exists, nor can we tell whether he borrowed his many anachronisms and mistakes of persons and places from this work, or whether they were owing to defects in his own memory. Henry was blind from his birth; and that he should have acquired the knowjedge imputed to him, is much more wonderful than that he should be misled by traditionary reports. As he was blind, he fails in the descriptive parts of his poems, but for the same reason his invention is perpetually at work, and for matters of fact, he gives us all the wonders of romance. Many of his events never happened, and those which did are misplaced in point of time, or greatly exaggerated. His admirers are ready to allow that it is now impossible to distinguish between what is true and what is false in many of Henry’s relations but this can only be the case where the relation is all his own where we can appeal to other authorities, we frequently find him more erroneous than can easily be accounted for. A comparison has been formed between Henry’s “Wallace,” and Harbour’s “Bruce,” which terminates decidedly in Barbour’s favour. The “Bruce,” says an elegant critic, “is evidently the work of a politician as well as poet. The characters of the king, of his brother, of Douglas, and of the earl of Moray, are discriminated, and their separate talents always employed with judgment; so that every event is prepared and rendered probable by the means to which it is attributed; whereas the life of Wallace is a mere romance, in which the hero hews down whole squadrons with his single arm, and is indebted for every victory to his own muscular strength. Both poems are filled with descriptions of battles; but in those of Barbour our attention is successively directed to the cool intrepidity of king Robert, to the brilliant rashness of Edward Bruce, or to the enterprizing stratagems of Douglas; while in Henry we find little more than a disgusting picture of revenge, hatred, and blood.” As a poet, however, he has considerable merit, and the numerous editions through which his “Wallace” has passed, affords a sufficient proof of his popularity during all that period, when his language would be understood and the nature of his narrative be acceptable. The only manuscript known of this poem, and from which all th printed copies have been taken, is now in the Advocates’ library at Edinburgh, and bears date 1488. The first printed edition was that of Edinburgh, 1570; but the best and more correct is that of the Morisons of Perth, 1790, 3 vols. 12mo.

Another writer relates this more particularly. Sir Edward, while he was in France, had private instructions from England to mediate a peace for the protestants in France; and, in case of a refusal, to use certain menaces. Accordingly, being referred to de Luines, he delivered to him the message, reserving his threatenings till he saw how the matter was relished. De Luines had concealed a gentleman of the reformed religion behind the curtain; who, heing an ear-witness of what passed, might relate to his friends what little expectations they ought to entertain of the king of England’s intercession. De Luines was very haughty, and asked what our king had to do in this affair. Sir Edward replied, “It is not to you, to whom the king my master owcth an account of his actions; and for me it is enough that I obey him. In the mean time I must maintain, that my master hath more reason to do what he doth, than you to ask why he doth it. Nevertheless, if you desire me in a gentle fashion, I shall acquaint you farther.” Upon this, de Luines bowing a little, said, “Very well.” The ambassador then gave him some reasons; to which de Luines said, “We will have none of your advices.” The ambassador replied, “that he took that for an answer, and was sorry only, that the affection and good-will of the king his master was not sufficiently understood and that, since it was rejected ii> that manner, he could do no less than say, that the king his master knew well enough what to do.” De Luines answered, “We are not afraid of you.” The ambassador smiling a little, replied, “If you had said you had not loved us, I should have believed you, and given you another answer. In the mean time, all that I will tell you more is, that we know very well what we have to do.” De Luines upon this, rising from his chair with a fashion and countenance a little discomposed, said, “By G, if you were not monsieur the ambassador, I know very well how I would use yon.” Sir Edward Herbert rising also from his chair, said, that “as he was the king of Great Britain’s ambassador, so he was also a gentleman; and that his sword, whereon he laid his hand, should give him satisfaction if he had taken any offence.” After which, de Luines making no reply, the ambassador went on towards the door, and de Luines seeming to accompany him, sir Edward told him, that “there was no occasion to use such ceremony after such language,” and so departed, expecting to hear farther from him. But no message being brought from de Luines, he had, in pursuance of his instructions, a more civil audience from the king at Coignac; where the marshal of St. Geran told him that tf he had offended the constable, and was not in a place of security there:“to which he answered, that” he thought himself to be in a place of security wheresoever he had his sword by him." De Luines, resenting the affront, procured Cadinet his brother, duke of Chaun, with a train of officers, of whom there was not one, as he told king James, but had killed his man, to go as an ambassador extraordinary; who misrepresented the affair so much to the disadvantage of sir Edward, that the earl of Carlisle, who was sent to accommodate the misunderstanding which might arise between the two crowns, got him recalled; until the gentleman who stood behind the curtain, out of a regard to truth and honour, related all the circumstances so as to make it appear, that though de Luines gave the first affront, yet sir Edward had kept himself within the bounds of his instructions and honour. He afterwards fell on his knees to king James, before the duke of Buckingham, requesting that a trumpeter, if not an herald, might be sent to de Luines, to tell him that he had made a false relation of the whole affair; and that sir Edward Herbert would demand satisfaction of him sword in hand. The king answered, that he would take it into consideration; but de Luines died soon after, and sir Edward was sent again ambassador to France.

About 1629, he was seized with a quotidian ague, which obliged him to remove to Woodford in Essex, for change of air; and when, after his ague had abated, some consumptive appearances were apprehended, he went to Dauntsey in Wiltshire, the seat of lord Danvers, earl of Danby, who appropriated an apartment for him, and treated him with the greatest care and kindness. Here, by abstaining from hard study, and by air and exercise, he apparently recovered his health, and then declared his resolution to marry, and to take priest’s orders. Accordingly he married Jane Danvers, daughter of Mr. Charles Danvers of Bainton in Wilts, related to the earl of Danby; and about three months after his marriage, at the request of Philip earl of Pembroke, the king presented him to the living of Bemerton, into which he was inducted April 26, 1630. Here he passed the remainder of his days, discharging the duties of a parish priest in a manner so exemplary, that the history of his life here, as given by Walton, or perhaps as delineated by himself in his “Country Parson,” may justly be recommended as a model. His own behaviour was indeed an exact comment on all he wrote, which appears to have come from the heart of a man of unfeigned piety and humility. Unhappily, however, for his rlock, his life was shortened by a return of the consumptive symptoms which had formerly appeared, and he died in February 1632, and was buried March 3.

, an eminent person of the Pembroke family, was born at York, where his grandfather was an alderman, and admitted of Jesus-college, Oxford, in 1621: but before he took a degree, removed to Trinity-­college in Cambridge. He made a short stay there, and then went to wait upon William earl of Pembroke, recorded in the following article; who owning him for his kinsman, and intending his advancement, sent him in 1626 to travel, with an allowance to bear his charge. He spent four years in visiting Asia and Africa; and then returning, waited on his patron at Baynard’s-castle in London. The earl dying suddenly, he was disappointed in his expectations of preferment, and left England a second time, and visited several parts of Europe. After his return he married, and now being settled, devoted much of his time to literary employments. In 1634 he published in folio, “A Relation of some Years Travels into Africa and the great Asia, especially the territories of the Persian Monarchy, and some parts of the Oriental Indies, and Isles adjacent.” The edition of 1677 is the fourth, and has several additions. This work was translated by Wiquefort into French, with “An Account of the Revolutions of Siam in 1647,” Paris, 1663, in 4to. All the impressions of Herbert’s hook are in folio, and adorned with cuts.

Upon the breaking out of the civil wars, he was induced to side with the parliament; and, by the influence of Philip earl of Pembroke, became not only one of the commissioners of parliament who acompanied the army of sir Thomas Fairfax, but a commissioner also to treat with those of the king’s party for the surrender of the garrison at Oxford. He afterwards attended that earl, especially in Jan. 1646, when he, with other commissioners, was sent from the parliament to the king at Newcastle about peace, and to bring his majesty nearer London. While the king was at Oldenby, the parliament commissioners, pursuant to instructions, addressed themselves to his majesty, and desired him to dismiss such of his servants as were there and had waited on him at Oxford: which his majesty with great reluctance consented to do. He had taken notice in the mean time of Mr. James Harrington, the author of the “Oceana,” and Mr. Thomas Herbert, who had followed the court from Newcastle and hearing a favourable character of them, was willing to receive them as grooms of his bed-chamber with the others that were left him; which the commissioners approving, they were that night admitted. Being thus settled in that honourable office, and in good esteem with his majesty, Herbert continued with him when all the rest of the chamber were removed; even till his majesty was brought to the block. The king, though he found him, says Wood, to be presbyterianly affected, yet withal found him very observant and loving, and therefore entrusted him with many matters of moment. The truth was, he found the king tu be of a very contrary disposition and character from what the malcontents of the day had represented him, and being equally ashamed of them, and of the delusion into which he had himself fallen, he attached himself to the king from that time to the moment of his murder; and during these two years he underwent, night and day, all the difficulties, dangers, and distresses, that his royal master suffered. At the restoration he was made a baronet by Charles II. “for faithfully serving his royal father during the two last years of his life;” as the letters patent for that purpose expressed. He died at his house in York, March 1, 1681-2.

, earl of Pembroke, was born at Wilton in Wiltshire, April 8, 1580, and admitted of Newcollege in Oxford in 1592, where he continued about two years. In 1601, he succeeded to his father’s honours and estate; was made knight of the garter in 1604; and governor of Portsmouth six years after. In 1626 he was elected chancellor of the university of Oxford, and about the same time made lord steward of the king’s houshold. He died suddenly at his house called Baynard’s-castle, in London, April 10, 1630; according, as Wood foolishly says, to the calculation of his nativity, made several years before by Mr. Thomas Allen, of Gloucester-hall. Clarendon, however, seriously relates, concerning this calculation, that some considerable persons connected with lord Pembroke being met at Maidenhead, one of them at supper drank a health to the lord steward: upon which another said, that he believed his lordship was at that time very merry; for he had now outlived the day, which it had been prognosticated upon his nativity he would not outlive; but he had done it now, for that was his birth-day, which had completed his age to fifty years. The next morning, however, they received the news of his death. Mr. Park remarks that had his lordship possessed a credulous mind, it might have been suspected that this astrological prediction had worked upon his feelings, and occasioned a temporary suspension of the animal faculties, which was too hastily concluded to be dissolution; for Mr. Granger states it as an accredited fact in the Pembroke family, that when his lordship’s body was opened in order to be embalmed, he was observed, immediately after the incision was made, to lift up his hand. This remarkable circumstance, adds Granger, compared with lord Clarendon’s account of his sudden death, affords a strong presumptive proof that his distemper was an apoplexy. Lord Pembroke was not only a great favourer of learned and ingenious men, but was himself learned, and endued with a considerable share of poetic genius. All that are extant of his productions in this way, were published with this title: “Poems written by William earl of Pembroke, &c. many of which are answered by way pf repartee by sir Benjamin Rudyard, with other poems written by them occasionally and apart,” 1660," 8vo.

The character of this noble person is not only one of the most amiable in lord Clarendon’s history, but is one of the best drawn. We can, however, give only a few particulars. “He was,” says the great historian, “the most universally beloved and esteemed of any man of that age; and having a great office in the court, he made the court atself better esteemed, and more reverenced in the country: and as he had a great number of friends of the best men, so no man had ever the confidence to avow himself to be his enemy. He was a man very well bred, and of excellent parts, and a graceful speaker upon any subject, having a good proportion of learning, and a ready wit to apply it, and enlarge upon it: of a pleasant and facetious humour, and a disposition affable, generous, and magnificent. He lived many years about the court before in it, and never by it; being rather regarded and esteemed by lung James, than loved and favoured. As he spent and lived upon his own fortune, so he stood upon his own feet, without any other support than of his proper virtue and merit. He was exceedingly beloved in the court, because he never desired to get that for himself which others laboured for, but was still ready to promote the pretences of worthy men: and he was equally celebrated in the country, for having received no obligations from the court, which might corrupt or sway his affections and judgment. He was a great lover of his country, and of the religion and justice which he believed could only support it: and his friendships were only with men of those principles. Sure never man was planted in a court who was fitter for that soil, or brought better qualities with him to purify that air. Yet his memory must not be flattered, that his virtues and good inclinations may be believed he was not without some alloy of vice he indulged to himself the pleasures of all kinds, almost in all excesses,” &c. It ought not to be forgot that this earl of Pembroke vras a munificent contributor to the Bodleian library, of two hundred and forty-two Greek Mss. purchased by him in Italy, and formerly belonging to Francis Barroccio. This gift is commemorated by an inscription over the collection in the library, where also are a painting and a statue of his lordship. Pembroke-college was so named in honour of him.

, a learned and pious doctor of the Sorbonne, and a voluminous author, was born at Beauvais in 1617, and displayed early propensities for learning. Potier bishop and earl of Beauvais sent him to the various colleges of Paris for education. He obtained a canonry of Beauvais, was rector of the university of Paris in 1646, and died in 1690, after being excluded from his canonry and the Sorbonne for some ecclesiastical dispute. Hermant had the virtues and defects of a recluse student^ and was much esteemed for his talents and piety by Tillemont and others of the solitaries at Port Royal. His style was noble and majestic, but sometimes rather inflated. His works are numerous: 1. “Toe Life of St. Athanasius,” 2 vols. 4to. 2. Those of “St. Basil and Gregory Nazianzen,” of the same extent. 3. The Life of St. Chrysostom,“written under the name of Menan. And, 4. That of” St. Ambrose,“both in 4to. 5. A translation, of some tracts from St. Chrysostom. 6. Another from St. Basil. 7. Several polemical writings against the Jesuits, who therefore became his mortal enemies, and contrived to interfere with his monumental honours after death, by preventing the inscription of a very commendatory epitaph. 8.” A Defence of the Church against Labadie.“9.” Index Universalis totius juris Ecclesiastici,“folio. 10.” Discours Chretien sur retablissement du Bureau des pauvres de Beauvais," 1653. A life of him has been published by Baillet.

, one of the minor poets, of very considerable merit, in the reign of Charles I. was born in London, but descended from an ancient and genteel family in Leicestershire, the history of which is amply detailed by the able historian of that county. He was the fourth son of Nicholas Herrick, of St. Vedast, Foster-lane, by Julian Stone his wife, and was born in August 1591. He was educated at St. John’s college, Cambridge, from 1615 to 1617; and Wood, who indeed speaks with hesitation, seems wrong in placing him in his Athenæ Oxonienses. He is said to have afterwards removed to Trinity hall, Cambridge; but nothing more of his academical progress is known. Being patronised by the earl of Exeter, he was presented by king Charles I. on the promotion of Dr. Potter to the see of Carlisle, to the vicarage of Dean Prior in Devonshire, Oct. 1, 1629, where he became distinguished for his poetical talents and wit. During the prevalence of the parliamentary interest, he was ejected from his living, and resided in London in St. Anne’s parish, Westminster, until the Restoration, when he again obtained his vicarage. The time of his death is not known. His poetical works are contained in a scarce volume, entitled “Hesperides, or the works, both humane and divine, of Robert Herrick, Esq. London,” 1643, 8vo. To this volume was appended his “Noble numbers, or, his pious pieces,” in which, says Wood, “he sings the birth of Christ, and sighs for his Saviour’s sufferings on the cross. These two books made him much admired in the time they were published, and especially by the generous and boon loyalists, who commiserated his sufferings.” In 1810, Dr. Nott of Bristol published a selection from the “Hesperides,” which may probably contribute to revive the memory of Herrick as a poet, who certainly in vigour of fancy, feeling, and ease of vereification, is entitled to a superior rank among the bards of his period, He is one of those, however, who will require the selector’s unsparing hand, for, notwithstanding his “pious pieces,” there are too many of an opposite description, which cannot, like his quaint conceits, be placed to the account of the age in which he lived.

, a political and poetical writer of considerable fame, was the eldest son of John first earl of Bristol, by his second wife, Elizabeth, sole daughter and heir to sir Thomas Felton of Playford in the county of Suffolk, bart. He was born Oct. 15, 1696, and educated at Clare-hall, Cambridge, where he took his master’s degree in 1715, previously to which, on Nov. 7, 1714, he had been made gentleman of the bed-chamber to the Prince of Wales. He came into parliament soon after the accession of George I. and was appointed vice-chamberlain to the king in 1730, and a privy counsellor. In 1733 he was called up by writ to the house of peers, as lord Hervey of Ickworth; and in 1740 was constituted lord privy seal, from which post he was removed in 1742. He died Aug. 5, 1743, in the forty-seventh year of his age, a short period, but to which his life had been protracted with the greatest care and difficulty. Having early in life felt some attacks of the epilepsy, he entered upon and persisted in a very strict regimen, which stopped the progress of that dreadful disease, but prevented his acquiring, or at least long enjoying, the blessing of sound health. It is to this rigid abstemiousness that Pope malignantly alludes in the character he has given of lord Hervey, under the name of Sporus, in the line “the mere white curd of asses milk.” But lord Hervey affords a memorable instance of the caution with which we ou^ht to read the characters drawn by Pope and his associates; nor can too much praise be given to his late editors for the pains they have taken to rescue some of them from the imputations which proceeded from the irritable temper and malignity of that admired satirist. In the character of Sporus, Dr. Warton has justly observed, that language cannot afford more glowing or more forcible terms to express the utmost bitterness of contempt. Pope and his lordship were once friends; but they quarrelled at a time when the poetical world seemed to be up in arms, and perpetually contending in a manner disgraceful to their characters. In the quarrel between Pope and lord Hervey, it appears that Pope was the aggressor, and that lord Hervey wrote some severe lines in reply, and An Epistle from a Nobleman to a Doctor of Divinity.“1733. (Dr. Sherwin). In answer to this, Pope wrote the” Letter to a Noble Lord, on occasion of some libels written and propagated at court in the year 1732-3,“which is printed in his Works, and, as Warburton says,” is conducive to what he had most at heart, his moral character,“to which, after all, it conduced very little, as he Violated every rule of truth and decency in his subsequent attack on lord Hervey in the” Prologue to the Satires,“under the character of Sporus, whic,h, we agree with Mr. Coxe,” cannot be read without disgust and horror disgust at the indelicacy of the allusions, and horror at the malignity of the poet, in laying the foundation of his abuse on the lowest species of satire, personal invective; and what is still worse, on sickness and debility."

, third earl of Bristol, second son of the preceding, was born May 19, 1724. Chusing a maritime life, he passed through the subordinate stations, and was a lieutenant in the year 1744. In the same year he first saw miss Chudleigh at the house of Mrs. Hammer, her aunt, in Hampshire, where they were privately married, Aug. 4, in that year. A few clays after, Mr. Hervey was obliged to embark for Jamaica in vice-admiral Davers’s fleet. At his return his lady and he lived together, and were considered by their relations as man and wife. In January 1747, he was advanced to the rank of post-captain, and in the same year his lady brought him a son, though she continued a maid of honour to the year 1764. This circumstance gave occasion to the following amigmatical epigram by the late lord Chesterfield:

Soon after this event, a coolness arose between captain Hervey and his wife, which increased till they both became desirous of a separation. In Jan. 1747, he was appointed to the command of the Princessa, and served in the Mediterranean under admirals Medley and Byng and after the peace, in Jan. 1752, he obtained the Phoenix of 22 guns. In the course of two wars, the courage, zeal, and activity of captain Hervey were distinguished in the Mediterranean, off Brest, at the Havannah, and in other places. During the same period he was gradually advanced to the command of a 74 gun ship; and at the peace in 1763 he was appointed one of the grooms of the bed-­chamber to the king. In 1771 he was created one of the lords of the admiralty; and in 1775, on the death of his brother without issue, he became earl of Bristol, after having represented the borough of Bury St. Edmund’s in four parliaments. He now resigned his places, and was created an admiral. In the beginning of the American war, captain Hervey was a strenuous advocate for the measures of the ministry; but, changing his politics in the year 1778, continued to the end of it as violent an opponent; not without very striking appearances of inconsistency on several occasions. He died in 1779, when his titles, and as much of his estate as he could not leave away, devolved to his brother the bishop of Derry, as he left no legitimate heir. The affair of his marriage, which attracted much public notice at the time, was briefly thus: After nine years of preparation, his wife, who had long lived with the Juke of Kingston, obtained her suit in the commons, in 1768, by which it was decided that their marriage never had been legal, and was void. She then was married to the duke of Kingston in 1769. But, it appearing afterwards that the decision had been fraudulently obtained, she was indicted in 1775 for bigamy, tried in the House of peers, and found guilty, but, as a peeress, was discharged from corporal punishment. She afterwards died abroad in 1788, The following well-drawn character of lord Bristol, written by a contemporary peer in the sea-service, lord Mulgrave, seems to justify the insertion of his name in this place; though it may be in some degree heightened by personal partiality.

"The active zeal and diligent assiduity with which the earl of Bristol served, had for some years impaired a constitution naturally strong, by exposing it to the unwholesomeness of variety of climates, and the infirmities incident to constant fatigue of body and anxiety of mind. His family, his friends, his profession, and his country, lost him in the 56th year of his age.

, brother to the preceding, and fourth earl of Bristol, was born in August 1730. He was educated at Westminster school, and was admitted fellow commoner of Corpus Christi college, Cambridge, Nov. 10, 1747, where his application to study was as remarkable as it was unusual in persons of his rank. He took his master’s degree, as nobleman, in 1754. While at college his good sense, good nature, and affability, gained him the love and esteem of all who knew him. At first he was designed for the bar, and, leaving Cambridge, went to one of the inns of court, but he afterwards turned his thoughts to the church, and went into holy orders. He was perhaps a singular instance of a man of his learning, family, and connexions, that never attained any ecclesiastical preferment until he was made a bishop, although he held a lay office under government, and in his father’s department, that of & principal clerk of the privy seal.

In 1779, on the death of his elder brother, he became earl of Bristol, with a noble estate, the produce of which he expended in acts of munificence and liberality. One of his first donations, after this accession of fortune, was 1000l. towards an augmentation of an endowment for the widows and clergy of his diocese. He became, however, about this time, rather eccentric in his political conduct, and was among the leaders of the Irish patriots, as they were called, during the A'merican war, and a member of the famous convention of delegates from the volunteers, held in Dublin in 1782; on which occasion he was escorted from Derry to Dublin by a regiment of volunteer cavalry, and received military honours in every town through which he passed in that long journey. As an amateur, connoissieur, and indefatigable protector of the fine arts, he was generally surrounded by artists, whose talents his judgment directed, and whose wants his liberality relieved. His love of the sciences was only surpassed by his Jove to his country, and by his generosity to the unfortunate of every country; neither rank nor power escaped his resentment when any illiberal opinion was thrown out against England. At a dinner with the late king of Prussia and the prince royal of Denmark, at Pynnont, in 1797, he boldly said, after the conversation about the active ambition of England had been changed into inquiries about the delicacy of a roasted capon, that he did not like neutral animals, let them be ever so delicate. In 1798 he was arrested by the Frencb in Italy, and confined in the castle of Milan; was plundered by the republicans of a valuable and well-chosen collection of antiquities, which he had purchased with a view of transmitting to his native country; and was betrayed and cheated by many Italians, whose benefactor he had been. But neither the injustice nor the ingratitude of mankind changed his liberal disposition, he no sooner recovered his liberty, than new benefactions forced even the ungrateful to repent, and the unjust to acknowledge his elevated mind. The earl of Bristol was one of the greatest English travellers (a capacity in which his merits have been duly appreciated by the celebrated Martin Sherlock); and there is not a country in Europe where the distressed have not obtained his succour, and the oppressed his protection. He may truly be said to have clothed the naked, and fed the hungry; and, as ostentation never constituted real charity, his left hand did not know what, his right hand distributed. The tears and lamentations of widows and orphans discovered his philanthropy when he was no more; and letters from Swiss patriots and French emigrants, from Kalian catholics and German protestants, proved the noble use his lordship made of his fortune, indiscriminately, to the poor, destitute, and unprotected of all countries, of all parties, and of all religions. But, as no man is without his enemies, and envy is most busy about the most deserving, some of his lordship’s singularities have been the object of calumny and ridicule. He certainly did retain that peculiarity of character for which his family were formerly distinguished, and which induced the mother of the late marquis Townsbend, a woman of uncommon wit and humour, to say that there were three sorts of people in the world, “men, women, and /fewys.”His lordship died at Aibano, near Rome, July 8, 1803, and his remains, being brought to England, were interred in the family vault at Ickworth, near Bury, where, at the time of his death, he was building a magnificent viila on the Italian model. His lordship married, in early life, Elizabeth, daughter of sir Jenny n Davers, bart. by whom he had several children. He was succeeded in titles and estate by Frederic-William, his second son, now fifth earl of Bristol.

In 1625 he went over to France, where he continued about six weeks, and took down in writing an account of his journey; the original manuscript of which he gave to his friend lord Danvers, but kept a copy for himself, which was published about thirty years after. Jn April 1627, he answered, pro forma, upon these two questions: 1. <* An ecclesia unquam fuerit invisibles“” Whether the church was ever invisible?“2.” An ecclesia possit errare“”Whether the church can err“both which determining in the affirmative, a great clamour was raised against him as a papist, or at least a favourer of popery. Wood says, that Prideaux, the divinity-professor,” fell foul upon him for it, calling him Bellarminian, Pontifician, and I know not what." Heylin was not easy under the charge of being popishly affected; for which reason, to clear himself from that imputation, he took an opportunity, in preaching before the king on John iv. 20, of declaring vehemently against some of the errors and corruptions of the Romish church. In 1628, lord Danvers, then earl of Danby, recommended him to Laud, then bishop of Bath and Wells; by whose interest also, in 1629, he was made one of the chaplains in ordinary to his majesty. On Act-Sunday 1630, he preached before the university of Oxford at St. Mary’s on Matth. xiii. 25, whence he took occasion to deliver his sentiments very freely in regard to an affair which at first sight had a specious appearance of promoting the honour and emolument of the ecclesiastical state, but was in reality a most iniquitous scheme, injurious to the laity, and of no service where it was pretended to avail. This was a feoffment, that some designing persons had obtained, for the buying in of impropriations; but Heylin, seeing through the disguise, exposed very clearly the knavery of the designers. About this time he resigned his fellowship, having been married near two years; in concealing which marriage he acted very unstatutably, not to say dishonestly, nor did his friends attempt to justify him for it. What rendered it more irregular was, that he was married in Magdalen-college chapel.

, a half-crazy kind of writer, whose works may probably excite some curiosity respecting the author, was born in 1630, in Essex, where there was a considerable family of that name. He was first a pensioner in St. John’s college, Cambridge; then, in 1650, junior bachelor of Gonvill and Caius college. He was soon after a lieutenant in the English army in Scotland, then a captain in general Fleetwood’s regiment, when he was Swedish ambassador in England for Carolus Gustavus. He afterwards went to Jamaica in some capacity, and on his return, in 1660, published an account of it, called “Jamaica viewed,” 4to. two editions of which were printed in 1661, dedicated to Charles II. who in return appointed the author secretary to the earl of Windsor, then going out as governor of Jamaica. This post, however, he did not accept, but took orders, and first obtained the vicarage of Boxted in Essex, Oct. 22, 1662, and, about the same time, the rectory of All Saints, Colchester. The former he resigned in 1664, but retained the latter the whole of his life, notwithstanding he gave much offence to his brethren by his wild and often scurrilous attacks on the church in a variety of pamphlets. “He was a man,” says Newcourt, “though episcopally ordained (by bishop Sanderson), yet publicly bade defiance to the prelacy, and that of his own diocesan in particular: an impudent, violent, ignorant fellow, very troublesome, as far as he could, to his right reverend diocesan, and to all that lived near him.” He died Nov. 30, 1708, and was interred in the church of All Saints, Colchester, with a long Latin epitaph, part of which, “Reverendus admodum Dominus tarn Marte quain Mercurio clarus, quippe qui terra marique militavit non sine gloria, ingeniique vires scriptis multiplice argumento insignitis demonstravit, c.” was afterwards effaced, by order, as it was commonly reported at Colchester, of bishop Compton. His tracts, which in point of style and often of matter, are beneath criticism, were collected and published by himself in a quarto vol. 1707. They include his account of Jamaica the trial of the spiritual courts general history of priestcraft; a satyr upon poverty; a satyr against fame the survey of the earth and the writ de excommunicato capiendo unmasked receipts to cure the evil of this wicked world the art of contentment, a poem, &c. &c. Mr. Malone has introduced him in his life of Dryden, as the author of the “Mushroom, or a satyr against libelHng tories and preiatical-tantivies, &c.” He published also a few occasional sermons, which are reprinted in a Second edition of his works, 1716, 2 vols. 8vo.

Upon the Revolution in 1688, Dr. Hickes, with many others, refusing to take the oaths of allegiance, fell under suspension in August 1689, and was deprived the February following. He continued, however, in possession till the beginning of May; when reading in the Gazette that the deanery of Worcester was granted to Talbot, afterwards bishop of Oxford, Salisbury, and Durham, successively, he immediately drew up in his own hand-writing a claim of right to it, directed to all the members of that church and, in 1691, affixed it over the great entrance into the choir, that none of them might plead ignorance in that particular. The earl of Nottingham, then secretary of state, called it “Dr. Hickes’ s Manifesto against Government;” and it has since been published by Dr. Francis Lee, in the appendix to his “Life of Mr. Kettlewell,” with this title, “The Protestation of Dr. George Hickes, and claim of right, fixed up in the cathedral church of Worcester.” Expecting on this account the resentment of the government, he privately withdrew to London, where he absconded for many years, till May 1699, when lord Somers, then chancellor, out of regard to his uncommon abilities, procured an act of council, by which the attorneygeneral was ordered to cause a. noli prosequi to be entered to all proceedings against him.

Soon after their deprivation, archbishop San croft and his colleagues began to consider about maintaining and continuing the episcopal succession among those who adhered to them; and, having resolved upon it, they sent Dr. Hickes over, with a list of the deprived clergy, to confer with king James about that matter. The doctor set out in May 1693, and had several audiences of the king, who complied with all he askedj Dr. Hickes, after being detained some months by an ague and fever, returned to England in February, and on the eve of St. Matthias the consecrations were performed by Dr. Lloyd bishop of Norwich, Dr. Turner bishop of Ely, and Dr. White bishop of Peterborough, at the bishop of Peterborough’s lodgings in the Rev. Mr. Giffard’s house, Southgate. Hickes was consecrated suffragan bishop of Thetford, and Wagstaffe suffragan of Ipswich; at which solemnity Henry earl of Clarendon is aid to have been present. It has indeed been averred, that Hickes was once disposed to take the oaths, in order to save his preferments; but this is not probable: he was a man very strict in his principles, and what he was convinced was his duty he closely adhered to, choosing to suffer any thing rather than violate his conscience. Some years before he died he was grievously tormented with the stone; and at length his constitution, though naturally strong, gave way to that distemper, Dec. 15, 1715, in his 74th year.

, a minor author of the last century, much patronized and befriended by Garrick, was born in the county of Dublin in 1719, and educated for a popish priest, first in Ireland, and afterwards for many years in France. Yet after all, he took his degree of bachelor in physic, and returned to Dublin that he might practise. Indolence, however, prevented his application jto that or any profession, and he came to London about 1753, where he subsisted very scantily and idly, as an author, for the remainder of his life; producing several works, but none of any great merit. He was principally employed by the booksellers in various works of translation, compilement, &c. In short, with no principles, and slender abilities, he was perpetually disgracing literature, which he was doomed to follow for bread, by such a conduct as was even unworthy of the lowest and most contemptible of the vulgar. His conversation was highly offensive to decency and good manners, and his whole behaviour discovered a mind over which the opinions of mankind had no influence. He associated, however, occasionally with some of the most celebrated men of his time, Foote, Garrick, Murphy, Goldsmith, Kelly, Sec. who tolerated his faults, and occasionally supplied his necessities, although when he thought their liberality insufficient, he made no scruple of writing the grossest libels on their character. One of his peculiar fancies was to keep the place of his lodging a secret, which he did so completely, that he refused to disclose it even when dying, to a friend who supported him, and actually received his last contributions through the channel of the Bedford coffee-house. When he died, which was in June 1777, it was discovered that he had lodged in one of the obscure courts near St. Martin’s-lane. Dr. Hiffernan, as he was usually called, was author of the folio wing works: 1.“The Ticklers,” a set of periodical and political papers, published in Dublin about 1750. 2. “The Tuner,” a set of periodical papers, published in London in 1753. 3. “Miscellanies in prose and verse,” 1754. 4. “The Ladies’ Choice,” a dramatic petite piece, acted at Coventgarden in 1759. 5. “The Wishes of a free People,” a dramatic poem, 1761. 6. “The New Hippocratrs,” a farce, acted at Drury-lane in 1761, but not published, 7. “The Earl of Warwick,” a tragedy, from the French of La Harpe, 1764. 8. “Dramatic Genius,” an essay, ia five books, 1770. 9. “The Philosophic Whim,” a farce, 1774. 10. “The Heroine of the Cave,” a tragedy, loft unfinished by Henry Jones, author of the “Earl of Essex,” completed by Hiffernan, and acted at Drury-lane in 1774. He also issued proposals for a quarto volume of additional Miscellanies in prose and verse, which we believe never appeared.

, the author of an old chronicle, not in much estimation, was a Benedictine of St. Werberg’s monastery in Chester, where he died about 1360, aged between eighty and ninety. He is thought to have borrowed much from another monk of his monastery, Roger Cestrensis, but probably both were indebted to the same original materials, and both were sufficiently admirers of the marvellous to compile works rather of curiosity than of use, unless where they present us with the transactions of their own time. Higden’s work was entitled “Polychronicon;” Dr. Gale published that part which relates to the Britons and Saxons among his“Quindecem Scriptores, &c.” But the greatest curiosity among collectors is the English translation of the “Polychronicon,” by John de Trevisa, printed by Caxton in 14S2, folio, in seven books, to which Caxton added an eighth. The most magnificent copy of this work extant is in the library of earl Spencer. There are also copies in his majesty’s collection, in the Bodleian and British Museum, and in Mr. Heber’s library. The “Chester Mysteries,” exhibited in that city in 1328, at the expence of the several trading corporations, have been ascribed to our Chronicler.

, son of Dr. Thomas Hi?gons, some time rector of Westburgh in Shropshire, was born in 1624, in that county became a commoner of St. Alban’s-hall in the beginning of 1638, when he was put under the tuition of Mr. Edward Corbet, fellow of Merton college, and lodged in the chamber under him in that house. Leaving the university without a degree, he retired to his native country. He married the widow of Robert earl of Essex; and delivered an oration at her funeral, Sept. 16, 1656. “Oratione funebri, a marito ipso, more prisco laudata fuit,” is part of this lady’s epitapii. He married, secondly, Bridget, daughter of sir Devil Greenvili of Stow, and sister to John earl of Bath and removed to Grewell in Hampshire was elected a burgess for Malmsbury in 16.38, and for New Windsor in 1661. His services to the crown were rewarded with a pension of 500l. a year, and gifts to the amount of 4000l. He was afterwards knighted and in 1669, was sent envoy extraordinary to invest John George duke of Saxony with the order of the garter. About four years after, he was sent envoy to Vienna, where he continued three years. In 1685 he was elected burgess for St. Germain’s, “being then,” says Wood, “accounted a loyal and accomplished person, and a great lover of the tegular clergy.” He died suddenly, of an apoplexy, in the King’s-bench court, having been summoned there as a witnt’ss, Nov. 24, 1691; and was buried in Winchester caihedral near the relics of his first wife. His literary productions are, 1. “A Panegyric to the King,” 1660, folio. 2. “The Funeral Oration on his first Lady,” Iff56. 3. “The History of Isoof Bassa,” 1684. He also translated into English, “The Venetian Triumph;” for which he was complimented by Waller, in his poems; who has also addressed a poem to Mrs. Higgons. Mr. Granger, who styles sir Thomas “a gentleman of great merit,” was favoured by the duchess dowager of Portland with a ms copy of his Oration; and concludes, from the great scarcity of that pamphlet, that “the copies of it were, for certain reasons, industriously collected and destroyed, though few pieces of this kind have less deserved to perish. The countess of Essex had a greatness of mind which enabled her to bear the whole weight of infamy which was thrown upon her; but it was, nevertheless, attended with a delicacy and sensibility of honour which poisoned all her enjoyments. Mr. Higgons had said much, and I think much to the purpose, in her vindication; and was himself fully convinced from the tenor of her life, and the words which she spoke at the awful close of it, that she was perfectly innocent. In reading this interesting oration, I fancied myself standing by the grave of injured innocence and beauty; was sensibly touched with the pious affection of the tenderest and best of husbands doing public and solemn justice to an amiable and worthy woman, who had been grossly and publicly defamed. Nor could I withhold the tribute of a tear; a tribute which, I am confident, was paid at her interment by every one who loved virtue, and was not destitute of the feelings of humanity. This is what I immediately wrote upon reading the oration. If I am wrong in my opinion, the benevolent reader, I am sure, will forgive me. It is not the first time that my heart has got the better of my judgment.” “I am not afraid,” Mr. Nichols adds, “of being censured for having transcribed this beautiful passage.”

, younger son of sir Thomas (and first cousin to the late earl of Granville), by Bridget his second wife, was born in 1670, and became a commoner of St. John’s college, Oxford, in Lent term 1686; and went afterwards to Cambridge, and then to the Middle Temple. Wood enumerates five of his poems. He wrote some others and was the author of a tragedy, entitled “The Generous Conqueror, or the Timely Discovery,” acted at Drury-lane, and printed in 1702, 4to. He was a steady adherent to the cause of the exiled family; and accompanied king James into France, where he mairrtained his wit and good-humour undepressed by his misfortunes. He died in March 1735. He published a poem “on the Peace of Utrecht;” and on the publication of bishop Burnet’s “History of his own Times,” he wrote some strictures on it, in a volume entitled “Historical and Critical Remarks,” the second edition of which was printed in 1727, 8vo; and, in the same year, published “A short View of the English History, with Reflections, political, historical, civil, physical, and moral on the reigns of the kings their characters, and manners their successions to the throne, and other remarkable incidents to the Revolution 1688. Drawn from authentic Memoirs and Mss.” “These papers,” he tells us in his preface, “lay covered with dust 36 years, till every person concerned in the transactions mentioned were removed from the stage.”

, a very eminent and learned puritan divine, was descended from the royal family of England. He was the son of Thomas Hildersham, a gentleman of an ancient family, by Anne Pole (or Poole), his second wife, daughter to sir JefTery Pole, fourth son of sir Richard Pole, cousin-german to Henry VII. This sir Richard Pole’s wife was Margaret countess of Salisbury, daughter to George duke of Clarence, second brother to king Edward IV. by Isabella, eldest daughter and co-heiress of Richard earl of Warwick and Salisbury. All this will appear from the pedigree of cardinal Pole (who was Mr. Hildersham’s great uncle), as given from* the Heralds office, by the cardinal’s biographer, Mr. Phillips, but we might perhaps have passed it over, unless for a remarkable coincidence of descent which we shall soon have to notice in our account of bishop Hildesley.

Mr. Hildersham was born at Stechworth in Cambridgeshire, Oct. 6, 1563, and educated at Christ’s college, Cambridge. His parents were zealous papists, but during his abode at the university, he embraced the doctrines of the reformed church with a cordiality and decision which nothing could shake, and when his father found him so resolute, he disinherited him. He soon, however, obtained a liberal patron in his relation Henry earl of Huntingdon, lord president of the north, who sent him to the university, which he had been obliged to leave, and generously supported him. Being disappointed of a fellowship of Christ’s college, owing to the partiality of Dr. Barwell, the master, for another candidate, he was nearly about the same time, in 1586, chosen fellow of Trinity-hall, by the influence of lord Burleigh, chancellor of the university. This fellowship, however, he did not hold above two years, and having unguardedly began to preach without being admitted into orders, he received a check from archbishop Whitgift, although this irregularity was not in those days very uncommon. In 1593, however, every obstacle of this kind being removed, the earl of Huntingdon presented him to the living of Ashby-de-la Zoncb in Leicestershire, where he remained the whole of his life. Being dissatisfied with some points of ecclesiastical discipline, snch as wearing the surplice, baptizing with the cross, and kneeling at the sacrament, he often incurred the penalties of the law, and more than once was suspended from his functions; but always restored by the intervention of some friend, or the prevalence of his own excellent character. The wonder is that a man of his learning, piety, and good sense, should have adhered with such pertinacity to matters of comparatively little consequence, when he found the law and the general sentiments of his brethren against him, and when, what was of more importance to him, those labours were interrupted in which he delighted, and in which he was eminently successful. With these interruptions, however, he continued in the exercise of his ministry at Ashby until his death, March 4, 1631. He was interred in the southside of the chancel of Ashby church, with an inscription which, after adverting to his noble descent, says that he was “more honoured for his sweet 'and ingenuous disposition, his singular wisdom in settling peace, advising in secular affairs, and satisfying doubts; his abundant charity, and especially his extraordinary knowledge and judgment in the Holy Scriptures, his painful and zealous preaching, &c.” This character is amply illustrated by his biographers, and may in part be confirmed by his works, which in point of style and matter are equal, if not superior to those of his contemporaries* Those which are best known are his “Lectures on John iv.” 1623, fol. and his “CLII Lectures on Psalm 51,” 1635, fol. In all these his steady adherence to the doctrines of the church is visible, and his aversion to sectarianism and popery. He was particularly an opponent of the Brownists, or first independents. Echardjusily says he was “a great and shining light of the puritan party, and celebrated for his singular learning and piety.” Ke was the author also of “Lectures on Psalm 34,” 1632, 4to; and “A Treatise on the Lord’s Supper,” which we have never seen. He left in ms. a paraphrase on the whole Bible, from which was extracted a paraphrase on the Song of Solomon, printed, 1672, in 12mo. His son, Samuel, was ejected, for nonconformity, from the living of West Felton in Shropshire, and died in 1674. He was editor of his father’s Lectures.

, an English poet and dramatic writer of some celebrity in his day, was born in Beaufort-buildings in the Strand, February 10, 1685. He was the eldest son Of George Hill, esq. of Malmsbury-abbey in Wiltshire and, in consequence of this descent, the legal heir to an, entailed estate of about 2000l. per annum; but the misconduct of his father having, by a sale of the property, which he had no right to execute, rendered it of no advanl tage to the family, our author was left, together with Mr. Hill’s other children, to the care of, and a dependence on, his mother and grandmother; the latter of whom (Mrs. Anne Gregory) was more particularly anxious for his education and improvement. The first rudiments of learning he received from Mr. Reyner, of Barnstaple in Devonshire^ to whom he was sent at nine years old, and, on his removal from thence, was placed at Westminster-school, under the care of the celebrated Dr. Knipe. After remaining here until he was fourteen years of age, he formed a resolution singular enough in one so young, of paying a visit to his relation lord Paget, then ambassador at Constantinople; and accordingly embarked for that place, March 2, 1700. When he arrived, lord Paget received him with much surprise, as well as pleasure; wondering, that a person so young should run the hazard of iuch a voyage, to visit a relation whom he only knew by character. The ambassador immediately provided for him a very learned ecclesiastic in his own house; and, under his tuition, sent him to travel, so that he had an opportunity of seeing Egypt, Palestine, and a great part of the East. With lord Paget he returned home about 1703, and in his journey saw most of the courts in Europe, and it is probable that his lordship might have provided genteelly for him at his death, had he not been dissuaded by the misrepresentations of a female about him, which in a great measure prevented his good intentions. The young man’s well known merit, however, soon recommended him to sir William Wentworth, a Yorkshire baronet, who being inclined to make the tour of Europe, his relations engaged Mr. Hill to accompany him as a travelling tutor, which office he performed, for two or three years, to their entire satisfaction. In 1709, he commenced author, by the publication of an “History of the Ottoman Empire,” compiled from tinmaterials 'which he had collected in the course of his di rent travels, and during his residence at the Turkish conr:. This work, though it met with success, Mr. Hill frequently afterwards repented the having printed, and would himself, at times, very severely criticize it; and indeed, to say the truth, there are in it a great number of puerilities, which render it far inferior to the merit of his subsequent writings; in which correctness has ever been so strong a characteristic, that his critics have even attributed it to him as a fault; whereas, in this work, there at best appears the labour of a juvenile genius, rather choosing to give the full reign to fancy, and indulge the imagination of the poet, than to aim at the plainness and perspicuity of the historian. About the same year he published his first poetical piece, entitled “Camillus,” in vindication and honour of the earl of Peterborough, who had been general in. Spain. This poem was printed without any author’s name; but lord Peterborough, having made it his business to find out to whom he was indebted, appointed Mr. JHill his secretary; which post, however, he quitted the year following, on occasion of his marriage.

But the disposition of Dr. Hill was greatly changed with his circumstances: from being humble and diffident, he had become vain and self-sufficient. There appeared in him a pride, which was perpetually claiming a more than ordinary homage, and a vindictive spirit, which could never forgive the refusal of it. Hence his writings abounded with attacks on the understandings, morals, or peculiarities of others, descending, even to personal abuse and scurrility. This licence of his pen engaged him frequently in disputes and quarrels; and an Irish gentleman of the name of Browne, supposed to be ridiculed in an “Inspector,” proceeded so far as to cane him in the public gardens at Ranelagh. He had a paper war with Woodward the comedian was engaged with Henry Fielding in the affair of Elizabeth Canning and concerned in a contest with the Royal Society, Of this, the origin and progress has been thus detailed by one who had every opportunity of knowing the circumstances. When Mr. Hill had started all at once as before related, from a state of indigence and distress, to taste the comforts of very considerable emoluments from his labour, giddy with success, and elated beyond bounds with the warm sunshine of prosperity, he seemed to be seized with a kind of infatuation. Vanity took entire possession of his bosom, and banished from thence every consideration but of self. His conversation turned on little else, and even his very writings were tainted with perpetual details of every little occurrence that happened to him. His raillery, both in company and in his writings, frequently turned on those who closely attached themselves to philosophical investigations, especially in the branches of natural philosophy. The common -place wit of abusing the medal-scraper, the butterfly-hunter, the cockle-shell-merchant, &c. now appeared in some of his Magazines and Inspectors, and in two or three places he even indulged some distant glances of satire at the Royal Society. Notwithstanding which, however, when the Supplement to “Chambers’s Dictionary” was nearly finished, the proprietors of that work, very sensible of the weight of an F. R. S. annexed to the author’s name, were very desirous that Dr. Hill should have this addition as well as Mr. Scott, his colleague in the work. In consequence of this design, Dr. Hill procured Mr. Scott to propose him for election into that honourable body; but the doctor’s conduct for some time past having been such as had rendered him the object of contempt to some, of disgust to others, and of ridicule to almost all the rest of his former grave and philosophical acquaintances, he now stood but a very indifferent chance for carrying an election, where an opposition pf one third was sufficient to reject the candidate; and as. the failing in that attempt might have done our author more essential prejudice than the succeeding in it could even have brought him advantage, the late ingenious and worthy president, Martin Folkes, esq. whose remembrance must ever live in the highest estimation with all who ever had the honour of knowing him, notwithstanding that Dr. Hill had given him personal occasion of offence against him, yet with the utmost generosity and candour, advised Mr. Scott to dissuade his friend, for his own sake, against a design which there appeared so little probability of his succeeding in. This advice, however, Dr. Hill, instead of considering in the generous light it was meant, misinterpreted into a prejudiced opposition against his interest, am would have persisted in his intention even in despite of it, had net his being unable to obtain the subscription o requisite number of members to his recommendation^ obliged him to lay it aside, from a conviction that he could not expect to carry an election in a body composed of three hundred members, of which he could not prevail on three to set their names to the barely recommending him as a candidate. Thus disappointed, his vanity piqued, and his pride lowered, no relief was left him but railing and scurrility, for which purpose, declaring open war with the society in general, he first published a pamphlet entitled *' A Dissertation on Royal Societies,“in a letter from a Sclavonian nobleman in London to his friend in Sclavonia; which, besides the most ill-mannered and unjust abuse on the whole learned body he had been just aiming, in vain, to become a member of, is interlarded with the grossest personal scurrility on the characters of Mr. Folkes and Mr. Henry Baker, two gentlemen to whom Dr. Hill had formerly been under the greatest obligations, and whose respective reputations in both the moral and literary world had long been too firmly established for the weak efforts of a disappointed scribbler to shake or undermine. Not contented with this, he proceeded to compile together a large quarto volume entitled” A Review of the Works of the Royal Society,“in which, by the most unfair quotations, mutilations, and misrepresentations, numbers of the papers read in that illustrious assembly, and published under the title of the” Philosophical Transactions,“are endeavoured to be rendered ridiculous. This work is ushered into the world with a most abusive and infamous dedication to Martin Folkes, esq. against whom and the afore-mentioned Mr. Henry Baker the weight of this furious attack was chiefly aimed but the whole recoiled upon himself; and by such personal abuse, malignant altercation, proud and insolent behaviour, together with the slovenliness and inaccuracy of careless and hasty productions, he wrote himself out of repute both with booksellers and the town; and, after some time, sunk in the estimation of the public nearly as fast as he had risen. He found, however, as usual, resources in his own invention. He applied himself to the preparation of certain simple medicines namely,” the Essence of Water-dock; Tincture of Valerian Pectoral Balsam of Honey and Tincture of Bardana.“The well-known simplicity of these preparations led the public to judge favourably of their effects; they had a rapid sale, and once more enabled the doctor to live in splendour. Soon after the publication of the first of these medicines, he obtained the patronage of the earl of Bute; under which he published a very pompous and voluminous botanical work, entitled” A System of Botany;“but is said to have been a very considerable loser by this speculation. His botanical works, however, had a favourable influence in promoting the science in general. To wind up the whole of so extraordinary a life, having a year or two before his death presented an elegant set of his botanical works to the king of Sweden, that monarch invested him with one of the orders of his court, that of Vasa, in consequence of which he assumed the title of Sir John. He died Nov. 22, 1775, of the gout, which he professed to cure others. As to his literary character, and the rank of merit in which his writings ought to stand, Hill’s greatest enemies could not deny that he was master of considerable abilities, and an amazing quickness of parts. The rapidity of his pen was ever astonishing, and he has been known to receive within one year, no less than 1500l. for the works of his own single hand; which, as he was never in such estimation as to be entitled to any extraordinary price for his copies, is, we believe, at least three times as much as ever was made by any one writer in the same period of time. But, had he written much less, his works would probably have been much more read. The vast variety of subjects he handled, certainly required such a fund of universal knowledge, and such a boundless genius, as were never perhaps known to centre in any one man; and it is not therefore to be wondered, if, in regard to some he appears very inaccurate, in some very superficial, and in others altogether inadequate to the task he had undertaken. His works on philosophical subjects seemed most likely to have procured him fame, had he allowed himself time to digest the knowledge he possessed, or preserved that regard to veracity which the relation of scientific facts so rigidly demands. His novels, of which he has written many, such as” The History of Mr. Lovell,“(in which he had endeavoured to persuade the world he had given the detail of his own life),” The Adventures of a Creole,“” The Life of Lady Frail,“&c. have, in some parts of them, incidents not disagreeably related, but the most of them are merely narratives of private intrigues, containing throughout the grossest calumnies, and endeavouring to blacken and undermine the private characters of many worthy persons. In his” Essays,“which are by much the best of hia writings, there is, in general, a liveliness of imagination, and adroitness in the manner of extending, perhaps some very trivial thought, which at first may by many be mistaken for wit; but, on a nearer examination, will be found to lose much of its value. A continued use of smart short periods, bold assertions, and bolder egotisms, produces a transient effect, but seldom tempts the spectator to take a second glance. The utmost that can be said of Hill is, that he had talents, but that, in general, he either greatly nisapplied them, or most miserably hackneyed them for profit. As a dramatic writer he stands in no estimation^ nor has he been known in that view by any thing but three very insignificant pieces: namely, 1.” Orpheus,“an opera, 1740. 2.” The Critical Minute,“a farce, published in 1754, but not acted, 3.” The Rout," a farce, 1754*. A large volume might be written on the life and! adventures of this extraordinary man, as affording a complete history of literary quackery, every branch of which he pursued with a greater contempt for character than perhaps any man in our time.

, an eminent English philosopher and miscellaneous writer, was born at Malmsbury in Wiltshire, April 5, 1588, his father being minister of that town. The Spanish Armada was then upon the coast of England; and his mother is said to have been so alarmed on that occasion, that she was brought to bed of him before her time. After having made a considerable progress in the learned languages at school, he was sent, in 1603, to Magdalen hall, Oxford; and, in 1608, by the recommendation of the principal, taken into the family of the right honourable William Cavendish lord Hardwicke, soon after created earl of Devonshire, as tutor to his son William lord Cavendish. Hobbes ingratiated himself so effectually with this young nobleman, and with the peer his father, that he was sent abroad with him on his travels in 16:0, and made the tour of France and Italy. Upon his return with lord Cavendish, he became known to persons of the highest rank, and eminently distinguished for their abilities and learning. The chancellor Bacon admitted him to a great degree of familiarity, and is said to have made use of his pen for translating some of his works into Latin. He was likewise much in favour with lord Herbert of Cherbury; and the celebrated Ben Jonson had such an esteem for him, that he revised the first work which he published, viz. his “English Translation of the History of Thucyciides.” This Hobbes undertook, as he tells us himself, “with an honest view of preventing, if possible, those disturbances in which he was apprehensive his country would be involved, by shewing, in the history of the Peloponnesian war, the fatal consequences of intestine troubles.” This has always been esteemed one of the best translations that we have of any Greek writer, and the author himself superintended the maps and indexes. But while he meditated this design, his patron, the earl of Devonshire, died in 1626; and in 1628, the year his work was published, his son died also. This loss affected him to such a degree, that he very willingly accepted an offer of going abroad a second time with the son of sir Gervase Clifton, whom he accordingly accompanied into France, and staid there some time. But while he continued there he was solicited to return to England, and to resume his concern for the hopes of that family, to which he had attached himself so early, and owed many and great obligations.

In 1631, the countess dowager of Devonshire was desirous of placing the young earl under his care, who was then about the age of thirteen; a trust very suitable to his inclinations, and which he discharged with great fidelity and diligence. In 1634 he republished his translation of Thucydides, and prefixed to it a dedication to that young nobleman, in which he gives a nigh character of his father, and represents in the strongest terms his obligations to that illustrious family. The same year he accompanied his noble pupil to Paris, where he applied his vacant hours to natural philosophy, especially mechanism, and the causes of animal motion. He had frequent conversations upon these subjects with father Mersenne, a man deservedly famous, who kept up a correspondence with almost all the learned in Europe. From Paris he attended his pupil into Italy, and at Pisa became known to Galileo, who communicated to him his notions very freely. After having seen all that was remarkable in that country, he returned in 1637 with the earl of Devonshire into England. The troubles in Scotland now grew high, and began to spread themselves southward, and to threaten disturbance.throughout the kingdom. Hobbes, seeing this, thought he might do good service by composing something by way of antidote to the pestilential opinions which then prevailed. This engaged him to commit to paper certain principles, observations, and remarks, out of which he composed his book “De Give,” and which grew up afterwards into that system which he called his “Leviathan.”

In 1650 was published at London a small treatise by Hobbes entitled “Human Nature,” and another, “De corpore politico, or, of the Elements of the Law.” The latter was presented to Gassendi, and read by him a few months before his death; who is said first to have kissed it, and then to have delivered his opinion of it in these words: tl This treatise is indeed small in bulk, but in my judgment the very marrow of science.“All this time Hobbes had been digesting with great pains his religious, political, and moral principles into a complete system, which he called the” Leviathan,“and which was printed in English at London in that and the year following. He caused a copy of it, very fairly written on vellum *, to be presented to Charles II.; but after that monarch was informed that the English divines considered it as a book tending to subvert both religion and civil government, he is said to have withdrawn his countenance from the author, and by the marquis of Ormond to have forbidden him to come into his presence. After the publication of his” Leviathan," Hobbes returned to England, and passed the summer commonly at his patron the earl of Devonshire’s seat in Derbyshire, -and his

* This copy appears to he now in How it came there has not been dis­' the library of the late earl of Macart-covered. The library is now in the ney, at Lissanoure in Ireland, if the possession of a lady, the late earl’s reone very accurately described by the presentative, who probably knew little Rev. W. H. Pratt, in the Gentleman’s of its history. Magazine for January 1813, p. 30. winters in town; where he had for his intimate friends some of the greatest men of the age; such as Dr. Harvey, Selden, Cowley, &c. In 1654, he published his “Letter upon Liberty and Necessity,” which occasioned a long controversy between him and Bramhall, bishop of Londonderry. About this time he began the controversy with Wallis, the mathematical professor at Oxford, which lasted as long as Hobbes lived, and in which he had the misfortune to have all the mathematicians against him. It is indeed said, that he came too late to this study to excel in it; and that though for a time he maintained his credit, while he was content to proceed in the same track with others, and to reason in the accustomed manner from the established principles of the science, yet when he began to.digress into new paths, and set up for a reformer, inventor, and improver of geometry, he lost himself extremely. But notwithstanding these debates took up much of his time, yet he published several philosophical treatises in Latin.

Such were his occupations till 1660, when upon the king’s restoration he quitted the country, and came up to London. He was at Salisbury-house with his patron, when the king passing by one day accidentally saw him. He sent for him, gave Kim his hand to kiss, inquired kindly after his health and circumstances; and some time after directed Cooper, the celebrated miniature-painter, to take his portrait. His majesty likewise afforded him another private audience, spoke to him very kindly, assured him of his protection, and settled a pension upon him of lOOl. per annum out of his privy purse. Yet this did not render him entirely safe; for, in 1666, his “Leviathan,” and treatise “De Give,” were censured by parliament, which alarmed him much; as did also the bringing of a bill into the Hou^e of commons to punish atheism and profaneness. When this-stonn was a little blown over, he began to think of procuring a beautiful edition of his pieces that were in Latin; but finding this impracticable in England, he caused it to be undertaken abroad, where they were published in 1668, 4to, from the press of John Bleau. In 1669, he was visited by Cosmo de Medicis, then prince, afterwards duke of Tuscany, who gave him ample marks of his esteem; and having received his picture, and a complete collection of his writings, caused them to be deposited, the former among his curiosities, the latter in his library at Florence. Similar visits he received from several foreign ambassadors, and other strangers of distinction; who were curious to see a person, whose singular opinions and numerous writings had made so much noise all over Europe. In 1672, he wrote his own Life in Latin verse, when, as he observes, he had completed his eighty-fourth year: and, in 1674, he published in English verse four books of Homer’s “Odyssey,” which were so well received, that it encouraged him to undertake the whole “Iliad” and “Odyssey,” which he likewise performed, and published in 1675. These were not the first specimens of his poetic genius which he had given to the public: he had published many years before, about 1637, a Latin poem, entitled “De Mirabilibus Pecci, or, Of the Wonders of the Peak.” But his poetry is below criticism, and has been long exploded. In 1674, he took his leave of London, and went to spend the remainder of his days in Derbyshire; where, however, he did not remain inactive, notwithstanding his advanced age, but published from time to time several pieces to be found in the collection of his works, namely, in 1676, his “Dispute with Laney bishop of Ely, concerning Liberty and. Necessity;” in 1678, his “Decameron Physiologicum, or, Ten Dialogues of Natural Philosophy;” to which he added a book, entitled “A Dialogue between a Philosopher and a Student of the Common Law of England.” June 1679, he eent another book, entitled “Behemoth, or, A History of the Civil Wars from 1640 to 1660,” to an eminent bookseller, with a letter setting forth the reasons for his communication of it, as well as for the request he then made, that he would not publish it till a proper occasion offered. The book, however, was published as soon as he was dead, and the letter along with it; of which we shall give a curious extract: “I would fain have published my Dialogue of the Civil Wars of England long ago, and to that end I presented it to his majesty; and some days after, vrhen I thought he had read it, I humbly besought him to let me print it. But his majesty, though he heard me graciously, yet he flatly refused to have it published: therefore I brought away the book, and gave you leave to take a copy of it; which when you had done, I gave the original to an honourable and learned friend, who about a. year after died. The king knows better, and is more concerned in publishing of books than lam; and therefore I dare not venture to appear in the business, lest I should offend him. Therefore I pray you not to meddle in the business. Rather than to be thought any way to further or countenance the printing, I would be content to lose twenty times the value of what you can expect to gain by it. I pray do not take it ill; it may be I may live to send you somewhat else as vendible as that, and without offence. J am, &c.” However he did not live to send his bookseller any thing more, this being his last piece. It is in dialogue, and full of paradoxes, like all his other writings. More philosophical, political, says Warburton, or any thing rather than historical, yet full of shrewd observations. In October following, he was afflicted with a suppression of urine; and his physician plainly told him, that he had little hopes of curing him. In November, the earl of Devonshire removing from Chatsvvorth to another seat called Hardwick, Hobbes obstinately persisted in desiring that he might be carried too, though this could no way be done but by laying him upon a feather-bed. He was not much discomposed with his journey, yet within a week after lost, by a stroke of the palsy, the use of his speech, and of his right side entirely; in which condition he remained for some days, taking little nourishment, and sleeping much, sometimes endeavouring to speak, but not being able. He died Dec. 4, 1679, in his ninety-second year. Wood tells us, that after his physician gave him no hopes of a cure, he said, “Then I shall be glad to find a hole to creep out of the world at.” He observes also, that his not desiring a minister, to receive the sacrament before he died, ought in charity to be imputed to his being so suddenly seized, and afterwards deprived of his senses; the rather, because the earl of Devonshire’s chaplain declared, that within the two last years of his life he had often received the sacrament from his hands with seeming devotion. His character and manners are thus described by Dr. White Kennet, in his “Memoirs of the Cavendish Family;” “The earl of Devonshire,” says he, “for his whole life entertained Mr. Hobbes in his family, as his old tutor rather than as his friend or confidant. He let him live under his roof in ease and plenty, and in his own way, without making use of him in any public, or so much as domestic affairs. He would often express an abhorrence of some of his principles in policy and religion; and both he and his lady would frequently put off the mention of his name, and say, ‘ he was a humourist, and nobody could account for him.’ There is a tradition in the family of the manners and customs of Mr. Hobbes somewhat observable. His professed rule of health was to dedicate the morning to his exercise, and the afternoon to his studies. At his first rising, therefore, he walked out, and climbed any hill within his reach; or, if the weather was not dry, he fatigued himself within doors by some exercise or other, to be in a sweat: recommending that practice tfpon this opinion, that an old man had more moisture than heat, and therefore by such motion heat was to be acquired, and moisture expelled. After this he took a comfortable breakfast; and then went round the lodgings to wait upon the earl, the countess, and the children, and any considerable strangers, paying some short addresses to all of them. He kept these rounds till about twelve o‘clock, when he had a little dinner provided for him, which he eat always by himself without ceremony. Soon after dinner he retired to his study, and had his candle with ten or twelve pipes of tobacco laid by him; then shutting his door, he fell to smoaking, thinking, and writing for several hours. He retained a friend or two at court, and especially the lord Arlington, to protect him if occasion should require. He used to say, that it was lawful to make use of ill instruments to do ourselves good: * If I were cast,’ says he, ‘ into a deep pit, and the devil should put down his cloven foot, I would take hold of it to be drawn out by it.’ Towards the end of his life he had very few books, and those he read but very little; thinking he was now able only to digest what he had formerly fed upon. If company came to visit him, he would be free in discourse till he was pressed or contradicted; and then he had the infirmities of being short and peevish, and referring to his writings for better satisfaction. His friends, who had the liberty of introducing strangers to him, made these terms with them before their admission, that they should not dispute with the old man, nor contradict him.” After mentioning the apprehensions Hobbes was under, when the parliament censured his book, and the methods he took to escape persecution, Dr. Kennet adds, “It isnot much to be doubted, that upon this occasion he began to make a more open shew of religion and church communion. He now frequented the chapel, joined in the service, and was generally a partaker of the holy sacrament: and whenever any strangers in conversation with him seemed to question his belief, he would always appeal to his conformity in divine services, and referred them to the chaplain for a testimony of it. Others thought it a mere compliance to the orders of the family, and observed, that in city and country he never went to any parish church; and even in the chapel upon Sundays, he went out after prayers, and turned his back upon the sermon; and when any friend asked the reason of it, he gave no other but this, ‘ they could teach him nothing, but what he knew.’ He did not cone‘al his hatred to the clergy but it was visible that the hatred was owing to his fear of their civil interest and power. He had often a jealousy, that the bishops would burn him: and of all the bench he was most afraid of the bishop of Sarum, because he had most offended him; thinking every man’s spirit to be remembrance and revenge. After the Restoration, he watched all opportunities to ingratiate himself with the king and his prime ministers; and looked upon his pension to be more valqable, as an earnest of favour and protection, than upon any other account. His following course of life was to be free from danger. He could not endure to be left in an empty house. Whenever the earl removed, he would go along with him, even to his last stage, from Chatsworth to Hardwick. When he was in a very weak condition, he dared not to be left behind, but made his way upon a feather-bed in a coach, though he survived the journey but a few days. He could not bear any discourse of death, and seemed to cast off all thoughts of it: he delighted to reckon upon longer life. The winter before he died, he made a warm coat, which he said must last him three years, and then he would have such another. In his last sickness his frequent questions were, Whether his disease was curable? and when intimations were given that he might have ease, but no remedy, he used this expression, ’ I shall be glad to find a hole to creep out of the world at;' which are reported to have been his last sensible words; and his lying. some days following in a silent stupefaction, did seem owing to his mind more than to his body. The only thought of death that he appeared to entertain in time of health, was to take care of some inscription on his grave. He would suffer some friends to dictate an epitaph, among which he was best pleased with this humour, * This is the philosopher’s stone'.” A pun very probably from the hand which wrote for Dr. Fuller, “Here lies Fuller’s earth.”

After this account of Hobbes, which, though undoubtedly true in the main, may be thought too strongly coloured, it will be but justice to subjoin what lord Clarendon has said of him. This noble person, during his banishment, wrote a book in 1670, which was printed six years after at Oxford with this title, “A brief View of the dangerous and pernicious Errors to Church and State in Mr. Hobbes’s book entitled Leviathan.” In the introduction the earl observes, that Mr. Hobbes’s *' Leviathan“” cohtains in it good learning of all kinds, politely extracted, and very wittily and cunningly digested in a very commendable, and in a vigorous and pleasant style: and that Mr. Hobbes himself was a man of excellent parts, of great wit, some reading, and somewhat more thinking; one who has spent many years in foreign parts and observations; understands the learned as well as the modern languages; hath long had the reputation of a great philosopher and mathematician; and in his age hath had conversation with very many worthy and extraordinary men: to which it may be, if he had been more indulgent in the more vigorous part of his life, it might have had greater influence upon the temper of his mind; whereas age seldom submits to those questions, inquiries, and contradictions, which the laws and liberty of conversation require. And it hath been always a lamentation among Mr. Hobbes’s friends, that he spent too much time in thinking, and too little in exercising those thoughts in the company of other men of the same, or of as good faculties; for want whereof his natural constitution, with age, contracted such a morosity, that doubting-and contradicting men were never grateful to him. In a word, Mr. Hobbes is one of the most ancient acquaintance I have in the world; and of whom I have always had a great esteem, as a man, who, besides his eminent parts, learning, and knowledge, hath been always looked upon as a man of probity, and of a life free from scandal.“There have been few persons, whose writings have had a more pernicious influence in spreading irreligion and infidelity than those of Hobbes; and yet none of his treatises are directly levelled against revealed religion. He sometimes affects to speak with veneration of the sacred writings, and expressly declares, that though the laws of nature are not laws as they proceed from nature, yet” as they are given by God in Holy Scripture, they are properly called laws; for the Holy Scripture is the voice of God, ruling all things by the greatest right.“But though ha, seems here to make the laws of Scripture the Jaws of God, and to derive their force from his supreme authority, yet elsewhere he supposes them to have no authority, but what they derive from the prince or civil power. He sometimes seems to acknowledge inspiration to be a supernatural gift, and the immediate hand of God: at other times he treats the pretence to it as a sign of madness, and represents God’s speaking to the prophets in a dream, to be no more than the prophets dreaming that God spake unto them. He asserts, that we have no assurance of the certainty of Scripture but the authority of the church f, and this he resolves into the authority of the commonwealth; and declares, that till the sovereign ruler had prescribed them,” the precepts of Scripture were not obligatory laws, but only counsel or advice, which he that was counselled might without injustice refuse to observe, and being contrary to the laws could not without injustice observe;“that the word of the interpreter of Scripture is the word of God, and that the sovereign magistrate is the interpreter of Scripture, and of all doctrines, to whose authority we must stand. Nay, he carries it so far as to pronounce that Christians are bound in conscience to obey the laws of an infidel king in matters of religion; that” thought is free, but when it comes to confession of faith, the private reason must submit to the public, that is to say, to God’s lieutenant.“Accordingly he allows the subject, being commanded by the sovereign, to deny Christ in words, holding the faith of him firmly in his heart; it being in this” not he, that denieth Christ before men, but his governor and the laws of his country.“In the mean time he acknowledges the existence of God, and that we must of necessity ascribe the effects we behold to the eternal power of all powers, and cause of all causes; and he reproaches those as absurd, who call the world, or the soul of the world, God. But then he denies that we know any thing more of him than, that he exists, and seems plainly to make him corporeal; for he affirms, that whatever is not body is nothing at all. And though he sometimes seems to acknowledge religion and its obligations, and that there is an honour and worship due to God; prayer, thanksgivings, oblations, &c. yet he advances principles, which evidently tend to subvert all religion. The account he gives of it is this, that” from the fear of power invisible, feigned by the mind, or imagined from tales, publicly allowed, ariseth religion; not allowed, superstition:“and he resolves religion into things which he himself derides, namely,” opinions of ghosts, ignorance of second causes, devotion to what men fear, and taking of things casual for prognostics.“He takes pains in many places to prove man a necessary agent, and openly derides the doctrine of a future state: for he says, that the belief of a future state after death,” is a belief grounded upon other men’s saying, that they knew it supernaturally; or, that they knew those, that knew them, that knew others that knew it supernaturally.“But it is not revealed religion only, of which Hobbes makes light; he goes farther, as will appear by running over a few more of his maxims. He asserts,” that, by the law of nature, every man hath a right to all things, and over all persons; and that the natural condition of man is a state of war, a war of all men against all men: that there is no way so reasonable for any man, as by force or wiles to gain a mastery over all other persons that he can, till he sees no other power strong enough to endanger him: that the civtt laws are the only rules of good and evil, just and unjust, honest and dishonest; and that, antecedently to such laws, every action is in its own nature indifferent; that there is nothing good or evil in itself, nor any common laws constituting what is naturally just and unjust: that all things are measured by what every man judgeth fit, where there is no civil government, and by the laws of society, where there is: that the power of the sovereign is absolute, and that he is not bound by any compacts with his subjects: that nothing the sovereign can do to the subject, can properly be called injurious or wrong; and that the, king’s word is sufficient to take any thing from the subject if need be, and that the king is judge of that need." This scheme evidently strikes at the foundation of all religion, natural and revealed. It tends not only to subvert the authority of Scripture, but to destroy God’s moral government of the world. It confounds the natural differences of good and evil, virtue and vice. It destroys the best principles of the human nature; and instead of that innate benevolence and social disposition which should unite men together, supposes all men to be naturally in a state of war with one another. It erects an absolute tyranny in the state and church, which it confounds, and maKes the will of the prince or governing power the sole standard of right and wrong.

Many capital pictures of this master are in the palace of Slangenberg; and his eminent talents may be seen in the grand staircase at Voorst, the seat of the earl of AlbemarSe. In Holland, and also in our kingdoms, several charming pictures of Hoet are preserved; some of them in the manner of Polemburg, and others in the style of Carel du Jardin. He died in 1733.

In 1732 he ventured to attack Mr. Pope, in a plate called “The Man of Taste,” containing a view of the gate of Burlington-house, with Pope white-washing it, and bespattering the duke of Chandos’s coach. This plate was intended as a satire on the translator of Homer, Mr. Kent tUe architect, and the earl of Burlington. It was fortunate for Hogarth that he escaped the lash of the first. Either Hogarth’s obscurity at that time was his protection, or the bard was too prudent to exasperate a painter who had already given such proof of his abilities for satire. What must he have felt who could complain of the “pictured shape” prefixed to “Gulliveriana,” “Pope Alexander’s Supremacy and Infallibility examined,” &c. by Ducket, and other pieces, had such an artist as Hogarth undertaken, to express a certain transaction recorded by Gibber?

In one of the early exhibitions at Spring-gardens, a very pleasing small picture by Hogarth made its first appearance. It was painted for the earl of Charlemont, in whose collection it remains; and was entitled “Picquet, orVir.tuein Danger,” and shews us ayounglady, who, during a tete-a-tete, had just lost all her money and jewels to a handsome officer of her own age. He is represented in the act of offering her the contents of his hat, in which are bank-notes, jewels, and trinkets, with the hope of exchanging them for a softer acquisition, and more delicate plunder. On the chimneypiece a watch-case and a figure of Time over it, with this motto Nunc. Hogarth has caught his heroine during this moment of hesitation, this struggle with herself, and has marked her feelings with uncommon success.

After almost begging his way to England, as Patin tells us, he found an easy admittance to the lord-chancellor, sir Thomas More, having brought with him Erasmus’s picture, and letters recommendatory from him to that great man. Sir Thomas received him with all the joy imaginable, and kept him in his house between two and three years; during which time he drew sir Thomas’s picture, and those of many of his friends and relations. One clay Holbein happening to mention the nobleman who had some years ago invited him to England, sir Thomas was very solicitous to know who he was. Holbein replied, that he had indeed forgot his title, but remembered his face so well, that he thought he could draw his likeness; and this he did so very strongly, that the nobleman, it is said, was immediately known by it. This nobleman some think was the earl of Arundel, others the earl of Surrey. The chancellor, having now sufficiently enriched his apartments with Holbein’s productions, adopted the following method to introduce him to Henry VIII. He invited the king to an entertainment, and hung up all Holbein’s pieces, disposed in the best order, and in the best light, in the great hall of his house. The king, upon his first entrance, was so charmed with the sight of them, that he asked, “Whether such an artist were now alive, and to be had for money?” on which sir Thomas presented Holbein to the king, who immediately took him into his service, with a salary of 200 florins, and brought him into great esteem with the nobility of the kingdom. The king from time to time manifested the greac value he had for him, and upon the death of queen Jane, his third wife, sent him into Flanders, to draw the picture of the duchess dowager of Milan, widowto Francis Sforza, whom the emperor Charles V. had recommended to him for a fourth wife; but the king’s defection from the see of Rome happening about that time, he rather chose to match with a protestant princess. Cromwell, then his prime minister (for sir Thomas More had been removed, and beheaded), proposed Anne of Cleves to him; but the king was not inclined to the match, till her picture, which Holbein had also drawn, was presented to him. There, as lord Herbert of Cherbnry says, she was represented so very charming, that the king immediately resolved to marry her; and thus Holbein was unwittingly the cause of the ruin of his patron Cromwell, whom the king never forgave for introducing him to Anne of Cleves.

, a most admired engraver, was born at Prague in Bohemia, in 1607. He was at first instructed in schoollearning, and afterwards put to the profession of the law; but not relishing that pursuit, and his family being ruined when Prague was taken and plundered in 1619, so that they could not provide for him as had been proposed, he removed from thence in 1627. During his abode in several towns in Germany, he applied hiinselFto drawing and designing, to copying the pictures of several great artists, taking geometrical and perspective views and draughts of cities, towns, and countries, by land and water; in which at length he grew so excellent, especially for his landscapes in miniature, as not to be outdone in beauty and delicacy by any artist of his time. He had some instructions from Matthew Merian, an eminent engraver, and who is thought to have taught him that method of preparing and working on his plates which he constantly used. He was but eighteen when the first specimens of his art appeared; and the connoisseurs in his works have observed, that he inscribed the earliest of them with only a cypher of four letters, which, as they explain it, was intended for the initials of. “Wenceslaus Hollar Pragensis xcudit.” He employed himseif chieth in copying heads and portraits, sometimes from Rembrandt, Henzelman, Fselix Biler, and other eminent artists; but h ^ uule delicate views of Strasburgh, Cologne, Mentz, Bon>, Francfort, and other towns along the Riiine, Danube, Necker, &c. got him his greatest reputation; and when Howard earl of Arundel, was sent ambassador to the emperor Ferdinand II. in 1636, he was so iiighly pleased with his performances, that he admitted him into his retinue. Hollar attended his lordship froai Cologne to the emperor’s court, and in this progress made several draughts and prints of the places through which they travelled. He took that view of Wurtzburgh under whicn is written, “Hoilar delineavit, in legatione Arundeliana ad Imperatorem.” He then made also a curious large drawing, with the pen and pencil, of the city of Prague, which gave great satisfaction to his patron, then upon the spot.

1639, and adorned with several portraits of the royal family, etched for the purpose by the hand of Hollar. The same year was published the portrait of his patron the earl of Arundel on horseback; and afterwards he etched another of him in armour, and several views of his countryseat at Aldbrough in Surrey. In 1640, he seems to have been introduced into the service of the royal family,“togive the prince of Wales some taste in the art of designing; and it is intimated, that either before the -eruption of the civil wars, or at least before he was driven by them abroad, he was in the service of the duke of York. This year appeared his beautiful set of figures in twenty-eight plates, entitled,” Ornatus Muliebris Anglicanus," and containing the several habits of English women of all ranks or degrees: they are represented at full length, and have rendered him famous among the lovers of engraving. In 1641, were published his prints of king Charles and his queen: but now the civil wars being broke out, and his patron the earl of Arundel leaving the kingdom to attend upon the queen and the princess Mary, Hollar was left to support himself. He applied himself closely to his bu<iness, and published other parts of his works, after Holbein, Vandyck, &c. especially the portraits of several persons of quality of both sexes, ministers of state, commanders of the army, learned and eminent authors; and especially another set or two of female habits in divers nations in Europe. Whether he grew obnoxious as an adherent to the earl of Arundel, or as a malignant for drawing so many portraits of the royal party, is not expressly said: but now it seems he was molested, and driven to take shelter under the protection of one or more of them, till they were defeated, and he taken prisoner of xvar with them, upon the surrender of their garrison at Basing-house in Hampshire. This happened on Oct. 14, 1645; but Hollar, either making his escape, or otherwise obtaining his liberty, went over to the continent after the earl of Arundel, who resided at Antwerp, with his family, and had transported thither his most valuable collection of pictures.

Mr. Home, in every period of his life, was fond of social intercourse, and with all his ardour of study, and variety of literary and professional occupations, a considerable portion of his time was devoted to the enjoyments of society in a numerous circle of acquaintance. Among his early friends or associates we find the names of colonel Forrester, Hamilton of Bangour, the earl of Findlater, Mr. Oswald, David Hume, and Dr. (afterwards bishop) Butler, with whom he had a correspondence. In 1741 be married miss Agatha Drummond, a younger daughter of James Drummond, esq. of Blair, in the county of Perth. His fortune being then comparatively small, ceconomy became a necessary virtue, but unfortunately, this lady, who had a taste for every thing that is elegant, was particularly fond of old china; and soon after her marriage had made such frequent purchases in that way as to impress her husband with some little apprehension of her extravagance. After some consideration, he devised an ingenious expedient to cure her of this propensity. He framed a will, bequeathing to his spouse the whole of the china that should be found in his possession at his death; and this deed he immediately put into her own hands. The success of the plot was complete; the lady was cured from, that moment of her passion for old china. This stratagem his biographer justly considers as a proof of the authors intimate knowledge of the human mind, and discernment of the power of the passions to balance and restrain each other. It is, indeed, in its contrivance and result, equally honourable to the husband and wife.

, an eminent English divine, son of George Hooper, gent, was born at Grimley, in Worcestershire, Nov. 18, 1640, and educated in grammar and classical learning first at St. Paul’s, and afterwards at Westminster-school, where he was a king’s scholar. From thence he was elected to Christ-church in Oxford, in 1657, where he took his degrees at the regular times and distinguished himself above his contemporaries by his superior knowledge in philosophy, mathematics, Greek and Roman antiquities, and the oriental languages, in which last he was assisted by Dr. Pocock. In 1672 he became chaplain to Morley, bishop of Winchester, who collated him to the rectory of Havant, in Hampshire, which, the situation being unhealthy, he resigned for the rectory of East Woodhay, in the same county. In July 1673 he took the degree of B. D. and not long afterwards became chaplain to archbishop Sheldon, who begged that favour of the bishop of Winchester, and who in 1675 gave him the rectory of Lambeth, and afterwards the precentorship of Exeter. In 1677 he commenced D. D. and the same year, being made almoner to the princess of Orange, he went over to Holland, where, at the request of her royal highness, he regulated her chapel according to the usage of the church of England. After one year’s attendance, he repassed the sea, in order to complete his marriage to Abigail, daughter of Richard Guildford, gent, the treaty for which had been set on foot before his departure. He then went back to her highness, who had obtained a promise from him to that purpose; but, after a stay of about eight months, she consented to let him return home. In 1680 he is said to have been offered the divinity-professorship at Oxford, but the succession to that chair had been secured to Dr. Jane. About the same time, however, Dr. Hooper was made king’s chaplain. In 1685, by the king’s command, he attended the duke of Monmouth, and had much free conversation with him in the Tower, both the evening before, and the day of his execution, on which, that unhappy nobleman assured him “be had made his peace with God,” the nature of which persuasion Dr. Hooper solemnly entreated him to consider well, and then waited on him in his last moments. The following year he took a share in the popish controversy, and wrote a treatise, which will be mentioned presently with his works. In 1691, he succeeded Dr. Sharp in the deanery of Canterbury. As he never made tae least application for preferment, queen Mary surprised him vvitn this offer, when the king her husband was absent in Holland. With a disinterestedness not very common, he now proposed to resign either of his livings, but the queen observed that though the king and she never gave two livings to one man, yet they never took them away,“and ordered him to keep both. However, he resigned the rectory of Woodhay. He was made chaplain to their majesties the same year. In 1698, when a preceptor was chosen forttie duke of Gloucester, though both the royal parents of that prince pressed earnestly to have Hooper, and no objection was ever made against him, yet the king named bishop Burnet for that service. In 1701, he was chosen prolocutor to the lower house of convocation and the same year was offered the primacy cf Ireland by the earl of Rochester, then lord-lieutenant, which he declined. In May 1703, he was nominated to the bishopric of St. Asaph. This he accepted, though against his inclination on this occasion be resigned Lambeth, but retained his other preferments with this bishopric, in which, indeed, he continued but a few months, and on that account he generously refused the usual mortuaries or pensions, then so great a burthen to the clergy of Wales, saying” They should never pay so dear for the sight of him." In March following, being translated to the bishopric of Bath and Wells, he earnestly requested her majesty to dispense with the order, not only on account of the sudden charge of such a translation, as well as a reluctance to remove, but aiso in regard to his friend Dr. Ken, the deprived bishop of that place, for whom he begged the bishopric. The queen, readily complied vvitb Hooper’s request; but the offer being declined by Ken, Hooper at his importunity yielded to become his successor. He now relinquished the deanery of Canterbury, but wished to have retained the precentorship of Exeter in commendam, solely for the use of Dr. Ken. But this was not agreeable to Dr. Trelauney, bishop of Exeter. His intention, however, was supplied by the bounty of the queen, who conferred an annual pension of 200l. on the deprived prelate. In 1705, bishop Hooper distinguished himself in the debate on the danger of the church, which, with many other persons, he apprehended to be more than imaginary. His observation was candid; he complained with justice of that invidious distinction which the terms high church and low church occasioned, and of that enmity which they tended to produce. In the debate in 1706, he spoke against the union between England and Scotland, but grounded his arguments on 'fears which have not been realized. In 1709-10, when the articles of Sachevereli’s impeachment were debated, he endeavoured to excuse that divine, and entered his protest against the vote, which he could not prevent.

On the accession of king Edwar.d in 1547, Hooper was enabled to return to England, and settled in London, where he frequently preached the doctrines of the reformation; but had imbibed abroad such notions on the subject of church government, and the habits, as rendered his principles somewhat suspected by archbishop Cranmer, and Kidley, and prevented his co-operating with them so cordially as could have been wished in that critical time. In doctrinal matters, however, he was an able assistant, being a man of learning,. and a good philosopher and critic. When Bonner was to be deprived of his bishopric, he was one of his accusers; which, no doubt, would recommend him as an acceptable sacrifice in the following bloody reign. By the interest of trie earl of Warwick, he was nominated and elected bishop of Gloucester; but, when he came to be consecrated or invested by archbishop Cranmer and bishop Ridley, he refused to wear a canonical habit; and it was not until these ceremonies were dispensed with by the king’s authority, that he was consecrated bishop, in 1550; and about two years after, he had the bishopric of Worcester given to him, to keep in commendam with the former. He now preached often, visited his dioceses, kept great hospitality for the poor, and was beloved by many. But in the persecution under Mary, being then near sixty years of age, and refusing to recant his opinions, he was burned in the city of Gloucester, Feb. 9, 1554, and suffered death with admirable constancy.

, a learned and worthy prelate, whojxperienced a fate extremely singular, was born in 1633, at Sandford in Devonshire, where his father was curate; became chorister of Magdalen college, Oxford, ia 1649; at the age of about sixteen, he was usher of the school adjoining, being already B. A.; he was chaplain of the college when M. A.; and would have been fellow, had his county qualified him. All this time he lived and was educated under presbyterian and independent discipline; and about the time of the restoration became assistant to Dr. Spurstow of Hackney. He was afterwards elected preacher at one of the city churches; the bishop of London, however, refused to admit him, as he was a popular preacher among the fanatics; but after some time he was settled in the parish church of St. Mary Wolnoth. Having retired to Exeter on account of the plague, he obtained the living of St. Mary’s church at Exeter, was countenanced by bishop Ward, and much admired for the comeliness of his person and elegance of preaching. The lord Robartes in particular (afterwards earl of Truro) w*as so pleased with him, that he gave him his daughter Araminta in marriage, took him as his chaplain to Ireland in 1669, gave him the deanery of llaphoe, and recommended him so effectually to his successor lord Berkeley, that he was consecrated bishop of Raphoe, Oct. 27, 1671, and translated to Londonderry in 1681. Driven thence by the forces under the earl of Tyrconnel, in 1688, he retired into England, and was elected minister of Aldermanbury in Sept. 1689, where he died, June 22, 1690. He published five single sermons, afterwards incorporated in two volumes; “An Exposition of the Ten Commandments, 1692, 4to, with his portrait; and an” Exposition of the Lord’s Prayer," 1691, all printed in one volume, 171O, folio. An edition of his works has very recently appeared in 4 vols. 8vo.

, son of the preceding, was born at Exeter, in 1664; but his father being taken chaplain to Ireland, he received the early part of his education at Trinity college, Dublin; and afterwards was a student at Queen’s college, Cambridge, where he took the degree of B. A. in 1688. The rebellion breaking out in Ireland in that year, he returned thither, and exerted his early valour in the cause of his country, religion, and liberty. When public tranquillity was restored, he came again into Elngland, and formed an acquaintance with gentlemen of wit, whose age and genius were most agreeable to his own. In 1694 he published some “Epistolary Poems and Translations,” which may be seen in Nichols’s “Select Collec-' tion;” and in 1695 he shewed his genius as a dramatic writer, by “Pyrrhus king of Egypt,” a tragedy, to which Congreve wrote the epilogue. He published also in that year, “The History of Love,” a connection of select fables from. “Ovid’s Metamorphoses,” 1695; which, by the sweetness of his numbers and easiness of his thoughts, procured him considerable reputation. With Dryden in particular he became a great favourite. He afterwards published the “Art of Love,” which, Jacob says, “added to his fame, and happily brought him acquainted with the earl of Dorset, and other persons of distinction, who were fond of his company, through the agreeableness of his temper, and the pleasantry of his conversation. It was in his power to have made his fortune in any scene of life; but he was always more ready to serve others than mindful of his own affairs; and by the excesses of hard drinking, and too passionate an addiction to women, he died a martyr to the cause in the thirty-sixth year of his age.” Mr. Nichols has preserved in his collection an admirable hymn, “written about an hour before his death, when in great pain.” His “Court-Prospect,” in which many of the principal nobility are very handsomely complimented, is called by Jacob “an excellent piece;” and of his other poems he adds, “that they are all remarkable for the purity of their diction, and the harmony of their numbers.” Mr. Hopkins was also the author of two other tragedies; “Boadicea Queen of Britain,” 1697; and “Friendship improved, or the Female Warrior,” with a humourous prologue, comparing a poet to a merchant, a comparison which will hold in most particulars except that of accumulating wealth. The author, who was at Londonderry when this tragedy came out, inscribed it to Edward Coke of Norfolk, esq. in a dedication remarkably modest and pathetic. It is dated Nov. 1, 1699, and concludes, “I now begin to experience how much the mind may be influenced by the body. My Muse is confined, at present, to a weak and sickly tenement; and the winter season will go near to overbear her, together with her household. There are storms and tempests to beat tier down, or frosts to bind her up and kill her; and she has no friend on her side but youth to hear her through; If that can sustain the attack, and hold out till spring comes to relieve me, one use I shall make of fa<ther life shall be to shew how much I am, sir, your most devoted humble servant, C. Hopkins.”

, another son of the bishop of Londonderry, who deviated likewise from his father’s character, was born January 1, 1675. Like his elder brother, his poetry turned principally on’subjects of love; like him too, his prospects in lite appear to have terminated unfortunately. He published, in 1693, “The Triumphs of Peace, or the Glories of Nassau; a Pindaric poem occasioned by the conclusion of the peace between the Confederacy and France; written at the time of his grace the duke of Ormond’s entrance into Dublin.” “The design of this poem,” the author says in his preface, “begins, after the method of Pindar, to one great man, and rises to another; first touches the duke, then celebrates the actions of the king, and so returns to the praises of the duke again.” In the same year he published “The Victory of Death; or the Fall of Beauty; a visionary Pindaric poem, occasioned by the ever to-be-deplored death of the right honourable the lady Cutts,” 8vo. But the principal performance of J. Hopkins was “Amasia, or the works of the Muses, a collection of Poems,” 1700, in 3 vols. Each of these little volumes is divided into three books, and each book is inscribed to some beautiful patroness, among whom the tKichess of Grafton stands foremost. The last Ijook is inscribed “To the memory of Amasia,” whom he addresses throughout these volumes in the character of Sylvius. There is a vein of seriousness, if not of poetry, runs through the whole performance. Many of Ovid’s stories are very decently imitated “most of them,” he says, “have been very well performed by my brother, and published some years since mine were written in another kingdom before I knew of his.” In one of his dedications he tells the lady Olympia Robartes, “Your ladyship’s father, the late earl of Radnor, when governor of Ireland, was the kind patron to mine: he raised him to the first steps by which v he afterwards ascended to the dignities he bore; to those, which rendered his labours more conspicuous, and set in a more advantageous light those living merits, which now make his memory beloved. These, and yet greater temporal honours, your family heaped on him, by making even me in some sort related and allied to you, by his inter-marriage with your sister the lady Araminta. How imprudent a vanity is it in me to boast a father so meritorious! how may 1 be ashamed to prove myself his son, by poetry, the only qualification he so much excelled in, but yet esteemed no excellence. I bring but a bad proof of birth, laying my claim in that only thing he would not own. These are, however, madam, but the products of immature years; and riper age, may, I hope, bring forth more solid works.” We have never seen any other of his writings: nor hare been able to collect any farther particulars of his life: but there is a portrait of him, under his poetical name of Sylvius.

, an English divine, was born at Baccharack, a town in the Lower Palatinate, in 1641. His father was recorder or secretary of that town, a strict protestant; and the doctor was brought up in the same manner, though some, we find, asserted that he was originally a papist. He was designed for the sacred ministry from his birth, and first sent to Heidelberg, where he studied divinity under Spanheim, afterwards professor at Leyden. When he was nineteen he came over to England, and was entered of Queen’s college, in Oxford, Dec. 1663; of which, by the interest of Barlow, the provost of that college, and afterwards bishop of Lincoln, he was made chaplain soon after his admission. He was incorporated M. A. from the university of Wittemberg, Dec. 1663; and not long after made vicar of All Saints, in Oxford, a living in the gift of Lincoln-college. Here he < ontinued two years, and was then taken into the family of the duke of Albemarle, in quality of tutor to his son lord Torrington. The duke presented him to the rectory of Doulton, in Devonshire, aud procured him also a prebend in the church of Exeter. In 1669, before he married, he went over into Germany to see his friends, where he was much admired as a preacher, and was entertained with great respect at the court of the elector Palatine. At his return in 1671, he was chosen preacher in the Savoyj where he continued to officiate till he died . This, however, was but poor maintenance, the salary being small as well as precarious, and be continued in mean circumstances for some years, after the revolution; till, as his. biographer, bishop Kidder, says, it pleased God to raise up a friend who concerned himself on his behalf, namely, the lord admiral Russel, afterwards earl of Orford. Before he went to sea, lord Russel waited on the queen to take leave and when he was with her, begged of her that she “would be pleased to bestow some preferment on Dr. Horneck.” The queen told him, that she “could not at present think of any way of preferring the doctor” and with this answer the admiral was dismissed. Some time after, the queen related what had passed to archbishop Tillotson; and added, that she “was anxious lest the ad-, miral should think her too unconcerned on the doctor’s behalf.” Consulting with him therefore what was to be done, Tillotson advised her to promise him the next prebend of Westminster that should happen to become void. This the queen did, and lived to make good her word in 1693. In 1681 he had commenced D. D. at Cambridge, and was afterwards made chaplain to king William and queen Mary. His prebend at Exeter lying at a great distance from him, he resigned it; and in Sept. 1694 was admitted to a prebend in the church of Wells, to which he was presented by his friend Dr. Kidder, bishop of Bath and Wells. It was no very profitable thing; and if it had been, he would have enjoyed but little of it, since he died so soon after as Jan. 1696, in his fifty-sixth year. His body being opened, it appeared that both his ureters were stopped; the one by a stone that entered the top of the ureter with a sharp end; the upper part of which was thick, and much too large to enter any farther; the other by stones of much less firmness and consistence. He was interred in Westminster-abbey, where a monument, with an handsome inscription upon it, was erected to his memory. He was, says Kidder, a man of very good learning, and had goou skill in the languages. He had applied himself to the Arabic from his youth, and retained it to his death. He had great skill in the Hebrew likewise nor was his skilllimited to the Biblical Hebrew only, but he was also a great master in the Rabbinical. He was a most diligent and indefatigable reader of the Scriptures in the original languages: “Sacras literas tractavit indefesso studio,” says his tutor Spanheiui of him: and adds, that he was then of an elevated wit, of which he gave a specimen in 1655, by publicly defending “A Dissertation upon the Vow of Jephthah concerning the sacrifice of his daughter.” He had great skill in ecclesiastical history, in controversial and casuistical divinity; and it is said, that few men were so frequently consulted in cases of conscience as Dr. Horneck. As to his pastoral care in all its branches, he is set forth as one of the greatest examples that ever lived. “He had the zeal, the spirit, the courage, of John the Baptist,” says Kidder, “and durst reprove a great man; and perhaps that man lived not, that was more conscientious in this matter. I very well knew a great man,” says the bishop, “and peer of the realm, from whom ne had just expectations of preferment; but this was so far from stopping his mouth, that he reproved him to his face, upon a very critical affair. He missed of his preferment, indeed, but saved his own soul. This freedom,” continues the bishop, “made his acquaintance and friendship very desirable by every good man, that would be better. He would in him be very sure of a friend, that would not suffer sin upon him. I may say of him what Pliny says of Corellius Rufus, whose death he laments, “amisi meæ vitæ testem,' &c. ‘I have lost a faithful witness of my life;’ and may add what he said upon that occasion to his friend Calvisius, ‘vereor ne negligentius vivam,’ ‘I am afraid lest for the time to come I should live more carelessly.’” His original works are, 1.” The great Law of Consideration: or, a discourse wherein the nature, usefulness, and absolute necessity of consideration, in order to a truly serious and religious life, are laid open,“London, 1676, 8vo, which has been several times reprinted with additions and corrections. 2.” A letter to a lady revolted to the Romish church,“London, 1678, 12mo. 3.” The happy Ascetick: or the best Exercise,“London, 1681, 8vo. To this is subjoined,” A letter to a person of quality concerning the holy lives of the primitive Christians.“4.” Delight and Judgment: or a prospect of the great day of Judgment, and its power to damp and imbitter sensual delights, sports, and recreations,“London, 1683, 12mo. 5.” The Fire of the Altar: or certain directions how to raise the soul into holy flames, before, at, and after the receiving of the blessed Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper with suitable prayers and devotions,“London, 1683, 12mo. To this is prefixed,” A Dialogue between a Christian and his own Conscience, touching the true nature of the Christian Religion.“6.” The Exercise of Prayer; or a help to devotion; being a supplement to the Happy Ascetick, or best exercise, containing prayers and devotions suitable to the respective exercises, with additional prayers for several occasions,“London, 1685, 8vo. 7.” The first fruits of Reason: or, a discouse shewing the necessity of applying ourselves betimes to the serious practice of Religion,“London, 1685, 8vo. 8.” The Crucified Jesus: or a full account of the nature, end, design, and benefit of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, with necessary dU rections, prayers, praises, and meditations, to be used by persons who come to the holy communion,“London, 1686, 8vo. 9.” Questions and Answers concerning the two Religions; viz. that of the Church of England and of the Church of Rome.“10.” An Answer to the Soldier’s Question: What shall we do?“11, Several single Sermons. 12.” Fifteen Sermons upon the fifth chapter of St. Matthew," London, 1698, 8vo.

In 1768 he went to Christ church, Oxford, as private tutor to Heneage earl of Aylesbury, then lord Guernsey. To this university he appears to have become attached; and his first mathematical publication was elegantly printed at the Clarendon press, “Apollonii Pergaci inclinationum libri duo. Resthuebat S. Horsley,” 1770. This work was criticised with some severity at the time, but does not appear to have injured his rising reputation, especially wnh the members of the royal society, who chose him to the office of secretary in November 1773. In 1774 he was incorporated B.C. L. at Oxford, and immediately proceeded to the degree of D. C. L. and was presented by his patron, the earl of Aylesbury, to the rectory of Aldbiiry in. Surrey, with which he obtained a dispensation to hold the rectory of Newington. In the same year he published “Remarks on the Observations made in the late Voyage towards the North Pole, for determining the acceleration, of the Pendulum, in latitude 79 51'. In a letter to the hon. Constantinefohn Phipps,” 4to. His intention in this pamphlet, which ought ever to be bound up with “Phipps’s Voyage,” is to correct two or three important errors and inaccuracies that had been introduced, by Israel Lyons, the mathematician employed on the voyage, in the numerous mathematical calculations which appear in that valuable work; and this it was acknowledged, was performed by our learned author with equal skill, delicacy, and candour. I>r. Horsley had long meditated a complete edition of the works of sir Isaac Newton, and in 1776 issued proposals for printing it, by subscription, in 5 vote. 4to, having obtained the royal permission to dedicate it to his majesty; but the commencement of it was for a considerable time delayed by severe domestic affliction, arising from the illness of his wife, for whom he had the tenderest regard. She died in the following year, and some time after, the works of Newton were put to press, but were not finally completed until 1785. In the mean time his great diligence and proficiency in various sciences attracted the notice of an excellent judge of literary merit, the late Dr. Lowth, bishop of London, who on his promotion to that see in 1777, appointed Dr. Horsley his domestic chaplain; and collated him to a prebend in St. Paul’s cathedral. He also, by the same interest, succeeded his father as clerk in orders at St. Martin’s in the Fields.

The persons who undertook and brought to conclusion this great national work, were the two Knaptons, booksellers, encouraged by the vast success of Rapin’s History of England. They employed both Vertue and Houbraken, but chiefly the latter, and the publication began in numbers in 1744. The rirst volume was completed in 1747, and the second in 1152. It was accompanied with short lives of the personages, written by Dr. Birch. Lord Orford observes, that some of Houbraken’s beads were carelessly done, especially those of the moderns; and the engraver living in Holland, ignorant of our history, uninquisitive into the authenticity of what was transmitted to him, engraved whatever was sent. His lordship mentions two instances, the heads of Carr earl of Somerset, and secretary Thurlow, which are not only not genuine, but have not the least resemblance to the persons they pretend to represent. Mr. Gilpin, in his Essay on Prints, says, "Houbraken is a genius, and has given us in his collection of English portraits, some pieces of engraving at least equal to any thing of the kind. Such are the heads of Hampden, Schomberg, the earl of Bedford, and the duke of Richmond particularly, aud some others. At the same time, we must own that he has intermixed among his works a great numbe/ of bad prints. In his best, there is a wonderful union of softness and freedom. A more elegant and flowing line no artist ever employed.]' Mr. Strutt estimates his general merits more minutely. Houbraken’s great excellence, says that ingenious writer, consisted in the portrait line of engraving. We admire the softness and delicacy of execution, which appear in his works, joined with good drawing, and a fine taste. If his best performances have ever been surpassed, it is in the masterly determination of the features which we find in the works of Nanteuil, Edelink, and Drevet this gives an animation to the countenance, more easily to be felt than described. From his solicitude to avoid the appearance of an outline, he seems frequently to have neglected the little sharpnesses of light and shadow, which not only appear in nature, but, like the accidental semitones in music, raise a pleasing sensation in the mind, in proportion as the variation is judiciously managed. For want of attention to this essential beauty, many of his celebrated productions have a misty appearance, and do not strike the eye with the force we might expect, when we consider the excellence of the engraving. The Sacrifice of Manoah, from Rembrandt, for the collection of prints from the pictures in the Dresden gallery, is the only attempt he made in historical engraving; but in it he by no means succeeded so well. Of his private life, family, or character, nothing is known. He lived to a good old age, and died at Amsterdam, in 1780.

, earl of Surrey, and duke of Norfolk, an eminent commander in the reign of Henry VIII. was born in 1473, and brought up to arms, and soon after the accession of Henry was decorated with the knighthood of the garter. He served with his brother sir Edward, against sir Andrew Barton, a Scotch free-booter, or pirate, who perished in the action. Wuen his brother, sir Edward, was killed in an action near Brest, in 1513, he was appointed to the office in his stead, and in the capacity of high admiral he effectually cleared the channel of French cruisers. The victory of Flodden-field, in which the king of Scotland was slain, was chiefly owing to his valour and good conduct. For this his father was restored to the title of duke of Norfolk, and the title of earl of Surrey was conferred on him. In 1521 he was sent to Ireland as lordlieutenant, chiefly for the purpose, it was thought, of having him out of the way during the proceedings against his father-in-law, the duke of Buckingham. Here he was very instrumental in suppressing the rebellion, and having served there two years he returned, and had the command of the fleet against France. By the death of his father he succeeded to the title and estates as duke of Norfolk. Notwithstanding his great services, Henry, at the close of his tyrannical life and reign, caused the duke to be sent to the Tower on a charge of high treason, and his son to be beheaded in his presence. The death of the king saved the duke’s life. He was, however, detained prisoner during the whole of the reign of Edward VI. but one of the first acts of Mary, after her accession to the throne, was to liberate him. He was, after this, the principal instrument in suppressing the rebellion excited by sir Thomas Wyatt. He died in August 1554, having passed his eightieth year. He was father to the illustrious subject of our next article.

, Earl of Surrey. This highly accomplished nobleman has been peculiarly unfortunate in his biographers, nor is there in the whole range of the English series, a life written with less attention to probability. Even the few dates on which we can depend have been overlooked with a neglect that is wholly unaccountable in men so professedly attentive to these matters, as Birch, Walpole, and Warton. The story usually told consists of the following particulars:

Henry Howard, earl of Surrey, was the eldest son of Thomas, the third duke of Norfolk, lord high treasurer of England in the reign of Henry VIII. by Elizabeth, daughter of Edward Stafford, duke of Buckingham. He was born either at his father’s seat at Framlingham, in Suffolk, or in the city of Westminster, and being a child of great hopes, all imaginable care was taken of his education. When he was very young he was companion, at Windsor castle, with Henry Fitzroy, duke of Richmond, natural son to Henry VIII. and afterwards student in Cardinal college, now Christ Church, Oxford. In 1532 he was with the duke of Richmond at Paris, and continued there for some time in the prosecution of his studies, and learning the French language; and upon the death of that duke in July 1536, travelled into Germany, where he resided some time at the emperor’s court, and thence went to Florence, where he fell in love with the fair Geraldine, the great object of his poetical addresses, and in the grand duke’s court published a challenge against all who should dispute her beauty; which challenge being accepted, he came oft victorious. For this approved valour, the duke of Florence made him large offers to stay with him; but he refused them because he intended to defend the honour of his Geraldine in all the chief cities of Italy. But this design of his was diverted by letters sent to him by king Henry VIII. recalling him to England. He left Italy, therefore, where he had cultivated his poetical genius by the reading of the greatest writers of that country, and returned to his own country, where he was considered a one of the first of the English nobility, who adorned his high birth with the advantages of a polite taste and extensive literature. On the first of May, 1540, he was one of the chief of those who justed at Westminster, as a defendant, against sir John Dudley, sir Thomas Seymour, and other challengers, where he behaved himself with admirable courage, and great skill in the use of his arms, and, in 1542, served in the army, of which his father was lieutenant-genera!, and which, in October that year, entered Scotland, and burnt divers villages. In February or March following, he was confined to Windsor castle for eating flesh in Lent, contrary to the king’s proclamation of the 9th of February 1542. In 1544, upon the expedition to Boulogne, in France, he was field-marshal of the English army; and after taking that town, being then knight of the garter, he was in the beginning of September 1545, constituted the king’s lieutenant and captain-general of all his army within the town and country of Boulogne. During his command there in 1546, hearing that a convoy of provisions of the enemy was coming to the fort at Oultreau, he resolved to intercept it; but the Rhingrave, with' four thdusand Lanskinets, together with a considerable number of French under the marshal de Blez, making an obstinate defence, the Englisii were routed, anil sir Edward Poynings, with divers other gentlemen, killed, and the earl of Surrey himself obliged to fly; though it appears by a letter of his to the king, dated January 8, 1545-6, that this advantage cost the enemy a great number of men. But the king was so highly displeased with this ill success, that, from that time he contracted a prejudice against the earl, and, soon after, removed him from his command, appointing the earl of Hertford to succeed him. On this sir William Paget wrote to the earl of Surrey to advise him to procure some eminent post under the earl of Hertford, that he might not be unprovided in the town and field. The earl being desirous, in the mean time, to regain his former favour with the king, skirmished against the French, and routed them; but, soon after, writing over to the king’s council, that as the enemy had cast much larger cannon than had been yet seen, with which they imagined they should soon demolish Boulogne, it deserved consideration, whether the lower town should stand, as not being defensible, the council ordered him to return to England, in order to represent his sentiments more fully upon those points, and the earl of Hertford was immediately sent over in his room. This exasperating the earl of Surrey, occasioned him to let fall some expressions which savoured of revenge, and a dislike of the king, and an hatred of his counsellors; and was, probably, one great cause of his ruin soon after. His father, the duke of Norfolk, had endeavoured to ally himaelf to the earl of Hertford, and to his brother, sir Thomas Seymour, perceiving how much they were in the king’s favour, and how great an interest they were likely to have under the succeeding prince; and therefore he would have engaged his son, being then a widower (having lost his wife Frances, daughter of John earl of Oxford), to marry the earl of Hertford’s daughter, and pressed his daughter, the duchess of Richmond, widow of the king’s natural son, to marry sir Thomas Seymour. But though the earl of Surrey advised his sister to the marriage projected for her, yet he would nol consent to that designed for himself; nor did the proposition about himself take effect. The Seymours could not but perceive the enmity which the earl bore them; and they might well be jealous of the greatness of the Howard family, which was not only too considerable for subjects, of itself, but was raised so high by the dependence of th whole popish party, both at home and abroad, that they were likely to be very dangerous competitors for the chief government of affairs, if the king should die, whose disease was now growing so fast upon him that he could not live many weeks. Nor is it improbable, that they persuaded the king, that, if the earl of Surrey should marry the princess Mary, it might embroil his son’s government, and, perhaps, ruin him. And it was suggested that he had some such high project in his thoughts, both by his continuing unmarried, and by his using the arms of Edward the Confessor, which, of late, he had given in his coat without a diminution. To complete the duke of Norfolk’s and his son’s ruin, his duchess, who had complained of his using her ill, and had been separated from him about four years, turned informer against him. And the earl and his sister, the duchess dowager of Richmond, being upon ill terms together, she discovered all she knew against him; as likewise did one Mrs. Holland, for whom the duke was believed to have had an unlawful affection. But all these discoveries amounted only to some passionate expressions of the son, and some complaints of the father, who thought he was not beloved by the king and his counsellors, and that he was ill used in not being trusted with the secret of affairs. However, all persons being encouraged to bring informations against them, sir Richard Southwel charged the earl of Surrey in some points of an higher nature; which the earl denied, and desired to be admitted, according to the martial law, to fight, in his shirt, with sir Richard. But, that not being granted, he and his father were committed prisoners to the Tower on the 12th of December 1546; and the earl, being a commoner, was brought to his trial in Guildhall, on the 13th of January following, Jbefore the lord chancellor, the lord mayor, and other commissioners; where he defended himself with great skill and address, sometimes denying the accusations, and weakening the credit of the witnesses against him, and sometimes interpreting the words objected to him in a far different sense from what had been represented. For the point of bearing the arms of Edward the Confessor, he justified himself by the authority of the heralds. And when a witness was produced, who pretended to repeat some high words of his lordship’s, by way of discourse, which concerned him nearly, and provoked the witness to return him a braving answer; the qarl left it to the jury to judge whether it was probable that this man should speak thus to him, and he not strike him again. In conclusion, he insisted upon his innocence, but was found guilty, and had sentence of death passed upon him. He was beheaded on Tower-hill on the 19th of January 1546-7; and his body interred in the church of All Hallows Barking, and afterwards removed to Framlingham, in Suffolk.

Such is the account drawn up by Dr. Birch for the “Illustrious Heads,” from Anthony Wood, Camden, Herbert, Dugdale, and Burnet’s History of the Reformation. The principal errors, (corrected in this transcription,) are his making the earl of Surrey son to the second duke of Norfolk , and the duke of Richmond natural son to Henry the Seventh.

His next biographer to whom any respect is due was the late earl of Orford, in his Catalogue of “Royal and Noble Authors.” The account of Surrey, in this work, derives its chief merit from lord Orford’s ingenious explanation of the sonnet on Geraldine, which amounts to this, that Geraldine was Elizabeth (second daughter of Gerald Fitzgerald earl of Kildare), and afterwards third wife of Edward Clinton earl of Lincoln; and that Surrey probably saw her first at Hunsdon-house in Hertfordshire, where, as she was second cousin to the princesses Mary and Elizabeth, who were educated in this place, she might have been educated with them, and Surrey, as the companion of the duke of Richmond, the king’s natural son, might have had interviews with her, when the duke went to visit his sisters. All this is ingenious; but no light is thrown upon the personal history of the earl, and none of the difficulties, however obvious, in his courtship of Geraldine removed, or even hinted at; nor does lord Orford condescend to inquire into the dates of any event in his life.

Mr. Warton commences his account of Surrey by observing, that “Lord Surrey’s life throws so much light on the character and subjects of his poetry, that it is almost impossible to consider the one, without exhibiting a few anecdotes of the other.” He then gives the memoirs of Surrey almost in the words of lord Orford, except in th following instances: “A friendship of the closest kind commencing between these two illustrious youths (Surrey and the duke of Richmond), about the year 1530, they were both removed to cardinal Wolsey’s college at Oxford. Two years afterwards (1532) for the purpose of acquiring every accomplishment of an elegant education, the earl accompanied his noble friend and fellow-pupil into France, where they received king Henry, v on his arrival at Calais to visit Francis I. with a most magnificent retinue. The friendship of these two young noblemen was soon strengthened by a utw tie; for Richmond married the lady Mary Howard, Surrey’s sister. Richmond, however, appears to have died in the year 1536, about the age of seventeen, having never cohabited with his wife. It was long before Surrey forgot the untimely loss of this amiable youth, the friend and associate of his childhood, and who nearly resembled himself in genius, refinement of manners, and liberal acquisitions.”

"It is not precisely known at what period the earl of Surrey began his travels. They have the air of a romance. He made the tour of Europe in the true spirit of chivalry, and with the ideas of an Amadis: proclaiming the unparalleled charms of his mistress, and prepared to defend the cause of her beauty with the weapons of knight-errantry. Nor was this adventurous journey performed without the intervention of an enchanter. The first city in Italy which he proposed to visit was Florence, the capital of Tuscany, and the original seat of the ancestors of his Geraidine. In his way thither, he passed a few days at the emperor’s court ^ where he became acquainted with Cornelius Agrippa, a celebrated adept in natural magic. This visionary philosopher shewed our hero, in a mirror of glass, a living image of Geraidine, reclining on a couch, sick, and reading one of his most tender sonnets by a waxen taper. His imagination, which wanted not the flattering F represeniations and artificial incentives of illusion, was heated anew by this interesting and affecting spectacle. Inflamed wiih every enthusiasm of the most romantic passion, he hastened to Florence and on his arrival, immediately published a defiance against any person who could handle a lance and was in love, whether Christian, Jew, Turk, Saracen, or Canibal, who should presume to dispute the superiority of Geraldine’s beauty. As the lady was pretended to be of Tuscan extraction, the pride of the Flo-, rentines was flattered on this occasion: and the grand duke of Tuscany permitted a general and unmolested ingress into his dominions of the combatants of all countries, till this important trial should be decided. The challenge was accepted, and the earl victorious. The shield which he presented to the duke before the tournament began, is exhibited in Vertue’s valuable plate of the Arundel family, and was actually in the possession of the late duke of Norfolk.

“Among these anecdotes of Surrey’s life, I had almost forgot to mention what became of his amour with the fair Geraldine. We lament to find that Surrey’s devotion to this lady did not end in a wedding, and that all his gallantries and verses availed so little. No memoirs of that incurious age have informed us whether her beauty was equalled by her cruelty; or whether her ambition prevailed so far over her gratitude, as to tempt her to prefer the solid glories of a more splendid title and ample fortune to the challenges and the compliments of so magnanimous, so faithful, and so eloquent a lover. She appears, however, to have been afterwards the third wife of Edward Clinton, earl of Lincoln. Such also is the power of time and accident over amorous vows, that even Surrey himself outlived the violence of his passion. He married Frances, daughter of John earl of Oxford, by whom he left several children. One of his daughters, Jane countess of Westmoreland, was among the learned ladies of that age, and became famous for her knowledge of the Greek and Latin languages.”

Mr. Warton observes, that “it is not precisely known at what period the earl of Surrey began his travels;” but this is a matter of little consequence in refuting the account usually given of those travels, because all his biographers are agreed that he did not set out before 1536, At this time he had ten years only of life before him, which have been filled up in a very extraordinary manner. First, he travels over a part of Europe, vindicating the beauty of Geraldine in 1540 he is celebrated at the justs at Westminster in 1542 he goes to Scotland with his father’s army in 1543 (probably) he is imprisoned for eating flesh in lent ^in 1544 5, he is commander at Boulogne and lastly, amidst all these romantic adventures, or serious events, he has leisure to marry the daughter of the earl of Oxford, and beget five children, which we may suppose would occupy at least five or six of the above ten years, and those not the last five or six years, for we find him a widower a considerable time before his death. Among other accusations whispered in the ear of his jealous sovereign, one was his continuing unmarried (an expression which usually denotes a considerable length of time) after the period when a second marriage might be decent, in order that he might marry the princess Mary, in the event of the king’s death, and so disturb the succession of Edward. The placing of these events in this series would render the story of his knight-errantry sufficiently improbable, were we left without any information respecting the date of Surrey’s marriage, but that event renders the whole impossible, if we wish to preserve any respect for the consistency of his character. Surrey was actually married before the commencement of his travels in pursuit or in defence of Geraldine’s beauty. His eldest son, Thomas, third duke of Norfolk, was eighteen years old when his grandfather died in 1554. He was consequently born in 1536, and his father, it is surely reasonable to suppose, was married in 1535. It would, therefore, be unnecessary to examine the story of Surrey’s romantic travels any farther, if we had not some collateral authorities which may still show that whatever may be wrong in the present statement, it is certain that there is nothing right in the common accounts, which have been read and copied without any suspicion.

If it be said that Surrey’s age is not exactly known, and therefore allowing 1536, the date of his travels, to be erroneous, it is possible that he might have been enamoured of Geraldine long before this, and it is possible that his travels might have commenced in 1526, or any other period founded on this new conjecture. This, however, is as improbable as all the rest of the story, for it can be decidedly proved that there was no time for Surrey’s gallantries towards Geraldine, except the period which his biographers, however absurdly, have assigned, namely, when he was a married man. The father of lady Elizabeth, the supposed Geraldine, married in 1519, one of the daughters of Thomas Grey, marquis of Dorset, and by her had five children, of whom Elizabeth was the fourth, and therefore probably not born before 1523 or 1524. If Surrey’s courtship, therefore, must be carried farther back, it must be carried to the nursery; for even in 1536, when we are told he was her knight-errant, she could not have been more than eleven or twelve years old. Let us add to this a few particulars respecting Geraldine’s husband. She married Edward lord C'linton. He was born in 1512, was educated in the court, and passed his youth in those magnificent and romantic amusements which distinguished the beginning of Henry VIII.'s reign, but did not appear as a public character until 1544, when he was thirty-two years of age, Geraldine about twenty-four, and Surrey within two years of his death, and most probably a widower. This earl of Lincoln had three wives; the date of his marriage with any of them is not known, nor how long they lived, but Geraldine was the third, the only one by whom he had no children, and who survived his death, which took place in 1584, thirty-eight years after the death of Surrey. Mr. Warton, in his earnest desire to connect her with Surrey, insinuates that she might have been either cruel, or that her “ambition prevailed so far over her gratitude as to tempt her to prefer the solid glories of a more splendid title and ample fortune, to the challenges and the compliments of so magnanimous, so faithful, and so eloquent a lover.” On this it is only necessary to remark, that the lady’s ambition might have been as highly gratified by marrying the accomplished and gallant Surrey, the heir of the duke of Norfolk, as by allying herself to a nobleman of inferior talents and rank. But of his two conjectures, Mr. Warton seems most to adhere to that of cruelty^ for he adds, that “Surrey himgelf outlived his amorous vows, and married the daughter of the earl of Oxford.” This, however, is as little deserving of serious examination, as the ridiculous story of Cornelius Agrippa showing Geraldine in a glass, which Anthony Wood found in Drayton’s “Heroical Epistle,” or probably, as Mr. Park thinks, took it from Nash’s fanciful “Life of Jack Wilton,” published in 1594, where, under the character of his hero, he professes to have travelled to the emperor’s court as page to the earl of Surrey. But it is unfortunate for this story, wheresoever borrowed, that Agrippa was no more a conjurer than any other learned man of his time, and that he died at Grenoble the year before Surrey is said to have set out on his romantic expedition. Drayton has made a similar mistake in giving to Surrey, as one of the companions of his voyage, the great sir Thomas More, who was beheaded in 1535, a year likewise before Surrey set out. Poetical authorities, although not wholly to be rejected, are of all others to be received with the greatest caution, yet it was probably Drayton’s “Heroical Epistle” which led Mr. Warton into so egregious a blunder as that of our poet being present at Flodden-field, in 1513. Dr. Sewell, indeed, in the short memoirs prefixed to his edition of Surrey’s Poems, asserts the same; tut little credit is due to the assertion -of a writer who at the same time fixes Surrey’s birth in 1520, seven years after that memorable battle was fought.

Surrey’s poems were in high reputation among his contemporaries and immediate successors, who vied with each other in compliments to his genius, gallantry, and personal worth. They were first printed in 1557, by Tottel, in 4to, with die title of “Songes and sonnettes by the right honorable Henry Howard, late earl of Surrey, and other.” Several editions of the same followed in 1565, 1567, 1569, 1574, 1585, and 1587. So many editions prove a degree of popularity which fell to the lot of very few poems of that age. But after the time of Elizabeth they became gradually obscure, and we find no modern edition until Pope’s incidental notice of him (in Windsor-Forest), as the “Granville of a former age,” induced the booksellers to employ Dr. Sewell to be the editor of Surrey’s, Wyat’s, and the poems of uncertain authors. But the doctor performed his task, with so little knowledge of the language, that this is perhaps the most incorrect edition extant of any ancient poet. It would have been surprizing had it contributed to revive his memory, or justify Pope’s comparison and eulogium.

, earl of Northampton, second son of the preceding, but unworthy of such a father, was born at Shottisham in Norfolk about 1539. He was educated at King’s college, and afterwards at Trinity-hall, Cambridge, where he took the degree of A. M. to which he was also admitted at Oxford, in 1568. Bishop Godwin says, his reputation for literature was so great in the unU versity, that he was esteemed“the learnedest among the nobility; and the most noble among the learned.” He was at first, probably, very slenderly provided for, being often obliged, as Lloyd records, “to dine with the chair of duke Humphrey.” He contrived, however, to spend some years in travel; but on his return could obtain no favour at court, at least till the latter end of queen Elizabeth’s reign, which was probably owing to his connections. In 1597, it seems as if he was in some power (perhaps, however, only through the influence of his friend lord Essex), because Rowland White applied to him concerning sir Robert Sydney’s suits at court. He was the grossest of flatterers, as appears by his letters to his patron and friend lord Essex; but while he professed the most unbounded friendship for Essex, he yet paid his suit to the lord treasurer Burleigh. On the fall of Essex, he insinuated himself so far into the confidence of his mortal enemy, secretary Cecil, as to become the instrument of the secretary’s correspondence with the king of Scotland, which passed through his hands, and has been since published by sit David Dalrymple. It is not wonderful, therefore, that a man of his intriguing spirit, was immediately on king James’s accession, received into favour. In May 1603, he was made a privy-counsellor; in January following, lord warden of the Cinque Ports; in March, baron of Marnhill, and earl of Northampton; in April 1608, lord privy seal; and honoured with the garter. In 1609, he succeeded John lord Lumley, as high steward of Oxford; and in 1612, Robert, earl of Salisbury, as chancellor of Cambridge. Soon after he became the principal instrument in the infamous intrigue of his great niece the countess of Essex with Carr viscount Rochester. The wretch acted as pander to the countess, for the purpose of conciliating die rising favourite and it is impossible to doubt his deep criminality in the murder of Overbury. About nine months afterwards, June 15, 1614, he died, luckily for himself, before this atrocious affair became the subject of public investigation. He was a learned man, but a pedant dark and mysterious, and far from possessing masterly abilities. It causes astonishment, says the elegant writer to whom we are indebted for this article, “when we reflect that this despicable and wicked wretch was the sou of the generous and accomplished earl of Surrey.” One of his biographers remarks, that “his lordship very prudently died a papist; he stood no chance for heaven in any other religion.”

, earl of Nottingham, lord high admiral of England, was son of William lord Howard of Effingliam, and grandson of Thomas second duke of Norfolk/ He was born in 1536, and initiated early into the affairs of state, being sent in 1559, on the death of Henry II. king of France, with a compliment or condolence to his successor Francis II. and to congratulate him on "his accession to the throne, &c. On his return he was elected one of the knights of the shire for the county of Surrey in 1562, and in 1569 was general of the horse under the earl of Warwick, in the army sent against the earls of Northumberland and Westmoreland, then in rebellion. The year following he went with a fleet of men of war to convoy the princess Anne of Austria, daughter of the emperor Maximilian, going into Spain, over the British seas; and in 1573, upon the death of his father, succeeded him in honours and estate. The same year he was installed knight of the garter, and likewise made lord chamberlain of the household; and in 1585 constituted lord high admiral of England.

In 1588, the memorable year of the Spanish invasion, the queen, knowing his abilities in naval affairs, and popularity with the seamen, gave him the command of her whole fleet, with which he entirely dispersed and destroyed the Spanish armada; and when, in 1596, another invasion was apprehended from the Spaniards, and a fleet of 150 ships was equipped with a proper number of land forces, he was appointed commander in chief at sea, as the earl of Essex was at land. In this expedition Cadiz was taken, and the Spanish fleet there burnt; and the lord high admiral had so great a share in this success, that on Oct. 22 of the same year he was advanced to the dignity of Earl of Nottingham, and appointed justice itinerant for, life of all the forests south of Trent. In 1599, upon an apprehension of the Spaniards again designing the invasion of England, and on private intelligence, that the earl of Essex, then lord deputy of Ireland, discontented at the power of his adversaries, was meditating to return into England with a select party of men, the queen having raised 6000 foot soldiers to be ready on any emergency, reposed so entire a confidence in the earl of Nottingham, that she committed to him the chief command. But these forces being again disbanded a few days after, he had no opportunity for action until 1601, when he suppressed the carl of Essex’s insurrection. The same year he was appointed one of the commissioners for exercising the office of earl marshal of England; and in the beginning of 1602-3, dnring the queen’s last illness, he was deputed by the council, with the lord keeper Egerton and secretary Cecil, to know her majesty’s pleasure in reference to the succession, which she declared in favour of James king of Scotland.

Upon the accession of that king to the throne of England, the earl was continued in his post of lord admiral, and at the coronation was made lord high steward of England for that occasion; and the year following, upon the renewing the commission to seven lords for exercising the office of earl marshal, he was appointed one of that number. In 1604 he was one of the commissioners to treat of an union between England and Scotland; and in 1605, sent ambassador to the court of Spain, attended with a splendid retinue, who being, as Wilson says, “persons of quality, accoutred with all ornaments suitable, were the more admired by the Spaniards for beauty and excellency, by how much the Jesuits had made impressions in the vulgar opinion, that since the English left the Roman religion, they were transformed into strange horrid shapes, with heads and tails like beasts and monsters.” His employment there was to take the oath of the king of Spain to the treaty of peace lately made with him; and he had a particular instruction, that in performing that ceremony, which was most likely to be in the royal chapel, he should have especial care, that it might be done, not in the forenoon in the time of mass, but rather in the afternoon, at which time the Romish service is most free from superstition. During this embassy, the king of Spain did more honour to the earl than ever he had done to any person in his employment in that kingdom; and the people in general shewed all possible regard for him, as his lordship’s behaviour there justly deserved; and at his departure from thence in June the same year, he had presents made him by that king in plate, jewels, and horses, to the value of 20.000l. besides the gold chains and jewels given to his Upon the marriage of the lady Elizabeth to the Elector Palatine, February 14, 1612-13, the earl of Nottingham with the duke of Lenox conducted her highness from the chapel; and had the honour of convoying Jierwith a royal navy to Flushing. He continued lord high admiral of England till February 6, 1618-19, when finding himself unable any longer to perform the necessary duties of that great employment, which he ha4 enjoyed about thirty-three years with the highest applause, he voluntarily resigned it to his majesty; who being sensible of the important services which he had done the nation, remitted him a debt owing to the crown of 1 8,000l. settled upon him a pension of 1000l. a year for life, and granted him the place and precedency of John Mowbray, who had been created earl of Nottingham by king Richard II. at the time of his coronation.

He died at the age of eighty-eight, leaving rather an everlasting memorial of his extraordiaary worth, than any great estate to his family; although he had enjoyed so long the profitable post of lord admiral. He lived in a most splendid and magnificent manner, keeping seven standing houses at the same time; and was always forward to promote any design serviceable to his country. He expended in several expeditions great sums out of his private fortune; and in the critical year 1588, when, on a surmise, that the Spaniards were unable to set sail that year, secretary Walsingham, by order of the queen, wrote to him to send back four of his largest ships, he desired, that nothing might be rashly credited in so weighty a matter, and that he might keep those ships with him, though it were at his own cost; and in the expedition to Cadiz, he, and the earl of Essex, the two commanders, contributed very largely out of their own estates. Sir Robert Naunton styles him “a good, honest, and brave man; and as for his person, as goodly a gentleman as any of that age:” and Mr. Osborne tells us, that his “fidelity was impregnable in relation to corruption.” By his first wife, Catharine, daughter to Henry Gary lord Hunsdon, he had two sons and three daughters; and by his second, Margaret, daughter to James Stuart earl of Murray in Scot-< land, two sons.

, an English writer of some abilities and learning, born Jan. 1626, was a younger son of Thomas earl of Berkshire, and educated at Magdalen college, Cambridge. During the civil war he suffered with his family, who adhered to Charles I. but at the Restoration was made a knight, and chosen for Stockbridge in Hampshire, to serve in the parliament which began in May 1661. He was afterwards made auditor of the exchequer, and was reckoned a creature of Charles II. whom the monarch advanced on account of his faithful services, in cajoling the parliament for money. In 1679 he was chosen to serve in parliament for Castle Rising in Norfolk; and re-elected for the same place in 1688. He was a strong advocate for the Revolution, and became so passionate an abhorrer of the nonjurors, that he disclaimed all manner of conversation and intercourse with persons of that description. His obstinacy and pride procured him many enemies, and among them the duke of Buckingham; who intended to have exposed him under the name of Bilboa in the “Rehearsal,” but afterwards altered his resolution, and levelled his ridicule at a much greater name, under that of Bayes. He was so extremely positive, and so sure of being in the right upon every subject, that Shadwell the poet, though a man of the same principles, could not help ridiculing him in his comedy of the “Sullen Lovers,” under the character of Sir Positive At-all. Jn the same play there is a lady Vaine, a courtezan which the wits then understood to be the mistress of sir Robert, whom he afterwards married. He died Sept. 3, 1698. He published, 1. “Poems and Plays.” 2. “The History of the Reigns of Edward and Richard II. with reflections and characters of their chief ministers and favourites; also a comparison of these princes with Edward I. and III.” 1690, 8vo. 3. “A letter to Mr. Samuel Johnson, occasioned by a scurrilous pamphlet, entitled Animadversions on Mr. Johnson’s answer to Jovian,” 1692, 8vo. 4. “The History of Religion,” 1694, 8vo. 5. “The fourth book of Virgil translated,” 1660, 8vo. 6. “Statius’s Achilleis translated,” 1660, 8vo.

, the author of a very popular book of “Devout Meditations,” was the third son of John, Grubham Howe, of Langar in Nottinghamshire, by his wife Annabelia, third natural daughter and coheiress of Emanuel earl of Sunderland, lord Scrope of Bolton. He was born in Gloucestershire in 1661, and during the latter end of the reign of Charles II. was much at court. About 1686 he went abroad with a near relation, who was sent by James II. as ambassador to a foreign court. The ambassador died; and our author, by powers given to hint to that effect, concluded the business of the embassy. He had an offer of being appointed successor to his friend in his public character; but disliking the measures that were then carried on at court, he declined it, and returned to England, where he soon after married a lady of rank and fortune, who, dying in a few years, left behind her an only daughter, married afterwards to Peter Bathurst, esq. brother to the first earl Bathurst. After his lady’s death, Mr. Howe lived for the most part in the country, where he spent many of his latter years in a close retirement, consecrated to religious meditations and exercises. He was a man of good understanding, of an exemplary life, and cheerful conversation. He died in 1745. The work by which he is still remembered, was entitled “Devout Meditations; or a collection of thoughts upon religious and philosophical subjects,” 8vo, and was first published anonymously; but the second edition, at the instance of Dr. Young and others, came out in 1752 with the author’s name. It has often been reprinted since. Dr. Young said of this book, that he " should never lay it far out of his reach; for a greater demonstration of a sound head and sincere heart he never saw.

, fourth viscount Howe, and earl Howe, and first baron Howe of Langar, a gallant English admiral, was the third son of sir Emanuel Scrope, second lord viscount Howe, and Mary Sophia Charlotte, eldest daughter to the baron Kilmansegge. He was born in 1725, was educated at Eton, entered the sea-service at the age of fourteen, on board the Severn, hon. captain Legge, part of the squadron destined for the South Seas under Anson. He next served on board the Burford, 1743, under admiral Knowles, in which he was afterwards appointed acting lieutenant; but his commission not being confirmed, he returned to admiral Knowles in the West- Indies, where he was made lieutenant of a sloop of war; and being employed to cut an English merchantman, which had been taken by a French privateer under the guns of the Dutch settlement of St. Eustatia, and with the connivance of the governor, out of that harbour, he executed the difficult and dangerous enterprise in such a manner, as to produce the most sanguine expectations of his future services. In 1745, lieutenant Howe was with admiral Vernon in the Downs, but was in a short time raised to the rank of commander, in the Baltimore sloop of war, which joined the squadron then cruizing on the coast of Scotland, under the command of admiral Smith. During this cruize an action took place, in which captain Howe gave a fine example of persevering intrepidity. The Baltimore, in company with another armed vessel, fell in with two French frigates of thirty guns, with troops and ammunition for the service of the pretender, which she instantly attacked, by running between them. In the action which followed, capt. Howe received a wound hi his head, which at first appeared to be fatal. He, however, soon discovered signs of life, and when the necessary operation was performed, resumed all his former activity, continued the action, if possible, with redoubled spirit, and obliged the French ships, with their prodigious superiority in men and metal, to sheer off, leaving the Baltimore, at the same time, in such a shattered condition, as to be wholly disqualified to pursue them. He was, in consequence of this gallant service, immediately made post-captain, and in April 1746, was appointed to the Triton frigate, and ordered to Lisbon, where, in consequence of captain Holbourne’s bad state of health, he was transferred to the Rippon, destined for the Coast of Guinea. But he soon quitted that station to join his early patron admiral Knowles in Jamaica, who appointed him first captain of his ship of 80 guns; and at the conclusion of the war in 1748, he returned in her to England. In March 1750-51, captain Howe was appointed to the command of the Guinea station, in La Gloire, of 44 guns; when, with his usual spirit and activity, he checked the injurious proceedings of the Dutch governor-general on the coast, and adjusted the difference between the English and Dutch settlements. At the close of 1751, he was appointed to the Mary yacht, which was soon exchanged for the Dolphin frigate, in which he sailed to the Streights, where he executed many difficult and important services. Here he remained about three years; and soon after, on his return to England, he obtained the command of the Dunkirk of 60 guns, which was among the ships that were commissioned from an apprehension of a rupture with France. This ship was one of the fleet with which admiral Boscawen sailed to obstruct the passage of the French fleet into the Gulph of St. Lawrence, when captain Howe took the Alcide, a French ship of 64 guns, off the coast of Newfoundland. A powerful fleet being prepared, in 1757, under the command of sir Edward Hawke, to make an attack upon the French coast, captain Howe was appointed to the Magnanime, in which ship he battered the fort on the island of Aix till it surrendered. In 1758 he was appointed commodore of a small squadron, which sailed to annoy tke enemy on their coasts. This he effected with his usual success at St. Malo, where an hundred sail of ships and several magazines were destroyed; and the heavy gale blowing into shore, which rendered it impracticable for the troops to land, alone prevented the executing a similar mischief in the town and harbour of Cherbourg. On the 1st of July he returned to St. Helen’s. This expedition was soon followed by another, when prince Edward, afterwards duke of York, was entrusted to the care of commodore Howe, on board his ship the Essex. The fleet sailed on the 1st of August 1758, and on the 6th came to an anchor in the Bay of Cherbourg; the town was taken, and the bason destroyed. The commodore, with his royal midshipman on board, next sailed to St. Malo; and as his instructions were to keep the coast of France in continual alarm, he very effectually obeyed them. The unsuccessful affair of St. Cas followed. But never was courage, skill, or humanity, more powerfully or successfully displayed than on this occasion. He went in person in his barge, which was rowed through the thickest fire, to save the retreating soldiers; the rest of the fleet, inspired hy his conduct, followed his example, and at least seven hundred men were preserved, by his exertions, from the fire of the enemy or the fury of the waves. In July in the same year (1758), his elder brother, who was serving his country with equal ardour and heroism in America, found an early grave. That brave and admirable officer was killed in a skirmish between the advanced guard of the French, and the troops commanded by general Abercrombie, in the expedition against Ticonderago. Commodore Howe then succeeded to the titles and property of his family. In the following year (1759), lord Howe was employed in the Channel, on board his old ship the Magnanime but no opportunity offered- to distinguish himself till the month of November, when the French fleet, under Conflans, was defeated. When he was presented to the king by sir Edward Hawke on this occasion, his majesty said, “Your life, my lord, has been one continued series of services to your country.” In March 1760, he was appointed colonel of the Chatham division of marines; and in September following, he was ordered by sir Edward Hawke to reduce the French fort on the isle of Dumet, in order to save the expence of the transports employed to carry water for the use of the fleet. Lord Howe continued to serve, as occasion required, in the Channel; and in the summer of 1762, he removed to the Princess Amelia, of 80 guns, having accepted the command as captain to his royal highness the duke of York, now rear-admiral of the blue, serving as second in command under sir Edward Hawke, in the Channel. On the 23d of August, 1763, his lordship was appointed to the board of admiralty, where he remained till August 1765: he was then made treasurer of the navy; and in October 1770, was promoted to be rear-admiral of the blue, and commander in chief in the Mediterranean. In March 1775, he was appointed rear-admiral of the white; and was soon after chosen to represent the borough of Dartmouth in parliament. In the month of December, in the same year, he was made vice-admiral of the blue. It was on one of these promotions that lord Hawke, then first lord of the admiralty, rose in the house of peers, and said, “I advised his majesty to make the promotion. 1 have tried my lord Howe on fmportant occasions; he never asked me how he was to execute any service, but always went and performed it.” In 1778, France having become a party in the war, the French admiral D‘Estaing appeared, on the llth of July, in sight of the British fleet, at Sandy Hook, with a considerable force of line of battle ships, in complete equipment and condition. Most of the ships under lord Howe had been long in service, were not well manned, and were not line of battle ships of the present day. The French admiral, however, remained seven days without making an attack, and by that lime lord Howe had disposed his inferior force in such a manner as to set him at defiance. On D’Estaing’s leaving the Hook, lord Howe heard of the critical situation of Rhode Island, and made every possible exertion to preserve it. He afterwards acted chiefly on the defensive. Such a conduct appears to have been required, from the state of his fleet, and the particular situation of the British cause in America. He, however, contrived to baffle all the designs of the French admiral; and may be said, considering the disadvantages with which he was surrounded, to have conducted and closed the campaign with honour. Lord Howe now resigned the command to admiral Byron; and on his return to England in October, immediately struck his flag. In the course of this year, he had been advanced to be vice-admiral of the white, and shortly after, to the same rank in the red squadron. On the change of administration in 1782, lord Howe was raised to the dignity of a viscount of Great Britain, having been previously advanced to the rank of admiral of the blue. He was then appointed to command the fleet fitted out for the relief of Gibraltar; and he fulfilled the important objects of this expedition. That fortress was effectually relieved, the hostile fleet baffled, and dared in vain to battle; and different squadrons detached to their important destinations; while the ardent hopes of his country’s foes were disappointed. Peace was concluded shortly after lord Howe’s return from performing this important service: and in January 1783, he was nominated first lord of the admiralty. That office, in the succeeding April, he resigned to lord Keppel; but was re-appointed on the 30th of December in the same year. On the 24th of September 1787, he was advanced to the rank of admiral of the white; and in July 1788, he finally quitted his station at the admiralty. In the following August he was created an earl of Great Britain.

But the greatest glory of lord Howe’s life was reserved almost to its close. On the breaking out of the revolutionary war in 1793, he accepted the command of the western squadron. Three powerful armaments were prepared for the campaign of 1794: one under lord Hood commanded the Mediterranean, reduced the island of Corsica, and protected the coasts of Spain and Italy; a second under sir John Jervis, afterwards lord St. Vincent, with a military force headed by sir Charles Grey, reduced Martijiico, Guadaloupe, St. Lucia, and St. Domingo; but the most illustrious monument of British naval glory was raised by earl Howe. During the preceding part of the war, France, conscious of her maritime inferiority, had confined her exertions to cruizers and small squadrons for harassing our trade; but in the month of May, the French were induced to depart from this system, and being very anxious for the safety of a convoy daily expected from America, with an immense supply of corn and flour, naval stores, &c. the Brest fleet, amounting to twenty-seven sail of the line, ventured to sea under tjbe command of rearadmiral Villaret. Lord Howe expecting the same convoy, went to sea with twenty ships of the line, and on the 28th of May descried the enemy to windward. After various previous manoeuvres which had been interrupted by a thick fog, the admiral found an opportunity of bringing the French to battle on the 1st of June. Between seven antj eight in the morning, our fleet advanced in a close and compact line; and the enemy, finding an engagement unavoidable, received our onset with their accustomed valour. A close and desperate engagement ensued, in the course of which, the Montague of 130 guns, the French admiral’s ship, having adventured to encounter the Queen Charlotte of 100 guns, earl Howe’s ship, was, in less than an hour, compelled to fly; the other ships of the same division, seeing all efforts ineffectual, endeavoured to follow the flying admiral: ten, however, were so crippled that they could not keep pace with the rest; but many of the British ships being also greatly damaged, some of these disabled French ships effected their escape. Six remained in the possession of the British admiral, and were brought safe into Portsmouth, viz. two of 80 and four of 74 guns; and the Le Vengeur, of 74, was sunk, making the whole loss to the enemy amount to seven ships of the line. The victorious ships arrived safe in harbour with their prizes; and the crews, officers, and admiral, were received with every testimony of national gratitude. On the 26th of the same month, their majesties, with three of the princesses, arrived at Portsmouth, and proceeded the next morning in barges to visit lord Howe’s ship, the Queen Charlotte, at Spithead. His majesty held a naval levee on board, and presented the victorious admiral with a sword, enriched with diamonds and a gold chain, with the naval medal suspended from it. The thanks of both houses of parliament, the freedom of the city of London, and the universal acclamations of the nation, followed the acknowledgments of the sovereign. In the course of the following year, he was appointed general of marines, on the death of admiral Forbes; and finally resigned the command of the western squadron in April 1797. On the 2d of June in the same year, he was invested with the insignia of the garter. The last public act of a life employed against the foreign enemies of his country, was exerted to compose its internal dissentions. It was the lot of earl Howe to contribute to the restoration of the fleet, which he had conducted to glory on the sea, to loyalty in the harbour. His experience suggested the measures to be pursued by government on the alarming mutinies, which in 1797 distressed and terrified the nation; while his personal exertions powerfully promoted the dispersion of that spirit, which had, for a time, changed the very nature of British seamen, and greatly helped to recall them to their former career of duty and obedience. This gallant officer, who gained the first of the four great naval victories which have raised the reputation of the British navy beyond all precedent and all comparison, died at his house in Graf ton -street, London, of the gout in his stomach, August 5, 1799. In 1758 his lordship married Mary, daughter of Chiverton Hartop, esq. of Welby, in the county of Leicester. His issue by this lady, is lady Sophia Charlotte, married to the hon. Pen Ashton Curzon, eldest son of lord Cuizon, who died in 1797; lady Mary Indiana, and lady Louisa Catharine, married to earl of Altamont, of Ireland. He was succeeded in his Irish viscounty by his brother, general sir William Howe, who died (1814) while this sheet was passing through the press; and in the English barony by lady Curzon.

Soon after his return, he quitted his stewardship of the glass-house; and having experienced the pleasures of travelling, was anxious to obtain more employments of the same kind. In 1622 he was sent into Spain, to recover a rich English ship, seized by the viceroy of Sardinia for his master’s use, on pretence of its having prohibited goods on board. In 1623, during his absence abroad, he was chosen fellow of Jesus college in Oxford, upon the new foundation of sir Eubule Thelwal: for he had taken unremitting care to cultivate his interest in that society. He tells sir Eubule, in his letter of thanks to him, that he “will reserve his fellowship, and lay it by as a good warm garment against rough weather, if any fall on him:” in which he was followed by Prior, who alleged the same reason for keeping his fellowship at St. John’s-college in Cambridge. Howell returned to England in 1624; and was soon after appointed secretary to lord Scrope, afterwards earl of Sunderland, who was made lord-president of the North. This office carried him to York; and while he resided there, the corporation of Richmond, without any application from himself, and against several competitors, chose him one of their representatives, in the parliament which began in 1627. In 1632, he went as secretary to Robert earl of Leicester, ambassador extraordinary from Charles I. to the court of Denmark, on occasion of the death of the queen dowager, who was grandmother to that king: and there gave proofs of his oratorical talents, in several Latin speeches before the king of Denmark, and other princes of Germany. After his return to England, his affairs do not appear so prosperous; for, except an inconsiderable mission, on which he was dispatched to Orleans in France by secretary Windebankin 1635, he was for some years destitute of any employment. At last, in 1639, he went to Ireland, and was well received by lord Strafford, the lord-lieutenant, who had before made him very warm professions of kindness, and employed him as an assistant-clerk upon some business to Edinburgh, and afterwards to London; but his rising hopes were ruined by the unhappy fate which soon overtook that nobleman. I 1640 he was dispatched upon some business to France; and the same year was made clerk of the council, which post was the most fixed in point of residence^ and the most permanent in its nature, that he bad ever enjoyed. But his royal master, having departed from his palace at Whitehall, was not able to secure his continuance long in it: for, in 1643, having visited London upon some business of his own, all his papers were seized by a committee of the parliament, his person secured, and, in a few days after, he was committed close prisoner to the Fleet. This at least he himself assigns as the cause of his imprisonment: but Wood insinuates, that he was thrown into prison, for debts contracted through his own extravagance; and indeed some of his own letters give room enough to suspect it. But whatever was the cause, he bore it cheerfully.

Hoelianae,“or the letters of James History of Poetry, vol. IV. p. 54. Howell, a great traveller, an intimate Hi 1660, with several additions. 24.” History of the Wars of Jerusalem epitomised.“25.” Ah, Ha; Tumulus, Thalamus two Counter- Poems the first an Elegy on Edward late earl of Dorset: the second an Epithalamium to the Marquis of Dorchester,“1653. 26.” The German Diet: or Balance of Europe, &c.“1653, folio, with the author’s portrait, at whole length. 27.” Parthenopeia: or, the History of Naples, &c.“1654. 28.” Londinopolis,“1657: a short discourse, says Wood, mostly taken from Stowe’s” Survey of London,“but a work which in onr time bears a high price, and is worth consulting, as containing particulars of the manners of Loodon in his days. 29.” Discourse of the Empire, and of the Election of the King of the Romans,“1658. 3O.” Lexicon Tetraglotton an English-French-Italian-Spanish Dictionary, &c.“1660, 31.” A Cordial for the Cavaliers,“1661. Answered immediately by sir Roger L'Estrange, in a book entitled” A Caveat for the Cavaliers:“replied to by Mr. Howell, in the next article, 32.” Some sober Inspections made into those ingredients that went to the composition of a late Cordial for the Cavaliers,“1661. 33.” A French Grammar, &c.“34.” The Parley of Beasts, &c.“1660. 35.” The second Part of casual Discourses and Interlocutions between Patricius and Peregrin, &c.“1661. 36.” Twelve Treatises of the hite Revolutions,“1661. 37.” New English Grammar ifor Foreigners to learn English: with a Grammar for the Spanish and Castilian Tongue, with special Remarks on the Portuguese Dialect, for the service of her Majesty,“1662. 38.” Discourse concerning the Precedency of Kings,"

Dr. Hudson intended, if he had lived, to publish a catalogue of the Bodleian library, which he had caused to be fairly transcribed in 6 vols. folio. He was an able assistant to several editors in Oxford, particularly to Dr. Gregory in his “Euclid,” and to the industrious Mr. Hearne in his “Livy,” &c. He corresponded with many learned men in foreign countries; with Muratori, Salvini, and Bianchini, in Italy; with Boivin, Kuster, and Lequien, in France; with Olearius, Menckenius, Christopher Woifius, and, whom he chiefly esteemed, John Albert Fabricius, in Germany; Eric Benzel, in Sweden; Frederic Rostgard, in Denmark; with Pezron, Reland, Le Clerc, in Holland, &c. He used to complain of the vast expence of foreign letters; for he was far from being rich, never having been possessed of any ecclesiastical preferment; of which he used also to make frequent and not unjust complaints. He met, sometimes, however, with generous patronage. When employed on his edition of Josephus, the earl of Caernarvon (afterwards duke of Chandos) hearing of his merit and the expensive nature of his undertaking, sent him a present of two hundred guineas, which Dr. Hudson handsomely acknowledges in the dedication to the earl’s son, lord Wilton, of his edition of Esop’s Fables. On his decease, several sets of his Josephus were disposed of by his widow, at twelve shillings per set, a work which now ranks in the very first class of Variorum editions in folio. Dr. Hudson had been long conversant with Josephus, had revised sir Roger L'Estrange’s translation, and added some critical notes. He also digested and finished Dr. Willis’s two discourses prefixed to that work. Hearne was a kind of pupil to Dr. Hudson, and directed by him in his critical studies.

His numerous performances, for he had all along employed his leisure hours in translations and imitations from the ancients, had by this time introduced him, not only to the wits of the age, Addison , Congreve, Pope, Southerne, Rowe, and others, but also to some men of rank in the kingdom, and among these to the earl of Wharton, who offered to carry him over, and to provide for him, when appointed lord-lieutenant of Ireland; but, having other other views at home, he declined the offer. His views, however, were not very promising, until in 1717 the lord chancellor Cowper made him secretary to the commissions of the peace; in which he afterwards, by a particular request, desired his successor, lord Parker, to continue him. He had now affluence; but such is human life, that he had it when his declining health could neither allow him long possession nor full enjoyment. His last work was his tragedy, “The Siege of Damascus;” after which a Siege became a popular title. This play was long popular, and is still occasionally produced; but is not acted or printed according to the author’s original draught, or his settled intention. He had made Phocyas apostatize from his religion; after which the abhorrence of Eudocia would have been reasonable, his misery would have been just, and the horrors of his repentance exemplary. The players, however, required that the guilt of Phocyas should terminate in desertion to the enemy; and Hughes, unwilling that his relations should lose the benefit of his work, complied with the alteration. He was now weak with a lingering consumption, and not able to attend the rehearsal; yet was so vigorous in his faculties, that only ten days before his death he wrote the dedication to his patron lord Cowper. On Feb. 17, 1720, the play was represented, and the author died. He lived ta hear that it was well received; but paid no regard to the intelligence, being then wholly employed in the meditations of a departing Christian.

A few weeks before he died, he sent, as a testimony of gratitude, to his noble friend earl Cowper, his own picture drawn by sir Godfrey Kneller, which he had received as a present from that painter: upon which the earl wrote him the following letter. “24 January 1719-20. Sir, I thank you for the most acceptable present of your picture, and assure you, that none of this age can set an higher value on it than I do, and shall while 1 live; though I am sensible that posterity will outdo me in that particular.”

, a celebrated philosopher and historian, was descended from a good family in Scotland, and born at Edinburgh April 26, 1711. His father was a descendant of the family of the earl of Hume or Home, and his mother, whose name was Falconer, was descended from that of lord Halkerton, whose title came by succession to her brother. This double alliance with nobility was a source of great self-complacency to Hume, who was a philosopher only in his writings. In his infancy he does not appear to have been impressed with those sentiments of religion, which parents so generally, we may almost add universally, at the time of his birth, thought it their duty to inculcate. He once owned that he had never read the New Testament with attention. However this may be, as he was a younger brother with a very slender patrimony, and of a studious, sober, industrious turn, he was destined by his family to the law: but, being seized with an early passion for letters, he found an insurmountable aversion to any thing else; and, as he relates, while they fancied him to be poring upon Voet and Vinnius, he was occupied with Cicero and Virgil. His fortune, however, being very small, and his health a little broken by ardent application to books, he was tempted, or rather forced, to make a feeble trial at business; and, in 1734, went to Bristol, with recommendations to some eminent merchants: but, in a few months, found that scene totally unfit for him. He seems, also, to have conceived some personal disgust against the men of business in that place: for, though he was by no means addicted to satire, yet we can scarcely interpret him otherwise than ironically, when, speaking in his History (anno 1660) of James Naylor’s entrance into Bristol upon a horse, in imitation of Christ, he presumes it to be “from the difficulty in that place of finding an ass”

Being now about fifty, he retired to Scotland, determined never more to set his foot out of it; and carried with him “the satisfaction of never having preferred a request to one great man, or even making advances of friendship to any of them.” But, while meditating to spend the rest of his life in a philosophical manner, he received, in 1763, an invitation from the earl of Hertford to attend him on his embassy to Paris; which at length he accepted, and was left there charg6 d'affaires in the summer of 1765. In Paris, where his peculiar philosophical opinions were then the mode, he met with the most flattering and unbounded attentions. He was panegyrized by the literati, courted by the ladies, and complimented by grandees, and even princes of the blood. In the beginning of 1766 he quitted Paris; and in the summer of that year went to Edinburgh, with the same view as before, of burying himself in a philosophical retreat; but, in 1767, he received from Mr. Con way a new invitation to be under-secretary of state, which, like the former, he did not think it expedient to decline. He returned to Edinburgh in 1769, “very opulent,” he says, “for he possessed a revenue of lOOOl. a year, healthy, and, though somewhat stricken in years, with the prospect of enjoying long his ease.” In the spring of 1775, he was struck with a disorder in his bowels; which, though it gave him no alarm at first, proved incurable, and at length mortal. It appears, however, that it was not painful, nor even troublesome or fatiguing: for he declares, that “notwithstanding the great decline of his person, he had never suffered a moment’s abatement. of his spirits; that he possessed the same ardour as ever in study, and the same gaiety in company: insomuch,” says he, “that, were I to name a period of my life which I should most choose to pass over again, I might be tempted to point to this latter period.” He died August 25, 1776; and his account of his own life, from which we have borrowed many of the above particulars, is dated only four mjonths previous to -hi* decease. As the author was then aware of the impossibility of a recovery, this may he considered as the testimony of a dying man respecting his own character and conduct. But it disappointed those who expected to find in it some acknowledgment of error, and some remorse on reflecting on the many whom he had led astray by his writings. Hume, however, was not the man from whom this was to be expected. He had no religious principles which he had violated, and which his conscience might now recall. He had none of the stamina of repentance. From a mere fondness for speculation, or a love of philosophical applause, the least harmful motives we can attribute to Hume, it was the business of his life, not only to extirpate from the human mind all that the good and wise among mankind have concurred in venerating, the authority and obligations of revealed religion; but he treats that authority and the believers in, and defenders of revealed religion, with a contempt bordering on abhorrence; or, as has been said of another modern infidel, “as if he had been revenging a personal injury.” Hume early imbibed the principles of a gloomy philosophy, the direct tendency of which was to distract the mind with doubts on subjects the most serious and important, and, in fact, to undermine the best interests, and dissolve the strongest ties of society. Such is the character of Hume’s philosophy, by one who knew him as intimately as Dr. Smith , who respected his talents and his manners, but would have disdained to insult wisdom and virtue by bestowing the perfection of them on the studies, the conversation, and the correspondence that were constantly employed in ridiculing religion. Another reason, perhaps, why Hume died in the same state of mind in which he had lived, gibing and jesting, as Dr. Smith informs us, with the prospect of eternity, may be this, that he was at the last surrounded by men who, being of nearly the same way of thinking, contemplated his end with a degree of satisfaction or as the triumph of philosophy over what he and they deemed superstition. Even his clerical friends, the Blairs and Robertsons, who professed to know, to feel, aud to teach what Christianity is, appear to have withheld the solemn duties of their office, and by their silence at least, acquiesced in his obduracy. His social qualities, his wit, his acuteness, and we may add, his fame, preserved to him the regard of his learned countrymen, who forgot the infidel in the historian.

We must now go back a little in the order of time, to describe the origin and progress of Dr. Hunter’s Museum, without some account of which these memoirs would be very incomplete. When he began to practise midwifery, he was desirous of acquiring a fortune sufficient to place him in easy and independent circumstances. Before many years had elapsed, he found himself in possession of a sum adequate to his wishes iii this respect; and this he set apart as a resource of which he might avail himself whenever age or infirmities should oblige him to retire from business. He has been heard to say, that he once took a considerable sum from this fund for the purposes of his museum, but that he did not feel himself perfectly at ease till he had restored it again. After he had obtained this competency, as his wealth continued to accumulate, he formed a laudable design of engaging in some scheme of public utility, and at first had it in contemplation to found an anatomical school in this metropolis. For this purpose, about 1765, during the administration of Mr. Grenville, he presented a memorial to that minister, in which he requested the grant of a piece of ground in the Mews for the site of an anatomical theatre. Dr. Hunter undertook to expend 7000l. on the building, and to endow a professorship of anatomy in perpetuity. This scheme did not meet with the reception it deserved. In a conversation on this subject soon afterwards with the earl of Shelburne, his lordship expressed a wish that the plan might be carried into execution by subscription, and very generously requested to have his name set down for 1000 guineas. Dr. Hunter’s delicacy would not allow him to adopt this proposal. He chose rather to execute it at his own expence, and accordingly purchased a spot of ground in Great Windmill-street, where he erected a spacious house, to which he removed from Jermyn-street in 1770. In this building, besides a handsome amphitheatre and other convenient apartments for his lectures and dissections, there was one magnificent room, fitted up with great elegance and propriety as a museum.

By excessive attention to these pursuits, his health was so much impaired, that he was threatened with consumptive symptoms, and being advised to go abroad, obtained the appointment of a surgeon on the staff, and went with the army to Belleisle, leaving Mr. Hewson to assist his brother. He continued in this service till the close of the war in 1763, and thus acquired his knowledge of the nature and treatment of gun-shot wounds. On his return to London, to his emoluments from private practice, and his half-pay, he added those which arose from teaching practical anatomy and operative surgery; and that he might be more enabled to carry on his inquiries in comparative anatomy, he purchased some land at Earl’s-court, near Brompton, where he built a house. Here also he kept such animals alive as he purchased, or were presented to him; studied their habits and instincts, and cultivated an intimacy with them, which with the fiercer kinds was not always supported without personal risk. It is recorded by his biographer, that, on finding two leopards loose, and likely to escape or be killed, he went out, and seizing them with his own hands, carried them back to their den. The horror he felt afterwards at the danger he had run, would not, probably, have prevented him from making a similar effort, had a like occasion arisen.

, author of the celebrated “Letter on Enthusiasm,” and, if Coxeter be right in his ms conjecture in his title-page of the only copy extant, of a farce called “Androboros.” He was appointed lieutenant-governor of Virginia in 1708, but was taken by the French in his voyage thither. Two excellent letters, addressed to colonel Hunter while a prisoner at Paris, which reflect equal honour on Hunter and Swift, are printed in the 12th volume of the Dean’s works, by one of which it appears, that the “Letter on Enthusiasm” had been ascribed to Swift, as it has still more commonly been to the earl of Shaftesbury. In 1710 he was appointed governor of New York, and sent with 2700 Palatines to settle there. From Mr. Cough’s “History of Croyland Abbey,” we learn, that Mr. Hunter was a major-general, and that, during his government of New-York, he was directed by her majesty to provide subsistence for about 3000 Palatine? (the number stated in the alienating act) sent from Great Britain to be employed in raising and manufacturing naval stores; and by an account stated in 1734, it appears that the governor had disbursed 20,000l. and upwards in that undertaking, no part of which was ever repaid. He returned to England in 1719; and on the accession of George II. was continued governor of New York and the Jerseys. On account of his health he obtained the government of Jamaica, where he arrived in February 1728; died March 31, 1734; and was buried in that island.

In May 1750, by Warburton’s recommendation to Dr. Sherlock, bishop of London, Mr. Kurd was appointed one of the Whitehall preachers. At this period the university of Cambridge was disturbed by internal divisions, occasioned by an exercise of discipline against some of its members, who had been wanting in respect to those who were entrusted with its authority. A punishment having been inflicted on some delinquents, they refused to submit to it, and appealed from the vice-chancellor’s jurisdiction. The right of the university, and those to whom their power was delegated, becoming by this means the subject of debate, several pamphlets appeared, and among others who signalised themselves upon this occasion, Mr. Kurd was generally supposed to have written “The Academic, or, a disputation on the state of the university of Cambridge, and the propriety of the regulations made in it on the 1 Ith day of May and the 26th day of June 1750, 8vo” but this was, as we have already remarked, the production of Dr. Green: Mr. Hurd, however, wrote “The opinion of an eminent lawyer (the earl of Hardwicke) concerning the right of appeal from the vice-chancellor of Cambridge to the senate; supported by a short historical account of the jurisdiction of the university; in answer to a late pamphlet, intituled * An Inquiry into the right of appeal from the vice-chancellor, &c.' By a fellow of a college,” 1751, 8vo. This passed through three editions; and being answered, was defended in “A Letter to the Author of a Further Inquiry,” 1752, 8vo. It is also preserved in the bishop’s works.

With this apology, we return to his well-earned promotions. In 1762, he had the sine-cure rectory of Folkton, near Bridlington, Yorkshire, given him by the lord chancellor (earl of Northington), on the recommendation of Mr. Allen of Prior-Park and in 1765, on the recommendation of bishop Warburton and Mr. Charles Yorke, he was chosen preacher of Lincoln’s-inn; and was collated to the archdeaconry of Gloucester, on the death of Dr. Geekie, by bishop Warburton, in August 1767. On Commencement Sunday, July 5, 1768, he was admitted D. D. at Cambridge; and on the same day was appointed to open the lecture founded by his friend bishop Warburton, for the illustration of the prophecies, in which he exhibited a model worthy of the imitation of his successors. His “Twelve Discourses” on that occasion, which had been delivered before the most polite and crowded audiences that ever frequented the chapel, were published in 1772, under the title of “An Introduction to the Study of the Prophecies concerning the Christian Church, and in particular concerning the Church of Papal Rome;” and raised his character as a divine, learned and ingenious, to an eminence almost equal to that which he possessed as a man of letters; but his notion of a double sense in prophecy, which he in general supposes, has not passed without animadversion. This volume produced a private letter to the author from Gibbon the historian, under a fictitious name, respecting the book of Daniel, which Dr. Hurd answered; and the editor of Gibbon’s Miscellaneous Works having printed the answer, Dr. Hurd thought proper to include both in the edition of his works published since his death (in 1811). It was not, however, until the appearance of Gibbon’s “Miscellaneous Works,” that he discovered the real name of his correspondent.

In 1780 he was entered a commoner of St. Mary-hall, Oxford; and at the election in 1782, was chosen a demy of St. Mary Magdalen college. Here his studies, which were close and uninterrupted, were encouraged, and his amiable character highly respected, by Dr. Home, president of Magdalen, and his successor Dr. Routh, by Dr. Sheppard, Dr. Rathbone, and others. About 1784 he went to Stanmer in Sussex, where he resided for some considerable time as tutor to the late earl of Chichester’s youngest son, the hon. George Pelham, now bishop of Exeter. In May 1785, having taken his bachelor’s degree, he retired to the curacy of Burwash in Sussex, which he held for six years, but in the interim, in 1786, was elected probationer fellow of Magdalen, and the following year took his master’s degree. Finding himself now sufficiently enabled to assist his mother in the support of her family, he hired a small house, and took three of his sisters to reside with him. In 1788, he first appeared before the public as a poet, in “The Village Curate,” the reception of which far exceeded his expectations, a second edition being called for the following year. This poem, although perhaps not highly finished, contained so many passages of genuine poetry, and evinced so much elegance, taste, and sense, as to pass through the ordeal of criticism with great applause, and to be considered as the earnest of future and superior excellence. Such encouragement induced the author to publish in 1790, his “Adriano, or the first of June,” which was followed in a short time by his “Panthea,” “Elmer and Ophelia,” and the “Orphan Twins,” all which were allowed to confirm the expectations of the public, and place the author in an enviable rank among living poets. These were followed by two publications, connected with his profession; “A short critical Disquisition ou the true Meaning of the word tO*OiJin, found in Gen. i. 21, 1790,” and “Select critical Remarks upon the English version of the first ten chapters of Genesis.” In 1791, through the interest of the earl of Chichester, he was appointed to the living of Bishopstone; and about the same time wrote his tragedy of “Sir Thomas More,” a poem of considerable merit, but not intended for the stage. In 1792, he was deprived by death of his favourite sister Catherine, whose elegant mind he frequently pourtrayed in his works, under the different appellations of Margaret and Isabel. On this affliction he quitted his curacy, and returned with his two sisters to Bishopstone. Here the trouble of his mind was considerably alleviated by an affectionate invitation from his much- esteemed friend Mr. Hayley to visit Eartham, where he had the pleasing satisfaction of becoming personally known to Cowper, the celebrated poet, with whom he had maintained a confidential correspondence for some years.

, an English autnor, whose writings have been much discussed, and who is considered as the founder of a party, if not of a sect, was born at Spenny thorn in Yorkshire in 1674. His father was possessed of about 40l. per ann. and determined to qualify his son for a stewardship to some gentleman or nobleman. He had given him such school- learning as the place afforded-, and the remaining part of his education was finished by a gentleman that boarded with his father. This friend is said to have instructed him, not only in such parts of the mathematics as were more immediately connected with his destined employment, but in every branch of that science, and at the same time to have furnished him with a competent knowledge of the writings of antiquity. At the age of nineteen, he went to be steward to Mr. Rathurst of Skutterskelf in Yorkshire, and from thence to the earl of Scarborough, who would gladly have engaged him in his service; but his ambition to serve the duke of Somerset would not suffer him to continue there, and accordingly he removed soon after into this nobleman’s service. About 1700 he was called to London, to manage a law-suit of consequence between the duke and another nobleman; and during his attendance in town, contracted an acquaintance with Dr. Woodward, who was physician to the duke his master. Between 1702 and 1706, his business carried him into several parts of England and Wales, where he made many observations, which he published in a little pamphlet, entitled, “Observations made by J. H. mostly in the year 1706.”

, earl of Clarendon, and chancellor of England, was descended from an ancient family in Cheshire, and born at Dinton in Wiltshire, Feb. 16, 1608. In 1622, he was entered of Magdalen-hall in Oxford, and ir 1625, took the degree of bachelor in arts but failing of a fellowship in Exeter college, for which he stood, he removed to the Middle Temple, where he studied the law for several years with diligence and success. When tha lawyers resolved to give a public testimony of their dissent from the new doctrine advanced in Prynne’s “Histriomastix,” in which was shewn an utter disregard of all manner of decency and respect to the crown, Hyde and Whitelocke were appointed the managers of the masque presented on that occasion to their majesties at Whitehall on Candlemas-day, 1633-4. At the same time he testified, upon all occasions, his utter dislike to that excess of power, which was then exercised by the court, and supported by the judges in Westminster-hall. He condemned the oppressive proceedings of the high-commission court, the star-chamber, the council-board, the earl-marshal’s court, or court of honour, and the court of York. This just way of thinking is said to have been formed in him by a domestic accident, which Burnet relates in the following manner: “When he first began,” says that historian, “to grow eminent in his profession of the law, he went down to visit his father in Wiltshire; who one day, as they were walking in the fields together, observed to him, that ‘ men of his profession were apt to stretch the prerogative too far, and injure liberty: but charged him, if ever he came to any eminence in his profession, never to sacrifice the laws and liberty of his country to his own interest, or the will of his prince.’ He repeated this twice, and immediately fell into a fit of apoplexy, of which he died in afew hours; and this advice had so lasting an influence upou the son, that he ever after observed and pursued it”

But though Hyde was very zealous for redressing the grievances of the nation, he was no less so for the security of the established church, and the honour of the crown. When a bill was brought in to take away the bishops’ vote in parliament, and to leave them out of all commissions of the peace, or any thing that had relation to temporal affairs, he was very earnest for throwing it out, and said, that, “from the time tbat parliaments begun, bishops had always been a part of it that if they were taken out, there was nobody left to represent the clergy which would introduce another piece of injustice, that no other part of the kingdom could complain of, who, being all represented in parliament, were bound to submit to whatever was enacted there, because it was, upon the matter, with their own consent: whereas, if the bill was carried, there was nobody left to represent the clergy, and yet they must be bound by their determination.” He was one of the committee employed to prepare the charge against the earl of Strafford: but, as soon as he saw the unjustifiable violence with which the prosecution was precipitated, he left them, and opposed the bill of attainder warmly. He was afterwards appointed a -manager at the conference with the house of lords, for abolishing the court of York, of which that earl had been for several years president; and was chairman also of several other committees, appointed upon the most important occasions, as long as he continued to sit among them. But, when they began to put in execution their ordinance for raising the militia against his majesty, Hyde, being persuaded that this was an act of open rebellion, left them; and they felt the blow given to their authority by his absence so sensibly, that in their instructions shortly after to the earl of Essex their general, he was excepted with a few others from any grace or favour.

During his retirement in Jersey, he began to write his “History of the Rebellion,” which had been particularly recommended to him, and in which he was assisted also by the king, who supplied him with several of the materials for it. We learn from the history itself, that upon lord CapePs waiting on the king at Hampton-court in 1647, his majesty wrote to the chancellor a letter, in which he “thanked him for undertaking the work he was upon; and told him, he should expect speedily to receive some contribution from him towards it;” and within a very short time afterwards, he sent to him memorials of all that had passed from the time he had left his majesty at Oxford, when he waited upon the prince into the west, to the very day that the king left Oxford to go to the Scots; out of which memorials the most important passages, in the years 1644 and 1645, are faithfully collected. Agreeably to this, the ninth book opens with declaring, that “the work was first undertaken with the king’s approbation, and by his encouragement; and particularly, that many important points were transmitted to the author by the king’s immediate direction and order, even after he was in the hands and power of the enemy, out of his own memorials and journals.” Thus we may trace the exact time when this history was begun; and the time when it was finished may be ascertained with the same degree of exactness, from the dedication of the author’s “Survey of the Leviathan,” in which he addresses himself to Charles II. in these terms “As soon as I had finished a work, at least recommended, if not enjoined to me by your blessed father, and approved, and in some degree perused by your majesty, I could not,” &c. This dedication is dated Moulins, May 10, 1673; whence it appears, that the history was not completed till the beginning of that, or the latter end of the preceding year; and this may account for certain facts being related which happened long after the Restoration as for instance, that “sir John Digby lived many years after the king’s return” and that the “earl of Sandwich’s expedition was never forgiven him by some men:” which might very consistently be introduced in this history, though that nobleman did not lose his life till 1672.

Besides the post of lord chancellor, in which he was continued, he was chosen chancellor of the university of Oxford in Oct. 1660 and, in November following, created a peer by the title of baron Hyde of Hindon in Wiltshire; to which were added, in April 1661, the titles of viscount Cornbury in Oxfordshire, and earl of Clarendon in Wiltshire. These honours, great as they were, were, however, by no means beyond his merit. He had, upon the Restoration, shewn great prudence, justice, and moderation, in settling the just boundaries between the prerogative of the crown and the liberties of the people. He had reduced much confusion into order, and adjusted many clashing interests, where property was concerned. He had endeavoured to make things easy to the Presbyterians and malcontents by the act of indemnity, and to satisfy the Royalists by the act of uniformity. But it is not possible to stand many years in a situation so much distinguished, without becoming the object of envy; which created him such enemies as both wished and attempted his ruin, and at last effected it. Doubtless nothing more contributed to inflame this passion against him, than the circumstance of his eldest daughter being married to the duke of York, which became known in a few months after the king’s return. She had been one of the maids of honour to the princess royal Henrietta, some time during the exile, when the duke fell in love with her; and being disappointed by the defeat of sir George Booth, in a design he had formed of coming with some forces to England in 1659, he went to Breda, where his sister then resided. Passing some weeks there, he took this opportunity, as Burnet tells us, of soliciting miss Hyde to indulge his desires without marriage; but she managed the matter with such address, that in the conclusion he married her, Nov. 4 that year, with all possible secrecy, and unknown to her father. After their arrival in England, being pregnant, she called upon the duke to own his marriage; and though he endeavoured to divert her from this object, both by great promises and great threatenings, yet she had the spirit and wisdom to tell him, “She would have it known that she was his wife, let him use her afterwards as he pleased.” The king ordered some bishops and judges to peruse the proofs of her marriage; and they reporting that it had been solemnized according to the doctrine of gospel and the law of England, he told his brother, that he must live with her whom he had made his wife, and at the same time generously preserved the honour of an excellent servant, who had not been privy to it; assuring him, that “this accident should not lessen the esteem and favour he had for him.”

The first open attack upon lord Clarendon was made by the earl of Bristol; who, in 1663, exhibited against him a charge of high treason to the house of lords. There had been a long course of friendship, both in prosperity and adversity, between the chancellor and this earl: but they had gradually fallen into different measures in religion and politics. In this state of things, the chancellor refusing what lord Bristol considered as a small favour (which was said to be the passing a patent in favour of a court lady), the latter took so much offence, that he resolved upon revenge. The substance of the whole accusation was as follows: “That the chancellor, being in place of highest trust and confidence with his majesty, and having arrogated a supreme direction in all thingjs, had, with a traiteroas intent to draw contempt upon his majesty’s person, and to alienate the affections of his subjects, abused the said trust in manner following. 1. He had endeavoured to alienate the hearts of his majesty’s subjects, by artfully insinuating to his creatures and dependent);, that his majesty was inclined to popery, and designed to alter the established religion. 2. He had said to several persons of his majesty’s privy council, that his majesty was dangerously corrupted in his religion, and inclined to popery: that persons of that religion had such access and such credit with him, that, unless there were a careful eye had upon it, the protestant religion would be overthrown in this kingdom. 3. Upon his majesty’s admitting sir Henry Bennet to be secretary of state in the place of sir Edward Nicholas, he said, that his majesty had given 10,000^. to remove a most zealous Protestant, that he might bring into that place a concealed Papist. 4. In pursuance of the same traiterous design, several friends and dependents of his have said aloud, that ‘ were it not for my lord chancellor’s standing in the gap, Popery would be introduced into this kingdom.’ 5. That he kad persuaded the king, contrary to his opinion, to allow his name to be used to the pope and several cardinals, in the solicitation of a cardinal” cap for the lord Aubigny, great almoner to the queen: in order to effect which, he had employed Mr. Richard Bealing, a known Papist, and had likewise applied himself to several popish priests and Jesuits to the same purpose, promising great favour to the Papists here, in case it should be effected. 6. That he had likewise promised to several Papists, that he would do his endeavour, and said, * he hoped to compass taking away all penal laws against them; to the end they might presume and grow vain upon his patronage; and, by their publishing their hopes of toleration, increase the scandal designed by him to be raised against his majesty throughout the kingdom. 7. That, being intrusted with the treaty between his majesty and his royal consort the queen, he concluded it upon articles scandalous and dangerous to the Protestant religion. Moreover, he brought the king and queen together without any settled agreement about the performance of the marriage rites; whereby, the queen refusing to be married by a Protestant priest, in case of her being with child, either the succession should be made uncertain for want of the due rites of matrimony, or else his majesty be exposed to a suspicion of having been married in his own dominions by a Romish priest. 8. That, having endeavoured to alienate the hearts of the king’s subjects upon the score of religion, he endeavoured to make use of all his scandals and jealousies, to raise to himself a popular applause of being the zealous upholder of the Protestant religion, &c. 9. That he further endeavoured to alienate the hearts of the king’s subjects, by venting in his own discourse, and those of his emissaries, opprobrious scandals against his majesty’s person and course of life; such as are not fit to be mentioned, unless necessity shall require it. 10. That he endeavoured to alienate the affections of the duke of York from his majesty, by suggesting to him, that ‘ his majesty intended to legitimate the duke of Monmouth.’ 11. That he had persuaded the king, against thie advice of the lord general, to withdraw the English garrisons out of Scotland, and demolish all the forts built there, at so vast a charge to this kingdom; and all without expecting the advice of the parliament of England. 12. That he endeavoured to alienate his majesty’s affections and esteem from the present parliament, by telling him, ‘ that there never was so weak and inconsiderable a house of lords, nor never so weak and heady a house of commons’ and particularly that ’ it was better to sell Dunkirk than be at their mercy for want of money.' 13. That, contrary to a known law made last session, by which money was given and applied for maintaining Dunkirk, he advised and effected the sale of the same to the French king. 14. That he had, contrary to law, enriched himself and his treasures by the sale of offices. 15. That he had converted to his own use vast sums of public money, raised in Ireland by way of subsidy, private and public benevolences, and otherwise given and intended to defray the charge of the government in that kingdom. 16. That, having arrogated to himself a supreme direction of all his majesty’s affairs, he had prevailed to have his majesty’s customs farmed at a lower rate than others offered; and that by persons with some of whom he went a share, and other parts of money resulting from his majesty’s revenue."

Being now about to quit the kingdom in exile, before he departed he drew up an apology, in a petition to the house of lords, in which he vindicated himself from any way contributing to the late miscarriages, in such a manner as laid the blame at the same time upon others. The lords received it Dec. 3, and sent two of the judges to acquaint the commons with it, desiring a conference. The duke of Buckingham, who was plainly aimed at in the petition, delivered it to the commons; and said, “The lords have commanded me to deliver to you this scandalous and seditious paper sent from the earl of Clarendon. They bid me present it to you, and desire you in a convenient time to send it to them again; for it has a style which they are in love with, and therefore desire to keep it.” Upon the reading of it in that house, it was voted to be “scandalous, malicious, and a reproach to the justice of the nation;” and they moved the lords, that it might be burnt by the hands of the common hangman, which was ordered and executed accordingly. The chancellor retired to Rouen in Normandy; and, the year following, his life was attempted at Evreux near that city by a body of seamen, in such an outrageous manner, that he with great difficulty escaped. In the Bodleian library at Oxford, there is an original letter from Mr. Oliver Long, dated from Evreux, April 26, 1668, to sir William Cromwell, secretary of state, in which the following account is given of this assault. “As I was travelling from Rouen towards Orleans, it was my fortune, April 23, to overtake the earl of Clarendon, then in his unhappy and unmerited exile, who was going towards Bourbon, but took up his lodgings at a private hotel in a small walled town called Evreux, some leagues from Rouen. I, as most English gentlemen did to so valuable a patriot, went to pay him a visit near supper-time; when he was, as usual, very civil to me. Before supper was done, twenty or thirty English seamen and more came and demanded entrance at the great gate; which, being strongly barred, kept them out for some time. But in a short space they broke it, and presently drove all they found, by their advantage of numbers, into the earl’s chamber; whence, by the assistance of only three swords and pistols, we kept them out for half an hour, in which dispute many of us were wounded by their swords and pistols, whereof they had many. To conclude, they broke the windows and the doors, and under the conduct of one Howard, an Irishman, who has three brothers, as I am told, in the king of England’s service, and an ensign in the company of cannoneers, they quickly found the earl in his bed, not able to stand by the violence of the gout; whence, after they had given him many blows with the;r swords and staves, mixed with horrible curses and oaths, they dragged him on the ground in the middle of the yard, where they encompassed him around with their swords, and after they had told him in their own language, how he had sold the kingdom, and robbed them of their pay, Howard commanded them all, as one man, to run their swords through his body. But what difference arose among themselves before they could agree, God above, who alone sent this spirit of dissention, only knows. In this interval their lieutenant, one Svvaine, came and disarmed them. Sixteen of the ringleaders were put into prison; and many of those things they had rifled from him, found again, which were restored, and of great value. Mons. la Fonde, a great man belonging to the king of France’s bed-chamber, sent to conduct the earl on his way thither, was so desperately wounded in the head, that there were little hopes of his life. Many of these assassins were grievously wounded; and this action is so much resented by all here, that many of these criminals will meet with an usage equal to their merit. Had we been sufficiently provided with fire-arms, we had infallibly done ourselves justice on them; however, we fear not but the law will supply our defect.”

, earl of Clarendon, eldest son of the chancellor, was born in 1638. Having received the rudiments of education, he early entered into business; for his father, apprehending of what fatal consequence it would be to the king’s affairs, if his correspondence should be discovered by unfaithful secretaries, engaged him, when very young, to write all his letters in cypher; so that he generally passed half the day in writing in cypher, or decyphering, and was so discreet, as well as faithful, that nothing was ever discovered by him. After the restoration, he was created master of arts, at Oxford, in 1660; and, upon settling the queen’s household, appointed chamberlain to her majesty. He was much in the queen’s favour; and, his father being so violently prosecuted on account of her marriage, she thought herself bound t. protect him in a particular manner. He so highly resented the usage his father met with, that he united himself eagerly to the party which opposed the court, and made no inconsiderable iigure in the list of speakers. Mr. "Grey has preserved a great number of his speeches. On his father’s death in 1674, he took his seat in the House of Lords; still continued his opposition, and even signed a protest against an address voted to the king on his speech. He still, however, held his post of chamberlain to the queen; and afterwards, shewing himself no less zealous against the bill of exclusion, was taken into favour, and made a privycounsellor, 1680. But he soon fell under the displeasure of the prevailing party in the House of Commons; who, unable to carry the exclusion bill, shewed their resentment against the principal opposers of it, by voting an address to the king, to remove from his presence and councils, the marquis of Worcester, and the earls of Halifax, Feversham, and Clarendon.

, Lord Hyde and Cornbury, eldest son to Henry earl of Clarendon and Rochester, was the author of a few pamphlets published without his name: of some tragedies still in manuscript, and of a comedy called “The Mistakes or, The Happy Resentment,” printed in 1758 at Strawberry Hill, with a preface by lord Orford. This was a juvenile performance, of no great merit, never acted, and printed for the benefit of an actress. His lordship was killed by a fall from his horse, in France, May 2, 1753. Pope has neatly complimented the virtuous taste of lord Cornbury, by making it a criterion of merit to “disdain whatever Cornbury disdained.” “He was,” says lord Orford, “upright, calm, steady his virtues were of the gentlest complexion, yet of the firmest texture vice could not bend him, nor party warp him even his own talents could not mislead him. Though a master of eloquence, he preferred justice and the love of his country to all the applause which the violence of the times in which, he lived was so prodigal of bestowing on orators who distinguish themselves in any faction; but the tinsel of popularity and the intrinsic of corruption were equally his contempt. He spoke, nor wrote, nor acted, for fame.” He wrote the paper dated Feb. 12, 1737, in the periodical paper entitled “Common Sense,” and “A Letter to the vice-chancellor of Oxford.” 1751. His lordship had represented the university in parliament, and in this letter announces his resignation, in consequence of being called up to his father’s barony in the house of peers. This was followed by a “Letter to his Lordship,” from several members of the university, acknowledging his merits. He was succeeded by sir Roger Newdigate. But of all his compositions, that which did his lordship most credit, was his “Letter to David Mallet, on the intended publication of lord Bolingbroke’s Manuscripts,” which was printed in Dr. Havvkes worth’s edition of Swift’s works; and it is a monument, says that editor, that will do more honour to the writer’s memory than all that mere wit or valour has achieved since the word began. Mallet, it is well known, did not profit as he ought to have done by this advice. Pope’s allusion of “disdain,” &c. is said, by Ruffhead, to have arisen from the following circumstance: when lord Cornbury returned from his travels, the earl of Essex, his brother-in-law, told him he had got a handsome pension for him; to which lord Cornbury answered with a composed dignity, “How could you tell, my lord, that I was to be sold; or, at least, how came you to know my price so exactly?”

About this time Hyde became known to Mr. Boyle, to whom he was very useful in communicating from Oriental writers several particulars relating to chemistry, physic, and natural history. In Oct. 1666, he was collated to a prebend in the church of Salisbury. In 1674, he published “A Catalogue of the books in the Bodleian library.” In 1678, he was made archdeacon of Gloucester; and, in 1682, took the degree of doctor in divinity. Dec. 1691, he was elected Arabic professor, on the death of Dr. Edward Pocock; and the same year published the “Itinera Mundi” of Abraham Peritsol, the son of Mordecai Peritsol, a very learned Jew. This was done to supply in some measure the Arabic geography of Abulfeda, which, at the request of Dr. Fell, he had undertaken to publish with a Latin translation: but the death of his patron putting an end to that work, he sent this smaller performance abroad, and dedicated it to the earl of Nottingham, then secretary of state, in hopes that it might excite a stronger curiosity amongst the learned to search into this branch of literature. Dr. Altham, regius-professor of Hebrew, and canon of Christ-church, being, on some dispute about the oaths, removed from both preferments, Hyde became possessed of both, as they are always annexed, in July 1697.

, son of the preceding, was born either in 1606 or 1607. As his father was warmly attached to puritanical principles, he was sent abroad for education; in the course of which he was put under the tuition of the celebrated Erpenius, professor of Arabic in the university of Leyden, and by the help of strong natural parts, united with a vigorous application, he in a short time made a surprising progress in philological and oriental literature. When he was about twenty-two years of age he returned to England, and was recommended by Mr. William Bedwell, a noted orientalist of that time, to William earl of Pembroke, chancellor of Oxford, as an extraordinary young man, who deserved particular encouragement. Accordingly, that generous nobleman immediately wrote to the university letters in his behalf, requesting that he might be created bachelor of arts to which degree he was admitted in Jan. 1628-9. In the earl’s recommendation, Jacob was described as having profited in oriental learning above the ordinary measures of his age. Soon after he obtained the patronage of John Selden, Henry Briggs, and Peter Turner, and, by their endeavours, was elected probationer fellow of Mertonr college in 1630. Not, however, being sufficiently skilled in logic and philosophy to carry him through the severe exercises of that society, the warden and fellows tacitly assigned him the situation of philological lecturer. He was then, for a while, diverted from his studies by attending to some law-suits concerning his patrimony, at the conclusion of which he fell into a Dangerous sickness, and, by the sudden loss of his patron, the earl of Pembroke, his life was in danger. Bishop Laud, that great encourager of literature, having succeeded the earl in the chancellorship of Oxford, a way was found out, from Merton college statutes, to make Mr. Jacob Socius Grammaticus, that is, Reader of Philology to the Juniors, a place which had been disused for about a hundred years. Being now completely settled in his fellowship, he occasionally resided with Mr. Selden, and assisted him as an amanuensis in one of the works which he was publishing, and which, we apprehend, must have been the “Mare clausum.” Selden, in acknowledging his obligations, styles him, “doctissimus Henricus Jacobus.” It is even understood, that Jacob added several things to the book, which Mr. Seldeir, finding them to be very excellent, permitted to stand. Nay, it is said, that Jacob improved Selden in the Hebrew language. In 1636, Mr. Jacob was created master of arts, and in June 1641, he was elected superior beadle of divinity. At the beginning of the November of the following year, he was admitted to the degree of bachelor of ptiysic: “but his head,” says Anthony Wood, “being always over-busy about critical notions (whicbr made him sometimes a little better than crazed), he neglected his duty so much, that he was suspended once, if not twice, from his place, and had his beadle’s staff taken from him.” In consequence of the rebellion, and his attachment to archbishop Laud, he soon became exposed to other calamities. Sir Nathaniel Brent, the republican warden of Merton college, silenced Mr Jacob as philological lecturer; and at length he was totally deprived of his fellowship by the parliamentary visitors. Being now destitute of a sufficient maintenance, he retired to London, where Mr. Selden assisted him, gave him his clothes, and, among the rest, an old scarlet cloak, the wearing of which rendered poor Jacob an object of mirth to some of his acquaintance, who, when they saw it upon his back, used to call him “Young Selden.” “But being,” says Wood, “a shiftless person, as most mere scholars are, and the benefactions of friends not sufficing him,” he sold a small patrimony which he had at Godmersham in Kent, to supply his necessities, and died before the money was spent. He had brought on a bad habit of body by his close application to his studies. In September 1652, he retired to the city of Canterbury, where he was kindly entertained by Dr. William Jacob, a noted physician of that place; but who, though of the same name, was not related to our author. By this gentleman he was cured of a gangrene in his foot; but this being followed by a tumour and abscess in one of his legs, the discharge proved too violent for his constitution, and he died Nov. 5, 1652. The next day Dr. Jacob buried him in a manner answerable to his quality, in the parish-church of All Saints in Canterbury. Anthony Wood says, that Mr. Jacob died about the year of his age forty-Spur. But if the circumstances of his history be carefully compared together, it will be found that he was probably not less than forty-six years old at the time of his decease. As to his character, it appears that he was an innocent, harmless, careless man, who was entirely devoted to the pursuits of literature, and totally ignorant of the world.

For several years after his marriage, he resided at Harbury, to which living he was presented in 1746; lord Willoughby de Broke gave him also the living of Chesterton, at a small distance from Harbury. These two benefices together did not produce more than one hundred pounds a year. In 1751 he had the misfortune to lose his wife, who appears to have been an amiable and accomplished woman, and was left with the care of seven very young children. In 1754, lord Clare, the late earl Nugent, procured for him from Dr. Madox, bishop of Worcester, the vicarage of Snitterfield, worth about 140l. In 1759 he married a second wife, Margaret, daughter of James Underwood, esq. of Rudgely, in Staffordshire, who survived him, but by whom he had no children.

king of Scotland, of the house of Stuart, was born in 1394. In 1405 his father Robert III. sent him to France, in order that he might escape the dangers to which he was exposed from his uncle the duke of Albany, but being taken by an English squadron, he and his whole suite were carried prisoners to the Tower of London. Here the young prince received an excellent education, to which Henry IV. of England was remarkably attentive, thereby making some atonement for his injustice in detaining him. Sir John Pelham, a man of worth and learning was appointed his governor, under whose tuition he made so rapid a progress, that he soon became a prodigy of talents and accomplishments. Robert died in the following year, and James was proclaimed king, but during the remainder of the reign of Henry IV. and the whole of that of Henry V. he was kept in confinement, with a view of preventing the strength of Scotland from being united to that of France against the English arms. At length, under the regency of the duke of Bedford, James was restored to his kingdom, having been full eighteen years a prisoner in this country. James was now thirty years of age, well furnished with learning, and a proficient in the elegant accomplishments of life, and dextrous in the manly exercises, which at that period were in high estimation. He married Joanna Beaufort, daughter of the duchess of Clarence, a lady of distinguished beauty, descended from the royal family of England; and on his return to Scotland, finding that the dujte of Albany and his son had alienated many of the most valuable possessions of the crown, instantly caused the whole of that family and their adherents to be arrested. The latter were chiefly discharged; but the late regent, his two sons, and his father-in-law, he caused to be convicted, executed, and their estates to be confiscated to the crown. Whatever other objections were made to James’s conduct, he procured the enactment of many good laws in his parliaments, which had a tendency to improve the state of society; but at the same time his desire of improving the revenues of the crown led him to many acts of tyranny, which rendered him odious to his nobility. In 1436 he gave his daughter Margaret in marriage to the dauphin of France, and sent with her a splendid train and a vast body of troops. The English, who had in vain attempted to prevent this union by negociation, now endeavoured to intercept the Scotch fleet in its passage, but they missed their object, and the princess arrived in safety at Rochelle. James, exasperated at this act of hostility, declared war against England, and summoned the whole array of his kingdom to assist in the siege of Roxburgh; which, however, he abandoned upon an intimation of a conspiracy being formed against himself by his own people. He now retired to the Carthusian monastery of Perth, which he had himself founded, where he lived in privacy, but this, instead of preventing, facilitated the suecess of the plot formed against his life. The chief actors in this tragedy were Robert Graham, and Walter earl of Athol, the king’s uncle. The former was actuated by revenge for the sufferings of some of his family, the latter by the hope of obtaining the crown for himself. The assassins obtained by bribery admission into the king’s apartments; the alarm was raised, and the ladies attempted to secure the chamber-door; one of them, Catharine Douglas, thrust her arm through a staple, making therewith a sort of bar, in which state she remained till it was dreadfully broken by the force of the assailants. The instant they got admission, they dragged the king from his concealment, and put him to death with a thousand wounds on Feb. 20, 1437, in the forty-fourth year of his age. He is introduced in this work chiefly on account of his literary reputation, for he was a poet as well as a sovereign, and his works, descriptive of the manners and pastimes of the age, were once extremely popular, and are still read with delight by those who can relish the northern dialect. He is said by all the British historians to have been a skilful musician; and it is asserted, that he not only performed admirably on the lute and harp, but was the inventor of many of the most ancient and favourite Scottish melodies, but this Dr. Burney is inclined to doubt. Where this prince acquired his knowledge in music is not ascertained; but it is probable that it was in France, in his passage home from which country he was taken prisoner by the English. Before the reformation we hear of no music being cultivated in Scotland but plain-song, or chanting in the church; nor afterwards, for a long time, except psalmody.

king of England, and VI. of Scotland, was the son of the unfortunate Mary queen of Scotland, by her cousin Henry, lord Darnley, and was born at Edinburgh-castle in June 1566, at the time when his mother had fixed her affections on the earl of Bothwell; the young prince, however, was committed to the charge of the earl of Mar, and in the following year, his mother being forced to resign the crown, he was solemnly crowned at Stirling, and all public acts from that time ran in his name. He was educated by the celebrated Buchanan while he was at Stirling castle; his progress in school-learning was rapid, and he manifested talents which presaged the future great man: but he became the prey of flatterers, who urged him to unpopular measures, which in 1582 produced a conspiracy of the nobles against him, who took possession of his person at Ruthven castle. From thence he was conveyed to the palace of Holyrood-house, and treated with much external respect, while in reality he was held in the utmost restraint. A new confederacy of other nobles produced his liberation, and he put himself under the sway of his favourite the earl of Arran, who was violent and unprincipled, and who carried on measures of severity againsf the nobles of the former conspiracy, and against the clergy who favoured them. He contrived to engage the mind of the young king with a constant round of amusement, and he himself exercised with unlimited sway all the regal authority, and by his insolence and rapacity rendered himself universally odious. Queen Elizabeth of England had long employed her arts to maintain a party in the country, which policy was become more necessary on account of her conduct to its queen. Though James had hitherto been induced to treat his mother very irreverently, yet when her life appeared to be in imminent danger, from the sentence pronounced against her by an English court of judicature, he felt himself bound to interfere, and wrote a menacing letter to Elizabeth on the occasion. He also applied to other courts for their assistance, and assembled his own nobles, who promised to stand by him in preventing or avenging such an injustice. When he learned the fatal catastrophe, he rejected with a proper spirit of indignation the hypocritical excuses of Elizabeth, and set about preparations for hostilities; but reflecting on his own resources, which were inadequate to the purposes of carrying on a serious war, he resolved to resume a friendly correspondence with the English court. It is to the honour of James that one of the' first acts of his full iriajority, in 1587, was an attempt to put an end to all family feuds among the nobility, and personally to reconcile them with each other at a solemn festival in Holyrood-house. When the invasion of England was resolved upon by Philip, king of Spain, he put his kingdom into a state of defence, resolving to support the queen against her enemies. His people also were zealous for the preservation of Protestantism, and entered into a national bond for the maintenance of true religion, which was the origin and pattern of all future engagements of the kind, under the name of solemn leagues and covenants. In 1589 he married Anne, daughter of Frederic king of Denmark, and as contrary winds prevented her coming to Scotland, he went to fetch her, and passed the winter in a series of feasting and amusements at Copenhagen. On his return he was frequently in danger from conspiracies against his life, particularly from those excited by the earl of Bothwell. In 1600, while the country was in a state of unusual tranquillity, a very extraordinary event took place, the nature and causes of which were never discovered. While the king was upon a hunting excursion, he was accosted by the brother of Ruthven earl of Gowrie, who, by a feigned tale, induced him and a small train to ride to the earl’s house at Perth. Here he was led to a remote chamber on pretence of having a secret communicated td him, where he found a man in complete armour, and a dagger was put to his breast by lluthven, with threats of immediate death. His attendants were alarmed, and came to his relief; in the end Gowrie and his brother were slain, and the king escaped unhurt. In 1603, on the death of queen Elizabeth, James was proclaimed her successor, and proceeded, amidst the acclamations of his new subjects, to London. One of his first acts was to bestow a profusion of honours and titles upon the great men, as well of his own country as those of England. A conference held at Hampton-court in 1604, between the divines of the established church and the Puritans, afforded James a good opportunity of exhibiting his skill in theological controversy, and the ill-will he bore to popular schemes of church-government. Although the king had distinguished himself in his own country by lenity to the Roman Catholics, yet those of that religion in England were so much disappointed in their expectations of his favour, that a most atrocious plot was formed by the zealots of that party to bloxv up the House of Lords at the first meeting of parliament, and with it the king, queen, and prince of Wales, and all the principal nobility and gentry of the kingdom, and then to set upon the throne the young princess Elizabeth, and establish the Catholic religion. This plot was fortunately discovered on the eve of the designed execution, and the principal persons in it suffered the punishment dae to their crimes. His next object was to reduce Ireland to a settled form of law and government. fc

Many of the considerable families in Scotland are possessed of works by this great artist. The greatest collection is that at Taymouth, the seat of the earl of Breadalbane, Sir John Campbell of Glenorchy, his lordship’s ancestor, having been the chief and earliest patron of Jameson, who had attended that gentleman in his travels. In different gentlemen’s houses in the county of Aberdeen, there are portraits by Jameson, as well as in the halls of Marischal and King’s colleges. The most interesting of his pictures is that belonging to the earl of Findlater, at Cullen-house. This piece represents Jameson himself, as large as life, with a round hat on his head. He is looking you in the face, with his left hand, in which is his pallet, on a table, and his right over it, the forefinger of which points to several small pictures in the back ground. Dress, a black jacket with a white falling band. In the back ground are ten squares, of about six inches, representing portraits, some of them full lengths; some of the squares have two or three figures, and one of them is a sea-piece. Size of the picture, within the frame, two feet ten inches in breadth, by two feet eight in height. In the same house is another picture attributed to the same artist, three feet six inches high, by two feet eight broad. The subject must allude to the civil war, as it represents a crown, bottom upmost; sceptre, baton, royal standard, heaped near it; a printed scroll, a casket covered with crimson velvet, lid open, with necklaces and toys. At the bottom, on the right hand, is a small figure about four inches long, badly executed, of Charles I. which seems as if done with red chalk on a white ground.

, son of Dr. John Jebb, dean of Casbell, was born in London, early in 1736. He was a man much celebrated among the violent partizans for unbounded liberty, religious and political; and certainly a man of learning and talents, though they were both so much absorbed in controversy as to leave little among his writings of general use. His education was begun in Ireland, and finished in England. His degrees were taken at Cambridge, where he bore public offices, and obtained the vicarage of St. Andrew’s, and where he married a daughter of Dr. Torkington, of Huntingdonshire, who was grand-daughter to the earl of Harborough. His college was Peter-house. He early took up the plan of giving theological lectures, which were attended by several pupils, till his peculiar opinions became known in 1770, when a prohibition was published in the university. How soon he had begun to deviate from the opinions he held at the time of ordination is uncertain, but in a letter dated Oct. 21, 1775, he says, “I have for seven years past, in my lectures, maintained steadily the proper unity of God, and that he alone should be the object of worship.” He adds, that he warned his hearers that this was not the received opinion, but that his own was settled, and exhorted them to inquire diligently. This confession seems rather inconsistent with the defence he addressed to the archbishop of Canterbury in 1770. He was a strenuous advocate for the establishment of annual examinations in the university, but could not prevail. In. 1775, he came to the resolution of resigning his ecclesiastical preferments, which he did accordingly; and then, by the advice of his friends, took up the study of physic. For this new object he studied indefatigably, and in 1777, obtained his degree by diploma from St. Andrew’s, and was admitted a licentiate in London.

, or Geoffrey, of Monmouth (ap Arthur), the famous British historian, who flourished in the time of Henry I. was born at Monmouth, and probably educated in the Benedictine monastery near that place; for Oxford and Cambridge had not yet risen to any great height, and bad been lately depressed by the Danish invasion so that monasteries were at this time the principal seminaries of learning. Tradition still points out a small apartment of the above monastery as his library; it bears in the ceiling and windows remains of former magnificence, but is much more modern than the age of Jeffery. He was made archdeacon of Monmouth, and afterwards promoted to the bishopric of St. Asaph in 1152. He is said by some to have been raised to the dignity of a cardinal also, but on no apparent good grounds. Robert earl of Gloucester, natural son of Henry I. and Alexander bishop of Lincoln, were his particular patrons; the first a person of great eminence and authority in the kingdom, and celebrated for his learning; the latter, for being the greatest patron of learned men in that time, and himself a great scholar and statesman.

This wretched man left an only son, who inherited his title as lord Jeffreys, and also his intemperate habit. Two poetical efforts, in the “State Poems,” 4 vols. 8vo, are attributed to him, and he is said to have published “An Argument in the case of Monopolies,” 1689. He died in 1703, when his title became extinct, and was buried in St. Mary Aldermanbury church. He married Charlotte, the daughter and heiress of Philip earl of Pembroke, by whom he had an only daughter, who married Thomas earl of Pomfretv After his death, the countess of Pomfret became a munificent benefactress to the university of Oxford, hy presenting to it the noble collection of the Pomfret marbles. Granger informs us that this very amiable lady met with very rude insults from the populace on the western road, merely because she was grand-daughter of the inhuman Jeffreys. Jeffreys’s seat, well known by the name of Buistrode, was purchased by William earl of Portland, in queen Anne’s reign, and until lately has been the principal seat of the Portland family. There is some reason to think that judge Jeffreys was created earl of Flint, but the fact has never been clearly ascertained.

Under these circumstances it was pre- -|- Ralph Montague, esq. ambassatended that she was not only a native, dor at that court, the earl of St. Albut au inhabitant of France conse- ban’s, and lord Arundel. Scotland, about an union between the two kingdoms. In 1671 he was chosen a representative in parliament far Hythe, in Kent, one of the cinque ports.

, earl of Liverpool, was the eldest son of colonel Charles Jenkinson, who was younger son of sir Robert Jenkinson, the first baronet of the family.

* Some of the city were so much freedom, and afterwards chose master satisfied with the part he acted in this of the Sailers’ company, Wynne, p. affair, that he was presented with his 57. Colonel Jenkinson, who died in 1750, had married Amantha, daughter of Wolfran Cornwall, a captain in the royal navy, by whom he had the subject of this memoir, who was born May 16, 1727, and educated at the Charter-house. He went afterwards to University college, Oxford, where he took the degree of M. A. in Nov. 1752, and thence came to London, having previously distinguished himself by the active part he took in an election controversy for the county of Oxford, where his alliances were numerous, and not unconnected with the contending parties. On this occasion his literary talents were supposed to have contributed materially to the interests of the side he espoused; and those talents are likewise said to have been sometimes displayed in the Monthly Review about the period of its commencement. By the first earl of Harcourt, who was governor to the king, when prince of Wales, he was introduced to his majesty, and through the same channel obtained the notice and confidence of the eail of Bute, to jvhom he was private secretary. In 1761 he sat in parliament for Cockermouth, and held the office of under-secretary of state. In 1763 and 1764 he was secretary to the treasury; in 1766 he was nominated one of the lords of the admiralty; and from 1767 to 1773, was a lord of the treasury. In 1772 he was appointed joint vice-treasurer of Ireland, and called to the privy-council; and in exchange for this office, had afterwards the clerkship of the pells in Ireland, which had been purchased back by government of Mr. Charles Fox. In 1778 he was made secretary at war, which he held until the dissolution of lord North’s administration in 1782. On this occasion his principles led him to join that branch of the old administration which supported Mr. Pitt; and when that minister came into power in 1783-4, Mr. Jenkinson was appointed president of the board of trade, of which office he continued to discharge the duties with uncommon industry and abilities until age and bad health incapacitated him, in 18CU, from farther exertions in this department. In 1786 he obtained the situation of chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, which he held till 1803. He was elevated to the peerage in 1786 by the title of baron Hawksbury, of Hawksbury, in the county of Gloucester; and advanced to be carl of Liverpool in 1796. His lordship died at his house in Hertford-street, May Pair, Dec. 17, 1808. At that time he held the place of collector of the customs inwards, in the port of London, and clerk of the pells in Ireland. He was interred in the family vault at Hawksbury, in Gloucestershire, and was succeeded in honours and estate by his eldest son, Robert Banks, second earl of Liverpool, and now first lord of the treasury.

The late earl of Liverpool made a very conspicuous figure during the whole of the present reign as a statesman; and for the greater part of it, shared the severe obloquy which attached to all the confidential friends of the Bute administration; and as he possessed the favour and confidence of his sovereign, he was called the king’s secret adviser. A suspicion of this kind the people were taught to cherish with uncommon animosity. Burke’s celebrated pamphlet on “Popular Discontents” encouraged the notipn; and the leaders of this party of supposed private power, were the incessant objects of clamour with the multitude and the disaffected. His lordship, however, lived long enough to weather this storm; to see his solid powers of mind, and solid services, crowned with the reward of high honours and great wealth; and to behold his ancient family, which in early life he had seen sadly decline in its property and consideration, placed by his own efforts near the pinnacle of ambition. Senseless cries and prejudices had gradually died away; and he was allowed to have deserved, as a laborious and profound statesman, the splendid public recompeuces which his sovereign had conferred upon him.

, a pious English divine and writer, was born in 1646, and was descended from an ancient family at Eaton under Heywood, in Shropshire. He was related to bishop Williams, of Chichester, to whom he dedicated his book of “Prayers.” Where he was educated we are not told, nor is it discoverable that he was at either university. He appears, however, when admitted into orders, to have been for some time curate of Harlay, in Shropshire. On the death of his rector, Richard earl of Bradford, the patron of the living, hearing Mr. Jenks spoken of respectfully by the parishioners, went one Sunday, in private, to hear him preach; and was so much pleased with the discourse, that he presented him to the living in 1668, and made him his chaplain. Mr. Jenks had also the living of Kenley, a small village about two miles from Harlay, at both which churches he officiated alternately, and kept no curate until old age and infirmities made assistance necessary. He died at Harlay on May 10, 1724, and was buried in the chancel of that church, where there is a monument to his memory. The work by which Mr. Jenks is best known is his “Prayers and offices of Devotion,” of which the 27th edition was published in 1810 by the Rev. Charles Simeon, fellow of King’s college, Cambridge, with alterations and amendments in style. Mr. Jenks also was the author of “Meditations upon various important subjects,” of which a second edition was published in 1756, 2 vols. 8vo, with a recommendatory preface by Mr. Hervey. This, however, has never attained any high degree of popularity. One of these “Meditations” is upon his coffin, which he kept by him for many years, and in which were two sculls, one of them that of a near relation.

Mr. Jenyns received the first, part of his education at home, under the care of the rev. Mr. Hill, and afterwards of the rev. Stephen White, who became rector of Holton, in Suffolk. In 1722 he was removed to Cambridge, and admitted as a fellow-commoner of St. John’s, under Dr. Edmondson, at that time one of the principal tutors of the college. Here he pursued his studies with great industry for three years, and found so much satisfaction in the regular discipline and employments of a college life, that he %vas often heard to say he accounted the days he had lived there, among the happiest in his life. He left the university, however, without taking a degree, in consequence, probably, of his marriage, which took place when he was very young. His first wife was the natural daughter of his uncle, colonel Soame, of Deerham Grange, in Norfolk. With this lady he received a very considerable fortune, but in all other respects the union was unhappy. After some years she eloped from him with a Leicestershire gentleman; and a separation being agreed upon in form, Mr. Jenyns consented to allow her a maintenance, which was regularly paid until her death, in 1753. This affair, it may be conjectured, interrupted the plan of life he had formed after leaving Cambridge. If we may judge from his poetical efforts, his turn was gay, lively, and satirical. His songs and other amatory pieces were probably written when young, and bespeak a mind sufficiently at ease to trifle with the passions, and not always attentive to delicacy where it interfered with wit. His first publication, and perhaps his best, was the “Art of Dancing,” printed in 1730, and inscribed to lady Fanny Fielding, one of the daughters of the earl of Denbigh, and afterwards countess of Winchelsea. He did not put his name to this poem; but when discovered, it was considered as the prelude to greater performances. It must be confessed there is an ease and elegance in the versification which brought him near to the most favourite poets of his day. In 1735 he wrote the “Epistle to Lord Lovelace,” and this was followed by other pieces of poetry, which he contributed to Dodsley’s collection, and afterwards printed in a volume, in 1752. He wrote also some occasional essays on political topics, the precise dates of which cannot now be ascertained, as he never put his name to any of his works. They have, however, been since collected by Mr. Cole in that edition of his works which was published in 4 vols. 8vo, 1790, and again in 1793.

Soon after his father’s death, at the general election in 1742, he was unanimously chosen one of the representatives for the county of Cambridge. From this time he continued to sit in parliament, either for the county or borough of Cambridge, until 1780, except on the call of a new parliament in 1754, when he was returned for the borougli of Dumvich. In 1755, he was appointed one of the lords commissioners of the board of trade and plantations, at which he sat during. all changes of administration, until the business of the board, which was not great, was removed into another department. At the time of its abolition, it consisted of our author, the present earl of Carlisle, the late lord Auckland, and Gibbon the historian. Mr. Cumberland, the well-known dramatic poet, was secretary. His parliamentary conduct was more uniform than is supposed to be consistent with freedom of opinion, or the usual attachments of party. When he was first elected a member, he found sir Robert Walpole on the eve of being dismissed from the confidence of the House of Commons, and he had the courage, unasked and unknown, to give his support to the falling minister, as far as he could without contributing his eloquence, for Mr. Jenyns seldom spoke, and only in reply to a personal question. He was conscious that he could make no figure as a public speaker, and early desisted from the attempt. After the dismissal of sir Robert Walpole, he constantly ranked among the friends of government. Without giving a public assent to every measure of the minister for the day, he contrived to give him no offence, and seems very early to have conceived an abhorrence of systematic oppositions. What his opinions were on great constitutional questions, may be found in his writings, where, however, they are not laid down with much precision, and seem at no time of his life to have been steady. In his attendance at the board of trade, he was very assiduous, and bestowed much attention on the commercial interests of his country. He has not left any thing in print expressly on this subject, but his biographer has given some of his private opinions, which are liberal and manly.

, an elegant English poet, descended from an ancient Roman catholic family in Norfolk, was the youngest brother of the late sir William Jerningham, bart. and was born in 1727. He was educated in the English college at Douay, and from thence removed to Paris, where he improved himself in classical attainments, becoming a good Latin scholar, and tolerably well acquainted with the Greek, while the French and Italian languages, particularly the former, were nearly as familiar to him as that of his native country. In his mind, benevolence and poetry had always a mingled operation. His taste was founded upon the best models of literature, which, however, he did not always follow, with respect to style, in his latter performances. The first production which raised him into public notice, was a poem in recommendation of the Magdalen hospital; and Mr. Jonas Hanway, one of its most active patrons, often declared, that its success was very much promoted by this poem. He continued 'occasionally to afford proofs of his poetical genius; and his works, which passed through many editions, are uniformly marked by taste, elegance, and a pensive character, that always excites tender and pleasing emotions; and in some of his works, as in “The Shakspeare Gallery,” “ Enthusiasm,” and “The Rise and Fall of Scandinavian Poetry,” he displays great vigour, and even sublimity. The fiist of these poems had an elegant and spirited compliment from Mr. Burke, in the following passage: “I have not for a, long time seen any thing so well-finished. He has caught new fire by approaching in his perihelium so near to the Sun of our poetical system.” His last work, published a few months before his death, was entitled “The Old Bard’s Farewell.” It is not unworthy of his best days, and breathes an air of benevolence and grateful piety for the lot in life which Providence had assigned him. In his later writings it has been objected that he evinces a species of liberal spirit in matters of religion, which seems to consider all religions alike, provided the believer is a man of meekness and forbearance. With this view in his “Essay on the mild Tenour of Christianity” he traces historically the efforts to give an anchorite-cast to the Christian profession, and gives many interesting anecdotes derived from the page of Ecclesiastical history, but not always very happily applied. His “Essay on the Eloquence of the Pulpit in England,” (prefixed to bishop Bossuet’s Select Sermons and Orations) was very favourably received by the public, but his notions of pulpit eloquence are rather French than English. Mr. Jerningham had, during the course of a long life, enjoyed an intimacy with the most eminent literary characters in the higher ranks, particularly the celebrated earl of Chesterfield, and the present earl of Carlisle. The illness which occasioned his death, had continued for some months, and was at times very severe; but his sufferings were much alleviated by a course of theological study he had imposed on himself, and which he considered most congenial to a closing life. He died Nov. 17, 1812. He bequeathed all his manuscripts to Mr. Clarke, New Bond-street. Mr. Jerningham’s productions are as follow: J. “Poems and Plays,” 4 vols. 9th edition, 1806. 2. “Select Sermons and Funeral Orations, translated from the French of Bossuet, bishop of Meaux,” third edition, 1801. 3. “The mild Tenour of Christianity, an Essay, (elucidated from Scripture and History; containing a new illustration of the characters of several eminent personages,)” second edition, 1807. 4. “The Dignity of Human Nature, an Kssay,” 1805. 5. “The Alexandrian School; or, a narrative of the first Christian Professors in Alexandria,” third edition, 1810. 6. “The Old Bard’s Farewell,” a Poem, second edition, with additional passages, 1812. His dramatic pieces, “The Siege of Berwick,” the “Welsh Heiress,” and “The Peckham Frolic,” have not been remarkably successful.

The times were turbulent; the duke of York declaring himself a Papist, his succession to the crown began to be warmly opposed; and. this brought the doctrine of indefeasible hereditary right into dispute, which was strongly disrelished by Johnson, who was naturally of no submissive temper. This inclination was early observed by his patron, who warned him against the danger of it to one of his profession, and advised him, if he would turn his thoughts to that subject, to read Bracton and Fortescue “de laudibus legum Angliae,” &c. that so he might be acquainted with the old English constitution but by no means to make politics the subject of his sermons, for that matters of faith and practice formed more suitable admonitions from the pulpit. Johnson, it is said, religiously observed this advice; and though, by applying himself to the study of the books recommended to him, he became well versed in the English constitution, yet he never flitroduced it in his sermons, but employed these, with zeal, to expose the absurdity and mischief of the Popish religion, which was then too much encouraged, and would, he thought, unavoidably be established if the next heir to the crown was not set aside. This point he laboured incessantly in his private conversation, and became so good a master of the arguments for it, that the opposers of the court gave him suitable encouragement to proceed. The earl of Essex admitted him into his company and lord William Russel, respecting his parts and probity, made him his domestic chaplain. This preferment placed him in a conspicuous point of view; and in 1679 he was appointed to preach before the mayor and aldermen at Guildhallchapel, on Palm-Sunday. He took that opportunity of preaching against Popery; and from this time, he tells us himself, “he threw away his liberty with both hands, and with his eyes open, for his country’s service.” In short, he began to be regarded by his party as their immoveable bulwark; and to make good that character, while the bill of exclusion was carried on by his patron at the head of that party in the House of Commons, his chaplain, to promote the same cause, engaged the ecclesiastical champion of passive obedience, Dr. Hickes , in a book entitled “Julian' the Apostate, &c.” published in 1682. This tract being written to expose the doctrine, then generally received, of passive obedience, was answered by Dr. Hickes, in a piece entitled “Jovian, &c.” to which Johnson drew up a reply, under the title of “Julian’s arts to undermine and extirpate Christianity,” &c. This was printed and entered at Stationers’-hall, 1683, in order to be published; but, seeing his patron lord Russel seized and imprisoned, Johnson thought proper to check his zeal, and take the advice of his friends in suppressing it.

His “London” procured him fame, and Cave was not sorry to have engaged the services of a man whose talents had now the stamp of public approbation. Whether he had offers of patronage, or was thought a formidable enemy to the minister, is not certain; but, having leisure to calculate how little his labours were likely to produce, he soon began to wish for some establishment of a more permanent kind. With this view an offer was made to him of the mastership of the school of Appleby in Leicestershire, the salary of which was about sixty pounds, but the laws of the school required that the candidate should be a master of arts. The university of Oxford, when applied to, refused to grant this favour. Earl Gower was then solicited, in behalf of Johnson, by Pope, who knew him only as the author of “London.” His lordship accordingly wrote to Swift, soliciting a diploma from the university of Dublin, but, for what reason we are not told, this application, too, was unsuccessful. Mr. Murphy says, “There is reason to think, that Swift declined to meddle in the business; and to that circumstance Johnson’s known dislike of Swift has been often imputed.” That Swift declined to meddle in the business is not improbable, for it appears by his letters of this date (August 1738) that he was incapable of attenc(­ing to any business; but Johnson’s Life of Swift proves that his dislike had a more honourable foundation. About this time Johnson formed a design of studying the civil law, in order to practise in the Commons, yet this also was rendered impossible for want of a degree, and he was obliged to resume his labours in the Gentleman’s Magazine. The various articles which came from his pen are enumerated in chronological series by Mr. Boswell. It will be sufficient for our purpose to notice only his more important productions, or such as were of sufficient consequence to be published separately. In 1739, he wrote “A Complete Vindication of the Licensers of the Stage, from the malicious and scandalous aspersions of Mr. Brooke, author of Gustavus Vasa;” and a political tract entitled t( Marmor Norfolciense, or an Essay on an ancient prophetical inscription, in monkish rhyme, lately discovered near Lynne in Norfolk, by Probus Britannicus.“These pieces, it is almost needless to add, were ironical, a mode of writing in which our author was not eminently successful. Some notice has already been taken of” Gustavus Vasa“in the Life of Brooke. The” Marmor Norfolciense" was a severe attack on the Walpole administration, and on the reigning family; but whether it was not well understood, or when understood, considered as feeble, it certainly was not much attended to by the friends of government, nor procured to the author the reputation of a dangerous opponent. Sir John Hawkins indeed says that a prosecution was ordered, but of this no traces can be found in any of the public offices. One of his political enemies reprinted it in 1775, to shew what a change had been effected in his principles by a pension; but the publisher does not seem to have known what a very small change was really effected, and how little was necessary to render Johnson a loyal subject to his munificent sovereign, and a determined enemy of the popular politics of that time.

The design of this great work was at first suggested by Dodsley; and Johnson, having consented to undertake it, entered into an agreement with the booksellers for the sum of fifteen hundred guineas, which he was to receive in small payments proportioned to the quantity of manuscript sent to the press. The plan was addressed to the celebrated earl of Chesterfield, who had discovered an inclination to be the patron of the author; and Johnson, having made suitable preparations, hired a house in Gough-square, engaged amanuenses, and began a task which he carried on by fits, as inclination and health permitted, for nearly eight years. His amanuenses were six in number, and employed upon what may be termed the mechanical part of the work, but their expences and his own were so considerable, that before the work was concluded he had received the whole of the money stipulated for in his agreement with the proprietors. In what time it might have been completed, had he, to use his own phrase, “set doggedly about it,” it is useless to conjecture, and it would perhaps have been hurtful to try. Whoever has been employed on any great literary work knows, not only the pleasure, but the necessity of occasional relaxation; and Johnson’s mind, stored with various knowledge, and a rich fund of sentiment, afforded him many opportunities of this kind, in addition to the love of society, which was his predominant passion. We find accordingly that during the years in which his Dictionary was on hand, he accepted some inferior employment from the booksellers, and produced some of the most valuable of his original works.

Not long after he undertook this work, he was invited to contribute the aid of his aloquent pen in saving the forfeited life of Dr. William Dodd, a clergyman who was convicted of forgery. This unhappy man had long been a popular preacher in the metropolis; and the public sentiment was almost universal in deprecating so shameful a sight as that of a clergyman of the church of England suffering by a public, execution. Whether there was much in Dodd’s character to justify this sentiment, or to demand the interference of the corporation of London, backed by the petitions of thousands of the most distinguished and wealthy citizens, may perhaps be doubted. Johnson, however, could not resist what put every other consideration out of the question, “a call for mercy,” and accordingly contributed every thing that the friends of Dodd could suggest in his favour. He wrote his “Speech to the Recorder of London,” delivered at the Old Bailey when sentence of death was about to be passed on him “The Convict’s Address to his unhappy brethren,” a sermon delivered by Dodd in the chapel of Newgate Two Letters, one to the Lord Chancellor Bathurst, and one to Lord Chief Justice Mansfield A petition from Dr. Dodd to the King another from Mrs. Dodd to the Queen Observations inserted in the newspapers, on occasion of Earl Percy’s having presented to his Majesty a petition for mercy to Dodd, signed by twenty thousand persons; a petition from the city of London; and Dr. Dodd’s last solemn declaration, which he left with the sheriff at the place of execution. All these have been printed in Dr. Johnson’s VVorks, with some additional correspondence which Mr. Boswell inserted in his Life. Every thing is written in a style of pathetic eloquence; but, as the author could not be concealed, it was impossible to impress a stronger sense of the value of Dodd’s talents than had already been entertained. The papers, however, contributed to heighten the clamour, which was at that time raised against the execution of the sentence, and which was confounded with what was then thought more censurable, the conduct of those by whom the unhappy man might have been saved before the process of law had been begun.

, author of <c Chrysal, or the Adventures 'of a Guinea,“and other works of a similar kind, was a native of Ireland, and descended from a branch of the Johnstons of Annandale. He was born in the early part of the last century, but in what year we have not been able to discover. After receiving a good classical education, he was called to the bar, and came over to England for practice in that profession, but being unfortunately prevented by deafness from attending the courts, he confined himself to the employment of a chamber counsel. It does not appear that his success was great, and embarrassed circumstances rendered him glad to embrace any other employment, in which his talents might have a chance to succeed. His” Chrysal“is said to have been his first literary attempt, two volumes of which he wrote while on a visit to Mount Edgecumbe, the seat of the late earl of Mount Edgecumbe. He appears to have had recourse to some degree of art, in order to apprize the public of what they were to expect from it. In the newspapers for April 1760, it is announced that” there will be speedily published, under the emblematical title of the f Adventures of a Guinea/ a dispassionate, distinct account of the most remarkable transactions of the present times all over Europe, with curious and interesting anecdotes of the public and private characters of the parties principally concerned in these scenes, especially in England; the whole interspersed with several most whimsical and entertaining instances of the intimate connection between high and low life, and the power of little causes to produce great events.“This, while it has the air of a puff, is not an unfaithful summary of the contents of these volumes, which were published in May of the same year, and read with such avidity, that the author was encouraged to add two more volumes in 1765, not inferior to the former, in merit or success; and the work has often been reprinted since. The secret springs of some political intrigues on the continent, are perhaps unfolded in these volumes, but it was the personal characters of many distinguished statesmen, women of quality, and citizens, which rendered the work palatable. A few of these were depicted in such striking colours as not to be mistaken; and the rest, being supposed to be equally faithful, although less obvious, the public were long amused in conjecturing the originals. With some truth, however, there is so much fiction, and in a few instances so much of what deserves a worse epithet, that” Chrysal“does not appear entitled to much higher praise than that of the best” scandalous chronicle of the day." In one case, it may be remembered, the author occasioned no little confusion among the guilty parties, by unfolding the secrets of a club of profligates of rank, who used to assemble at a nobleman’s villa in Buckinghamshire. In this, as well as other instances, it must be allowed, that although he describes his bad characters as worse than they were, he everywhere expresses the noblest sentiments of indignation against vice and meanness.

, a dramatic writer, was a native of Drogheda, in Ireland, and was bred a bricklayer; but, having a natural inclination for the muses, pursued his devotions to them even during the labours of his mere mechanical avocations, and composing a line of brick and a line of verse alternately, his walls and poems rose in growth together, but not with equal degrees of durability. His turn, as is most generally the case with mean poets, or bards of humble origin, was panegyric. This procured him some friends; and, in 1745, when the earl of Chesterfield went over to Ireland as lord-lieutenant, Mr. Jones was recommended to the notice of that nobleman, who, delighted with the discovery of this mechanic muse, not only favoured him with his own notice and generous munificence, but also thought proper to transplant this opening flower into a warmer and more thriving climate. He brought him with him to England, recommended him to many of the nobility there, and not only procured him a large subscription for the publishing a collection of his “Poems,” but it is said, even took on himself the alteration and correction, of his tragedy, and also the care of prevailing on the managers of Covent-garden theatre to bring it on the stage. This nobleman also recommended him in the warmest manner to Colley Gibber, whose friendly and humane disposition induced him to shew him a thousand acts of friendship, and even made strong efforts by his interest at court to have secured to him the succession of the laurel after his death. With these favourable prospects it might have been expected that Jones would have passed through life with so much decency as to have ensured his own happiness, and done credit to the partiality of his friends; but this was not the case. “His temper,” says one, who seems to have known him, “was, in consequence of the dominion of his passions, uncertain and capricious; easily engaged, and easily disgusted; and, as ceconomy was a virtue which could never be taken into his catalogue, he appeared to think himself born rather to be supported by others than under a duty to secure to himself the profits which his writings and the munificence of his patrons from time to time afforded.” After experiencing many reverses of fortune, which an overbearing spirit, and an imprudence in regard to pecuniary concerns, consequently drew on him, he died in great want, in April 1770, in a garret belonging to the master of the Bedford coffee-house, by whose charity he had been some time supported, leaving an example to those of superior capacities and attainments, who, despising the common maxims of life, often feel the want of not pursuing them when it is too late. His principal performance, “The Earl of Essex,” appeared in 1753, and he also left a tragedy unfinished, called “The Cave of Idra,” which falling into the hands of Dr. Hiffernan, he enlarged it to five acts, and brought it out under the title of “The Heroine of the Cave.” His last publications were, “Merit” “The Relief;” and “Vectis, or the Isle of Wight,” poems but his poetical worth, though not contemptible, was far from being of the first-rate kind.

, a celebrated English architect, was born about 1572, in the neighbourhood of St. Paul’s, London, where his father, Mr. Ignatius Jones, was a clothworker. At a proper age, it is said, he put his son apprentice to a joiner, a business that requires some skill in drawing; and in that respect suited well with our architect’s inclination, which naturally led him to the art of designing. It is not probable, however, that he attended long to the mechanical part of his business; for we are told that he distinguished himself early by the extraordinary progress he made with his pencil, and was particularly noticed for his skill in landscape-painting, of which there is a specimen at Chiswick-house. These talents recommended him to the earl of Arundel, or, as some say, to William earl of Pembroke. It is certain, however, that at the. expence of one or other of these lords he travelled over Italy, and the politer parts of Europe; saw whatever was recommended by its antiquity or value; and from these plans formed his own observations, which, upon his return home, he perfected by study. He was no sooner at Rome, says Wai ­pole, than he found himself in his sphere, and acquired so much reputation that Christian IV. king of Denmark sent for him from Venice, which was the chief place of his residence, and where he had studied the works of Palladio, and made him his architect, but on what buildings he was employed in that country we are yet to learn. He had been some time possessed of this honourable post when that prince, whose sister Anne had married James I. made a visit to England in 1606; and our architect, being desirous to return to his native country, took that opportunity of coming home in the train of his Danish majesty. The magnificence of James’s reign, in dress, buildings, &c. furnished Jones with an opportunity of exercising his talents, which ultimately proved an honour to his country. Mr. Seward says, we know not upon what authority, that the first work he executed after his return from Italy, was the decoration of the inside of the church of St. Catharine Cree, Leadenhall-street. We know, however, that the queen appointed him her architect, presently after his arrival; and he was soon taken, in the same character, into the service of prince Henry, under Whom he discharged his trust with so much fidelity and judgment, that the king gave him the reversion of the place of surveyor-general of his majesty’s works.

The king, in his progress 1620, calling at Wilton, the seat of the earl of Pembroke, among other subjects, fell into a discourse about that surprising group of stones called Stonehenge, upon Salisbury plain, near Wilton. Our architect was immediately sent for by lord Pembroke, and received his majesty’s commands to make observations and deliver his sentiments on the origin of Stone-henge. In obedience to this command, he presently set about the work; and having, with no little pains and expence, taken an exact measurement of the whole, and diligently searched the foundation, in order to find out the original form and aspect, he proceeded to compare it with other antique buildings which he had any where seen. After much reasoning, and along series of authorities, his head being full of Rome, and Roman edifices and precedents, he concluded, that this ancient and stupendous pile must have been originally a Roman temple, dedicated to Ccelus, the senior of the heathen gods, and built after the Tuscan order; that it was built when the Romans flourished in peace and prosperity in Britain, and, probably, betwixt the time of Agricola’s government and the reign of Constantine the Great. This account he presented to his royal master in the same year, 1620, and was immediately appointed one of the commissioners for repairing St. Paul’s cathedral in London.

In respect to his character, we are assured, by one who knew him well, that his scientific abilities surpassed most of his age. He was a perfect master of the mathematics, and was not unacquainted with the two learned languages, Greek and Latin, especially the latter; neither was he without some turn for poetry . A copy of verses composed by him is published in the “Odcombian Banquet,” prefixed to Tom Coryate’s “Crudities,” in 1611, 4to. But his proper character was that of an architect, and the most eminent of his time on which account he is still generally styled the British Vitruvius the art of designing being little known in England till Mr. Jones, under the patronage of Charles I. and the earl of Arundel, brought it into use. This is the character given him by Mr. Webb, who was his heir; and who, being born in London, and bred in Merchant Taylors’-school, afterwards resided in Mr. Jones’s family, married his kinswoman, was instructed by him in mathematics and architecture, and designed by him for his successor in the office of surveyor-general of his majesty’s works, but was prevented by Sir John Denham. Mr. Webb published some other pieces besides his “Vindication of Stone-henge restored ;” and dying at Butleigh, his seat in Somersetshire, Oct. 24, 1672, was buried in that church. Walpole enumerates among his works which are still in part extant, the new quadrangle of St. John’s college, Oxfqrd the queen’s chapel at St. James’s the arcade of Oovent-garden and the church Gunnersbury, near Brentford Lincoln’s Inn Chapel, and one or two of the houses in Lincoln’s-inn-fields Coleshill in Berkshire, and Cobham hall in Kent; the Grange, in Hampshire; the queen’s house at Greeirwich, &c. Several other of his buildings may be seen in Campbell’s “Vitruvius Britannicus.” The principal of his designs were published by Mr. Kent in 1727, fol. as also some of his less designs in 1744, foL Others were published by Mr. Isaac Ware. Our artist left in ms. some curious notes upon Palladio’s “Architecture,” now in Worcester college, Oxford, some of which are inserted in an edition of Palladio, published at London, 1714, fol. by Mr. Leoni; which notes, he says, raise the value of the edition above all the preceding ones. His original drawings for Whitehall-palace are also in Worcester library.

We learn from the “Anecdotes of Bowyer,” that the plan of another work was formed by this eminent mathematician, intended to be of the same nature with the “Synopsis,” but far more copious and diffusive, and to serve as a general introduction to the sciences, or, which is the same thing, to the mathematical and philosophical works of Newton. A work of this kind had long been a desideratum in literature, and it required a geometrician of the first class to sustain the weight of so important an undertaking; for which, as M. d'Alembert justly observes, “the combined force of the greatest mathematicians would not have been more than sufficient.” The ingenious author was conscious how arduous a task he had begun; but his very numerous acquaintance, and particularly his friend the earl of Macclesfield, never ceased importuning and urging him to persist, till he had finished the whole work, the result of all his knowledge and experience through a life of near 7O years, and a standing monument, as he had reason to hope, of his talents and industry. He had scarcely sent the first sheet to the press, when a fatal illness obliged him to discontinue the impression; and a few days before his death, he intrusted the ms. fairly transcribed by an amanuensis, to the care of lord Macclesfield, who promised to publish it, as well for the honour of the author as for the benefit of his family, to whom the property of the book belonged. The earl survived his friend many years but the “Introduction to the Mathetics” was forgotten or neglected and, after his death, the ms. was not to be found whether it was accidentally destroyed, which is hardly credible, or whether, as hath been suggested, it had been lent to some geometrician, unworthy to bear the name either of a philosopher or a man, who has since concealed it, or possibly burned the original for fear of detection. Lord Teignmouth, however, informs us, in his life of Mr. Jones’s illustrious Son, that there is no evidence in his memoranda to confirm or disprove this account.

During his residence at Oxford, his time was regularly divided into portions, each of which was filled up with the study of the ancients or moderns, and there have been few examples of such extensive accumulation of knowledge by one so young; yet, amidst this severe course of application, he regularly apportioned some time for the practice of those manly exercises which promote health. As all this necessarily became expensive, he anxiously wished for a fellowship, that he might be enabled to relieve his mother from a burthen which she could ill support. He had obtained a scholarship a few months after his matriculation, but a fellowship appeared more remote, and he was beginning to despair of achieving this object, when he received an offer to be private tutor to lord Althorpe, now earl Spencer. He had been recommended to the Spencer family by Dr. Shipley, who had seen and approved some of his performances at Harrow, and particularly a Greek oration in praise of Lyon, who founded the school at that place in the reign of Elizabeth.

In 1778, he published his translation of the “Orations of Iseeus,” in causes concerning the succession to property at Athens; with a prefatory discourse, notes historical and critical, and a commentary. This work he dedicated to earl Bathurst, who among all his illustrious friends, was as yet his only benefactor, by conferring on him the place of commissioner of bankrupts. The elegant style, profound research, and acute criticism, displayed in this translation, attracted the applause of every judge of classical learning. His next publication was a Latin ode to liberty, under the title of “Julii Mdesigoni ad Libertatem” a name formed by the transposition of the letters of* 6 Gulielmus Jonesius" In this ode, the author of which was soon known, he made a more ample acknowledgment of his political principles; and this, it is feared, had an unfavourable influence on the hopes which he was encouraged to entertain of promotion by the then administration. In 1780, there was a vacant seat on the bench of Fort William in Bengal, to svhicli the kindness of lord North Jed him to aspire; but, for some time, he had very little prospect of success. While this matter was in suspense, on the resignation of sir Roger Newdigate, he was advised to come forward as a candidate for the representation of the university of Oxford in parliament; but, finding that there was no chance of success, he declined the contest before the day of election. His principles on the great question of the American war were so avowedly hostile, not only to the measures pursued by administration, but to the sentiments entertained by the majority of the members of the university, that, although he might be disappointed, he could not be surprised at his failure, and accordingly appears to have resigned himself to his former pursuits with tranquil satisfaction.

, a late venerable and pious divine of the church of England, was born at Lowick in Northumberland, July 30, 1726. His father was Morgan Jones, a Welsh gentleman, a descendant of Colonel Jones (but of very different principles) who married a sister of Oliver Cromwell. His mother was Sarah, the daughter of the Rev. Mr. Lettin, of Lowick. He was remarkable from his childhood for unwearied industry and ingmium versatile. As soon as he was of the proper age, he was admitted, on the nomination of the duke of Dorset, a scholar at the Charterhouse, where he made a rapid progress in Greek and Latin, and laid the foundation of that knowledge which has since given him a distinguished name in the Christian world. His turn for philosophical studies soon began to shew itself; for meeting, when at the Charter- house, with Zachary Williams, author of a magnetical theory, which is now lost, he copied some of his tables and calculations, was shewn the internal construction of his instrument for finding the variation of the compass in all parts of the world; and saw all the diagrams by which his whole theory was demonstrated and explained. At this school, too, he commenced an acquaintance with the late earl of Liverpool, which was farther cultivated at the university, where they were of the same college, and continued to the last, notwithstanding the great difference in their future destination, to entertain a respect for each other. When about eighteen years of age, he left the school, and went to University college, Oxford, on a Charterhouse exhibition. Among the several companions of his studies whom he loved and respected, there was no one dearer to him than Mr. George Home, afterwards bishop of Norwich. Between them “there was a sacred friendship a friendship made up of religious principles, which increased daily, by a similitude of inclinations, to the same recreations and studies.” Having taken the degree of B. A. in 1749, he was ordained a deacon by Dr. Thomas, bishop of Peterborough; and in 1751 was ordained a priest by another Dr. Thomas, bishop of Lincoln, at Bugden. On leaving the university, his first situation was that of curate of Finedon in Northamptonshire. There he wrote “A full Answer to bishop Clayton’s Essay on Spirit,” published in 1753. In this tract, many curious and interesting questions are discussed, and several articles in the religion and learning of heathen antiquity explained, particularly the Hermetic, Pythagorean, and Platonic Trinities. In 1754 he married Elizabeth, daughter of the Rev. Brook Bridges, and went to reside at Wadenhoe in Northamptonshire, as curate to his brother-in-law, the Rev. Brook Bridges, a gentleman of sound learning, singular piety, and amiable manners.

While residing here he drew up “The Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity,” which he had been revolving in his mind for some years. When this valuable work came to a third edition in 1767, he added to it “A Letter to the common people, in answer to some popular arguments against the Trinity,” which the Society for promoting Christian knowledge have since printed separately, and admitted into their list of books. Here likewise he engaged in a favourite work, for which he was eminently qualified, as the event proved, and for which some of his friends subscribed among them 300l. for three years, to enable him to supply himself with an apparatus sufficient for the purpose of making the experiments necessary to his composing a treatise on philosophy. Accordingly, in 1762, he published “An Essay on the first principles of Natural Philosophy,” 4to, the design of which was to demonstrate the use of natural means, or second causes, in the economy of the material world, from reason, experiments, and the testimony of antiquity; and in 1781 he published a larger work in 4to, under the title of “Physiological DisquisU tions, or Discourses on the Natural Philosophy of the Elements.” As it was ever his study to make philosophy the handmaid of religion, he has in this work embraced every opportunity of employing natural knowledge in the illustracion of divine truth and the advancement of virtue. "When the first volume was published, the late earl of Bute, the patron of learning ant 4 learned men, was so satisfied with it, that he desired the author not to be intimidated through fear of expence from pursuing his philosophical studies, and likewise commissioned him to direct Mr. Adams, the mathematical instrument maker, to supply him with such instruments as he might want for making experiments, and put them to his account. His lordship also handsomely offered him the use of any books he naight have occasion for.

The “Tale of a Tub,” and the “Magnetic Lady,” were his last dramatic pieces, and bear very few marks of his original powers. He penned another masque in 1634, and we have a “New Year’s Ode” dated in 1G35, but the remainder of his life appears to have been wasted in sickness of the paralytic kind, which at length carried him off, Aug. 16, 1637, in the sixty-third year of his age. Three days afterwards he was interred in Westminster- abbey, at the north-west end near the belfrey, with a common pavement stone laid over his grave, with a short and irreverend inscription of “O rare Ben Jonson,” cut at the expence of sir John Young of Great Milton in Oxfordshire. His death was lamented as a public loss to the poetical world. About six months after this event, his contemporaries joined in a collection of elegies and encomiastic poems, which was published under the title of “Jonsonius Virbius; or the Memory of Ben Jonson revived by the friends of the Muses.” Dr. Duppa, bishop of Chichester, was the editor of this volume, which contained verses by lords Falkland and Buckhurst, sir John Beaumont, sir Francis Wortley, sir Thomas Hawkins, Messrs. Henry King, Henry Coventry, Thomas May, Dudley Diggs, George Fortescue, William Habington, Edmund Waller, J. Vernon, J. Cl. (probably Cleveland) Jasper Mayne, Will. Cartwright, John Rutter, Owen Feltham, George Donne, Shakerley Marmio'n, John Ford, R. Brideoak, Rich. West, R. Meade, H. Ramsay, T. Terrent, Rob. Wasing, Will. Bew, and Sam. Evans. A subscription also was entered hi to for a monument in the Abbey, but prevented by the rebellion. The second earl of Oxford contributed the bust in basrelievo which is now in Poet’s-corner. Jonson had several children, but survived them all. One of them was a poet, and, as Mr. Malqne has discovered, the author of a Drama written in conjunction with Brome. It should seem that he was not on good terms with his father. Fuller says that “Ben was not happy in his children.”

“Mr. Camden recommended (Jonson) to sir Walter Raleigh, who trusted him with the care and instruction of his eldest son Walter, a gay spark, who could not brook Ben’s rigorous treatment, but, perceiving one foible in his disposition, made use of that to throw oft* the yoke of his government. And this was an unlucky habit Ben had contracted, through his love of jovial company, of being overtaken with liquor, which sir Walter did of all vices most abominate, and hath most exclaimed against. One day, when Ben had taken a plentiful dose, and was fallen into a sound sleep, young Raleigh got a great basket, and a touple of men, who laid Ben in it, and then with a pole carried him between their shoulders to sir Walter, telling him their young master had sent home his tutor. This I had from a ms memorandum-book written in the time of the civil wars by Mr. Oldisworth, who was secretary, I think, to Philip earl of Pembroke. Yet in 1614, when sir Walter published his History of the World, there was a good understanding between him and Ben Jonson; for the verses, which explain the grave frontispiece before that history, were written by Jonson, and are reprinted in his” Underwoods,“where the poem is called” The Mind of the frontispiece to a book;“but he names not this book.”

In May 1715, he was admitted of Jesus-college, Cambridge; and, about two years after, recommended by his tutor Dr. Styan Thirlby, who was very fond of him, and always retained a friendship for him, to make extracts from Eustathius, for the use of Pope’s “Homer.” He was not employed directly by Pope, nor did it ever happen to him to see the face of that poet: for, being of a shy modest nature, he felt no impulse to force his way to him; nor did the other make inquiry about him, though perfectly satisfied with what he had done for him. He took the degree of B. A. in 1718-19, and M. A. in 1722: he had been chosen fellow of his college soon after the taking of his first degree. This year he distinguished himself by the publication of a few Latin poems, entitled, “Lusus Poetici;” which were well received, and were twice reprinted, with additions. In Sept. 1723, he entered into deacon’s orders, and into priest’s the June following. In Jan. 1726 -7, he was presented by his college to Swavesey, near Cambridge; but, marrying in 1728, he resigned that living, and spon after settled himself in London, where he was engaged as a reader and preacher at a chapel in street, near Russell-street, Bloomsbury. ID this town he spent the next twenty-five years of his life: for though, in 1737, the earl of Winchelsea gave him the living of Eastvvell in Kent, where he resided a little time, yet he very soon quitted it, and returned to London. Here for many years he had employment as a preacher, in the abovementioned and other chapels; with the emoluments of which occasional services, and a competency of his own, he supported himself and family in a decent though private manner, dividing his leisure hours between his books and his friends, especially those of the literati, with whom he always kept up a close and intimate connection. In 1730, he published “Four Sermons upon the Truth of the Christian Religion:” the substance of which was afterwards incorporated in a work, entitled, “Discourses concerning the Truth of the Christian Religion, 1746,” 8vo.

In 1731, he published “Miscellaneous Observations upon Authors, ancient and modern,” in 2 vols. 8vo. This is a collection of critical remarks, of which, however, he was not the sole, though the principal, author: Pearce, Masson, Dr. Taylor, Wasse, Theobald, Dr. Robinson, Upton, Thirlby, and others, were contributors to it. This work was highly approved by the learned here, and was translated into Latin at Amsterdam, and continued on the same plan by D'Orville and Burman. In 1751, archbishop Herring, unsolicited, gave him the living of St. Dunstan in the East, London. This prelate had long entertained a high and affectionate regard for him had endeavoured to serve him in many instances with others and afterwards, in 1755, conferred upon him the degree of D. D. This same year, 1751, came out his first volume of “Remarks upon Ecclesiastical History,” 8vi. This work was inscribed to die earl of Burlington by whom, as trustee for the Boylean Lecture, he had, through the application of bishop Herring and bishop Sherlock, been appointed, in 1749, to preach that lecture. There is a preface to this volume of more than forty pages, which, with much learning and ingenuity, displays a spirit of liberty and candour. These “Remarks upon Ecclesiastical fiistory” were continued, in tour succeeding volumes, down to the year 1517, when Luther began the work of reformation; two, published by himself, in 1752 and 1754; and two, after his death, in 1773. In 1755, he published “Six Dissertations upon different Subjects,” 8vo. The sixth dissertation is, “On the state of the dead, as described by Homer and Virgil;” and the remarks in this, tending to establish the great antiquity of the doctrine of a future state, interfered with Warburton in his “Divine Legation of Moses,” and drew upon him from that quarter a very severe attack. He made no reply; but in his “Adversaria” was the following memorandum, which shews that he did not oppose the notions of other men, from any spirit of envy or contradiction, but from a full persuasion that the real matter of fact was as he had represented it. “I have examined,” says he, “the state of the dead, as described by Homer and Virgil; and upon that dissertation I am willing to stake all the little credit that I have as a critic and philosopher. I have there observed, that Homer was not the inventor of the fabulous history of the gods: he had those stories, and also the doctrine of a future state, from old traditions. Many notions of the Pagans, which came from tradition, are considered by Barrow, Serm. viii. vol. II. in which sermon the existence of God is proved from universal consent.”

, alias Lyde, second son of William, Joyner, alias Lyde*, of Horspath, near Oxford, by Anne his wife, daughter and coheir of Edward Leyworth, M. 0. of Oxford, was born in St. Giles’s parish there, ApriT 1622, educated partly in Thame, but more in Coventry free-school, elected demy of Magdalen-college, 1626, and afterwards fellow. But, “upon a foresight of the utter ruin of the church of England by the presbyterians in the time of the rebellion,” he changed his religion for that of Rome, renounced his fellowship, 1644, and being taken into the service of the earl of Glamorgan, went with him into Ireland, and continued there till the royal cause declined in that country. He then accompanied that earl in his travels abroad; and some time after being recommended to the service of the hon. Walter Montague, abbot of St. Martin, near Pontoise, he continued several years in his family as his steward, esteemed for his learning, sincere

Jungius seems to have eminently distinguished himself in the several studies of theology, medicine, mathematics, metaphysics, and botany, upon all which pursuits his opinions and observations are handed down to us in his writings, though the most famous part of his work, entitled “Doxoscopiae Physicze Minores,” is upon the last mentioned subject, botany. This book was first printed at Hamburgh, in 4to, A.D. 1662, and again, in 1679, under the care of Martin Fogel, with this additional title, “Prsecipuarum opinionum physicarum.” A copy of the former edition of this work is in the Linnoean library, having been presented to Linnæus by his pupil, professor P. D. Giseke, of Hamburgh. The botanical part of it, included in the third section of the second part, occupies about 100 pages, and contains many judicious and acute rules for making distinct species of plants, as well as some curious remarks upon genera. He was a great critic in botanical nomenclature; and constructed a variety of terms which agree with those of Linnasus, and his remarks upon botanical discrimination have been of considerable advantage to succeeding botanists, and many of his definitions are repeatedly made use of by our immortal countryman, Ray. He was the first who projected and raised a literary society in Germany, though this institution did not share a better fate than the one which had just before been founded in this country (and which appears to have served for its model) by Hugh Latimer, Thomas Linacre, and others, for the purpose of discussing and illustrating Aristotle’s philosophy. They both Bourished but for a short period, though the Heunetic or Ereunetic society, as it was called, established by professor Jungius, was on a far more comprehensive plan than the other, and may indeed be considered as having, in some measure, embraced the same views with which the royal society was afterwards instituted in Great Britain. The fame of Jungius was originally diffused through this country by his noble pupil, the honourable Charles Cavendish, who appears to have studied under him at Hamburgh. This gentleman was brother to the earl of Newcastle, who had the care of Charles I. when a youth.

, son of the preceding, was born at Heidelberg in 1589, and received the first elements of his education at Leyden, apparently with a view to letters; but upon the death of his father in 1602, resolving to go into the army in the service of the prince of Orange, he applied himself particularly to such branches of the mathematics as are necessary to make a figure in the military life. He had niade a good progress in these accomplishments at twenty years of age; when the war being concluded by a truce for twelve years in 1609, occasioned a change in his purpose, and inclined him to cultivate the arts of peace by a close application to study. His first literary employment was to collect, digest, and publish some of his father’s writings. After some years spent thus in his own country, he resolved, for farther improvement, to travel abroad. With that view he went first to France, and then to England, in which he arrived in 1620, and having recommended himself by his learning and amiable manners to the literati there, he was taken into the family of Thomas earl of Arundel, in which he continued for the space of thirty years. During his abode there he made frequent excursions to Oxford, chiefly for the sake of the Bodleian and other libraries; where, meeting with several Anglo-Saxon books, he resolved to study the language, which was at that time neglected. He soon perceived that the Anglo-Saxon tongue would be of service to him for discovering many etymologies necessary to clear up the Flemish, Belgic, German, and English, languages; and therefore devoted himself wholly to that study, He afterwards learned the ancient language of the Goths, Francs, Cimbri, and Prisons; by which he discovered the etymology of several Italian, French, and Spanish words; for the Goths, Vandals, French, Burgundians, and Germans, spread their language in the provinces they conquered, of which some vestiges are still left.

It was, however, his misfortune, that the archbishop carried his esteem for him too far, and involved him in a scheme which Laud vainly fancied would raise the power and consequence of the church. This was no other than to place churchmen in high political stations;.and by way of experiment, he prevailed on the king to appoint bishop Juxon to the office of lord high treasurer, to which he was accordingly promoted in 1635. This office no churchman had held since the time of Henry VII. and although that was not such a very distant period, as not to afford something like a precedent to the promotion, yet the sentiments of the nation were now totally changed, and the noble families, from which such an officer was expected to have been chosen, were not more astonished than displeased to see the staff put into the hands of a clergyman scarcely known out of the verge of his college until called to the bishopric of London, which he had not filled two years. Notwithstanding this, it is allowed un all hands that Dr. Juxon conducted himself in such a manner, as to give no offence to any party; while, in the management of official concerns, he was so prudent and oeconomical, as considerably to benefit the exchequer. There cannot, indeed, be a greater proof of his good conduct than this, that when the republican party ransacked every office for causes of impeachment, sequestration, and death, they found nothing to object to bishop Juxon. He was not, however, made for the times; and when he saw the storm approaching which was to overset the whole edifice of church and state, he resigned his office May 17, 1641, just after the execution of the earl of Strafford, in consequence of the king’s passing the bill of attainder, contrary to Juxon’s express and earnest advice.

, a lady celebrated for her skill in calligraphy, in queen Elizabeth’s and king James’s time, appears to have lived single until the age of forty, when she became the wife of one Bartholomew Keilo, a native of Scotland, by whom she had a son, Samuel Kello, who was educated at Christ-church, Oxford, and was minister of Speckshall in Suffolk. His son was sword-bearer of Norwich, and died in 1709. All we know besides of her is, that she was a correspondent of bishop Hall, when he was dean of Worcester in 1617. Various specimens of her delicate and beautiful writing are in our public repositories, and some in Edinburgh-castle. In the library of Christchurch, Oxford, are the Psalrns of David, written in French by Mrs. Inglis, who presented them in person to queen Elizabeth, by whom they were given to the library. Two manuscripts, written by her, were also preserved with care in the Bodleian library: one of them is entitled “Le six vingt et six Quatrains de Guy de Tour, sieur de Pybrac, escrits par Esther Inglis, pour son dernier adieu, ce 21e jour de Juin, 1617.” The following address is, in the second leaf, written in capital letters: “To the right worshipful my very singular friende, Joseph Hall, doctor of divinity, and dean of Winchester, Esther Inglis wisheth all increase of true happiness. Junii xxi. 1617.” In the third leaf is pasted the head of the writer, painted upon a card. The other manuscript is entitled “Les Proverbes de Salomon; escrites en diverses sortes de lettres, par Esther Anglois, en Francoise. A Lislehourge en Escosse,” 1599. Every chapter of this curious performance is written in a different hand, as is also the dedication. The manuscript contains near forty different characters of writing. The beginnings and endings of the chapters are adorned with beautiful head and tail-pieces, and the margins, in imitation of the old manuscripts, curiously decorated with the pen. The book is dedicated to the earl of Essex. On one of the first pages are his arms neatly drawn, with all their quarterings. In the fifth leaf, drawn with a pen, is the picture of Esther Inglis, in the habit of the times: her right hand holds a pen, the left rests upon an open book, on one of the leaves of which is written, “DC l'Eternel Je biert, de moi le mal, ou rien.” A music-book lies open before her. Under the picture is a Latin epigram by Andrew Melvin, and on the following page a second by the same author, in praise of Mrs. Inglis. In the royal library, D. xvi. are “Esther Inglis’s fifty Emblems,” finely drawn and written: “A Lislebourg en Escosse, Panne 1624.”

, was the only son of one of the most eminent merchants at Yarmouth, where he was born in 1751. He was entered of Caius college, Cambridge, where he did not long reside; but, returning to Yarmouth, became acquainted -with that celebrated antiquary Thomas Martin of Palgrave, and caught from him that taste for antiquities which he pursued during the short period of his life. He was elected F. S. A. 1771, and F. R. S. 1772; and, by favour of the earl of Suffolk, in him the honour of Suffolk herald extraordinary was revived; an office attended with no profit, but valuable to him by the access it gave to the Mss. muniments, &c. of the heralds college, of which he thereby became an honorary member. His first attempt at antiquarian publication was by proposals (without his name) in 1771, for printing an account of Lothingland hundred in Suffolk; for which he had engraved several small plates of arms and monuments in the churches of Friston, Gorleston, Loud, Lowestoffe, and Somerliton, from his own drawings. His next essay was the short preface to Mr. Swinden’s “History and Antiquities of Great Yarmouth, in the county of Norfolk, 1772,” 4to. Mr. Svvinden, who was a schoolmaster in Great Yarmouth, was a most intimate friend of Mr. Ives, who not only assisted him with his purse, and warmly patronized him while living, but superintended the book for the emolument of the author’s widow, and delivered it to the subscribers . In 1772 he caused to be cut nine wooden plates of old Norfolk seals, entitled “Sigilla antiqua Norfolciensia. Impressit Johannes Ives, S. A. S.” and a copper-plate portrait of Mr. Martin holding an urn, since prefixed to Martin’s “History of Thetford.” On Aug. 16, 1773, by a special licence from the archbishop of Canterbury, he was married at Lambeth church to Miss Kett (of an ancient family in Norfolk), and afterwards resided at Yarmouth.

, field-marshal in the king of Prussia’s service, was born in 1696, and was the younger son of William Keith, earl marshal of Scotland. He had his grammar-learning under Thomas Ruddiman, author of the “Rudiments;” his academical, under bishop Keith and William IMeston, in the college of Aberdeen. He was designed by his friends for the profession of the law; but the bent of his genius inclined him to arms, with which they wisely complied. His first military services were employed while a youth of eighteen, in the rebellion of 1715. In this unhappy contest, through the instigation of the counless his mother, who was a Roman catholic, he joined the Pretender’s party, and was at the battle of Sheriffmuir, in which he was wounded, yet able to make his escape to France. Here he applied to those branches of education, which are necessary to accomplish a soldier. He studied mathematics under M. de Maupertuis; and made such proficiency, that he was, by his recommendation, admitted a fellow of the royal academy of sciences at Paris. He afterwards travelled through Italy, Switzerland, and Portugal; with uncommon curiosity examined the several productions in architecture, painting, and sculpture; and surveyed the different fields where famous battles had been fought. In 1717, he had an opportunity of forming an acquaintance with Peter, czar of Muscovy, at Paris, who invited him to enter into the Russian service. This offer he declined, because the emperor was at that time at war with the king of Sweden, whose character Keith held in great veneration. He then left Paris, and went to Madrid; where, by the interest of the duke of Lyria, he obtained a commission in the Irish brigades, then commanded by the duke of Ormond. He afterwards accompanied the duke of Lyria, when he was sent ambassador extraordinary to Russia, and was recommended by him to the service of the czarina, who promoted him to the rank of lieutenant-general, and invested him with the order of the black eagle.

Whatever offence this sermon might give to others, it did not offend the succeeding duke of Devonshire, to whom it was dedicated, who, on the contrary, recommended the doctor to the queen for the deanery of Peterborough, which he obtained in 1707. In 1709, he published “A Vindication of the Church and Clergy of England from some ]ate Reproaches rudely and unjustly cast upon them” and, “A true Answer to Dr. SacheverelPs Sermon before the Lord-Mayor, November 5 of that year.” In 1710, he was greatly reproached, for not joining in the London clergy’s address to the queen. When the great point in SacheverelPs trial, the change of the ministry, was gained, and addresses succeeded, an address was prepared from the bishop and clergy of London, so worded that they, who would not subscribe it, might be represented as enemies to the queen and her ministry. Dr. Kennet, however, refused to sign it, which was announced in one of the newspapers, Dyer’s Letter of Aug. 4, 1710. This zealous conduct in Kennet, in favour of his own party, raised so great an odium against him, and made him so very obnoxious to the other, that very uncommon methods were taken to expose him; and one, in particular, by Dr. Weiton, rector of WhitechapeL In an altar-piece of that church, which was intended to represent Christ and his twelve apostles eating the passover and the last supper, Judas, the traitor, was drawn sitting in an elbow-chair, dressed in a black garment, between a gown and a cloak, with a black scarf and a white band, a short wig, and a mark in his forehead between a lock and a patch, and with so much of the countenance of Dr. Kennet, that under it, in effect, was written “the dean the traitor.” It was generally said, that the original sketch was designed for a bishop under Dr. Welton’s displeasure, which occasioned the elbow-chair, and that this bishop was Burnet: but the painter being apprehensive of an action of Scandalum Magnatum, leave was given him to drop the bishop, and make the dean. Multitudes of people came daily to the church to admire the sight; but it was esteemed so insolent a contempt of all that is sacred, that, upon the complaint of others, (for the dean never saw or seemed to regard it, the bishop of London obliged those who set the picture up to take it down again. But these arts and contrivances to expose him, instead of discouraging, served only to animate him; and he continued to write and act as usual in the defence of that cause which he had espoused and pushed so vigorously hitherto. In the mean time, he employed his leisure-hours in things of a different nature; but which, he thought, would be no less serviceable to the public good. In 1713, he made a large collection of books, charts, maps, and papers, at his own expence, with a design of writing “A full History of the Propagation of Christianity in the English American Colonies;” and published a catalogue of all the distinct treatises and papers, in the order of time as they were first printed or written, under this title, “Bibliothecae Americanae primordia.” About the same time he founded “an antiquarian and historical library” at Peterborough; for which purpose he had long been gathering up pieces, from the very beginning of printing in England to the latter end of queen Elizabeth’s reign. In the rebellion of 1715, he published a sermon upon “the witchcraft of the present Rebellion;” and, the two following years, was very zealous for repealing the acts against occasional conformity and the growth of schism. He also warmly opposed the proceedings in the convocation against Hoadly, then bishop of Bangor which was thought to hurt him so as to prove an effectual bar to his farther advancement in the church nevertheless, he was afterwards promoted to the see of Peterborough, November 1718. He continued to print several things after his last promotion, which he lived to enjoy something above ten years; and then died in his house in James’s-street, December 19, 1728. His numerous and valuable ms collections, which were once in the collection of Mr. West, were purchased by the earl of Shelburne, afterwards marquis of Lansdowne, and sold with the rest of his lordship’s Mss. to the British Museum, where they are now deposited. Among these are two volumes in a large Atlas folio, which were intended for publication under the following comprehensive title “Diptycha Ecclesise Anglicanae sive Tabulae Sacrse in quibus facili ordine recensentur Archiepiscopi, Episcopi, eorumque Suffraganei, Vicarii Generales, et Cancellarii; Ecclesiarum insuper Cathedralium Priores, Decani, Thesaurarii, Praecentores, Cancellarii, Archidiaconi, & melioris notae Canonici, continua serie deducti a Gulielmi I. Conquestu, ad auspicata Gul. III. tempora.”

"Dr. Swift came into the coffee-house, and had a bow from every body but me, who, I confess, could not but despise him. When I came to the an ti- chamber to wait before prayers, Dr. Swift was the principal man of talk and business, and acted as a master of requests. He was soliciting the earl of Arran to speak to his brother the duke of Ormond, to get a chaplain’s place established in the garrison of Hull for Mr. Fiddes, a clergyman in that neighbourhood, who had lately been in gaol, and published sermons to pay fees. He was promising Mr. Thorold to undertake with my lord treasurer, that, according to his petition, he should obtain a salary of 200l. per annum, as minister of the English church at Rotterdam. Then he stopt F. Gwynne, esq. going in with his red bag to the queen, and told him aloud he had somewhat to say to him from my lord treasurer. He talked with the son of Dr. Davenant to be sent abroad, and took out his pocket-book and wrote down several things, as memoranda, to do for him. He turned to the fire, and took out his gold watch, and, telling the time of the day, complained it was very late. A gentleman said, ‘ he was too fast.’ * How can I help it,‘ says the doctor, ’ if the courtiers give me a watch that won‘t go right’ Then he instructed a young nobleman, that the best poet in England was Mr. Pope (a papist), who had begun a translation of Homer into English verse for which ‘ he must have ’em all subscribe' for, says he, the author shall not begin to print till I have a thousand guineas for him. Lord Treasurer, after leaving the queen, came through the room beckoning Dr. Swift to follow him: both went off just before prayers. 11 Nov. 3. I see and hear a great deal to confirm a doubt, that the pretender’s interest is much at the bottom of some

The same year he was, by the interest of his brother, appointed chaplain to the English factory at Leghorn; where he no sooner arrived than he met with great opposition from the papists, and was in great danger of the inquisition. This establishment of a church-of-England chaplain was a new thing; and the Italians were so jealous of the Northern heresy, that, to give as little offence as possible, he performed the duties of his office with the utmost privacy and caution. But, notwithstanding this, great offence was taken at it; and complaints were immediately sent to Florence and Rome. Upon this, the pope, and the court of inquisition at Home, declared their resolution to expel heresy, and the public teacher of it, from the confines of the holy see; and therefore secret orders were given to apprehend Mr. Kennet at Leghorn, and to hurry him away to Pisa, and thence to some other religious prison, to bury him alive, or otherwise dispose of him in the severest manner. Upon notice of this design, Dr. Newton, the English envoy at Florence, interposed his offices at that court; where he could obtain no other answer, but that “he might send for the English preacher, and keep him in his own family as his domestic chaplain; otherwise, if he presumed to continue at Leghorn, he must take the consequences of it; for, in those matters of religion, the court of inquisition was superior to all civil powers.” The envoy communicated this answer of the great duke to the earl of Sunderland, then secretary of state, who sent a menacing letter by her majesty’s order; and then the chaplain continued to officiate in safety, though he was with much difficulty preserved from their intended fury till that letter arrived.

, an ingenious artist, was born in Yorkshire, in 1685, and put apprentice to a coach-painter, but, feeling the superiority of his talents, he left his master, and came up to London, where he soon proved himself worthy of encouragement and patronage. In 1710 he was sent, by the munificence of some gentlemen of his own country, to Rome, whither he accompanied Mr. Tallman. There he studied under Cavalier Luti, and in the academy gained the second prize of the second class. He also became acquainted with lord Burlington, whose sagacity discovered the rich vein of genius that had been hid even from himself; and, on their return to England in 1719, lodged him in his own house, and shewed for him all the marks of the most disinterested friendship. By his interest he was employed in various works, both as a painter in history and portrait; and yet there appear but very faint traces of that creative talent he displayed in a sister art. His portraits did not resemble the persons that sat for them. His colouring was worse than that of the most errant journeyman to the profession; and his drawing was defective, witness the hall at Wanstead, and his picture at St. Clement’s. Fie designed some of the drawings of Gay’s Fables, the prints for Spenser’s Fairy Queen, and the vignettes to the large edition of Pope’s works. In architecture, however, of the ornamental kind, he was deservedly admired he executed the temple of Venus at Stowe the earl of Leicester’s house at Holkham in Norfolk; the great hall at Mr. Pelham’s, Arlington-street; and the stair-case at lady Isabella Finch’s in Berkeley-square. Mr. Walpole considers him likewise as the inventor of modern gardening, in which it is certain that he excelled, and every thing in that branch has been since his time more natural, graceful, and pleasing. By the patronage of the dukes of Grafton and Newcastle, Mr. Pelham, and the earl of Burlington, he was made master-carpenter, architect, keeper of the pictures, and, after the death of Jervas, principal painter to the crown; the whole, including a pension of 100l. a year, which was given him for his works at Kensington, produced 600l. a year. In 1743 he was disordered in his eyes, but recovered, and in March 1748 an inflammation in his bowels put an end to his life at Burlington-house, April 12, 1748, aged sixty-three years. He was buried in lord Burlington’s vault at Chiswick.

, lord chief justice of the King’s Bench, was born at Gredington, in Flintshire, 1733 and was the eldest surviving son of Lloyd Kenyon, esq. originally of Bryno in the same county, and one of the younger sons of the ancient family of Kenyon of Peele in Lancashire. He received the elementary part of his education at Ruthen in Denbighshire, whence he was taken, at an early age, and articled to Mr. W. J. Tomlinson, an eminent attorney at Nantwich, in Cheshire. On the expiration of his articles, Mr. Kenyon determined to enter into a line which afforded a more ample scope to his industry and talents, and, accordingly, became a member of the Society of Lincoln’s Inn, in Trinity Term 1754, and after a sedulous application to the requisite studies, was called to the bar in Hilary Term 1761. In the early part of his professional career, his advancement was but slow; he was unassisted by those means which powerful connexion and interest afford. The branch of his profession to which he chiefly applied himself, that of conveyancing, was not calculated to bring him forward into public notice; but the sterling merit of genuine abilities and persevering industry were not to be overlooked. He rose gradually into practice; few opinions at the bar, at the time, carried more weight and authority, and he was frequently recurred to as an advocate. In 1773, he formed a matrimonial connexion with his relative, Mary, the third daughter of George Kenyon, of Peele and, not long after, contracted an intimacy with Mr. afterwards lord Thurlow and chancellor. About this period too, and for some years after, his practice in the Courtof Chancery was very extensive and of the most lucrative kind, by which, as well as in the other branches of his profession, he acquired a very considerable property. In 1780, a circumstance occurred which not a little contributed to establish his reputation as an advocate and a public speaker, his being employed as leading counsel for the defence of the late lord George Gordon, on a charge of high treason; on this interesting occasion his second was Mr. now lord Erskine, who on that day distinguished himself in such a manner as in a great degree laid the foundation of his future fame. In April 1782, soon after the accession of the Rockingham party to ministerial power, Mr. Kenyon was, without serving the intermediate office of solfcitor, appointed to the important situation of attorney-general, and, at the same time, chief justice of Chester; in the former office he succeeded the late James Wallis, esq. The circumstance of his direct promotion to the office of attorney-general was regarded as a singular instance; this however is erroneous, similar promotions have before occurred, and the case of sir Edward Law (the late attorney-general, now lord Ellenborough, his successor as lord chief justice), is a recent instance. In parliament Mr. Kenyon took a decided part in politics, warmly attaching himself to the party of Mr. Pitt; and distinguishing himself not a little by his speeches on the noted affair of the coalition, Mr. Fox’s India-bill, &c. In March 1784 he was appointed master of the rolls, an office of high judicial dignity, and generally leading to still higher legal honours; yet its emoluments fell very short of those which he necessarily relinquished by discontinuing his professional pursuits as a counsel. About this time he was created a baronet. In this situation sir Lloyd Kenyon continued till the latter end of May 1788, when, on the resignation of the venerable earl of Mansfield, who, for the long interval of thirty-two years, had held the honourable and very important office of chief justice of the court of KingVbench, he was appointed to succeed him, and at the same time was elevated to the peerage, by the title of lord Kenyon, baron of Gredington in the county of Flint. He was now fixed in a situation, which, though not nominally the highest, is perhaps the most important office in the administration of the law of this country; and lord Kenyon furnished an instance nearly as striking as that of the illustrious Hardwicke, that the profession of the law is that which, of all others, affords the fairest opportunies for the exertion of genuine talents and persevering industry; whether the object be the gratification of ambition in the attainment of the highest honours in the state, or the possession of abundant wealth. His conduct in those arduous and important situations attracted and fixed the applauses and gratitude of his countrymen. He was distinguished for his laudable, firm, and persevering exertions to keep the channels of the law clear and unpolluted by low and sordid practices, which were particularly exemplified in the vigilant and salutary exercise of his authority over the attorneys of his own court, the utility of which has been experienced in a very considerable degree. Nor was he less distinguished for his zeal in the cause of morality and virtue, which most conspicuously appeared in his conduct with respect to cases of adultery and seduction. On these occasions neither rank, wealth, nor station, could shield deliquency from the well-merited censure and rebuke of offended justice and morality. Though much, unhappily, remains to be done, yet his lordship’s exertions, combined with those of some of the most virtuous and exalted characters of the upper House of Parliament, have contributed greatly, notwithstanding the acknowledged inadequacy and imperfection of the law in these respects, to restrain the fashionable and prevailing vices alluded to. What likewise redounded to the honour of his lordship’s magisterial character, was the strictness, not to say severity, with which he administered the justice of the law against the pernicious tribe of gamblers of every description, who have for some years infested the metropolis. On these occasions, as well as in those above mentioned, the conduct of this truly virtuous judge was such as incontrovertibly shewed that “the law is no respecter of persons;” and his persevering exertions to restrain the destructive vice of gaming have been attended with no inconsiderable degree of success. Nor should we omit to mention the very laudable spirit and firmness, which on all occasions he evinced in maintaining due order and decorum in his court. It was justly said of him, that though he might not equal in talents or eloquence the pre-eminent character whom he succeeded on the bench of justice; nevertheless, he possessed qualities mor*e appropriate to, and knowledge more connected with, the important office which he held. Profound in legal erudition, patient in judicial discrimination, and of the most determined integrity, he added no common lustre to his exalted station. He did not sacrifice his official to his parliamentary character; the sphere of his particular duty was the great scene of his activity, as of his honour; and though, as a lord of parliament, he never lessened his character, it was as a judge that he aggrandized it. In private life, the character of lord Kenyon was amiable and praise- worthy in the highest degree no man could excel him in the relations of husband and father in the former he may be considered as a pattern of conjugal virtue. In his mode of living he was remarkably temperate and regular; while the gratuitous assistance in his professional capacity, which it was well known he had often afforded to necessitous and injured individuals, is a proof that a fondness for money was not a prevailing trait in his character. He died at Bath, April 2, 1802, supposed to be worth 300,000l. all acquired by his own professional exertions, and a rigid spirit of economy. Lord Kenyon had issue by his lady, three sons; Lloyd, born in 1775, whom his father appointed to the office of filazer of the Court of King’s-bench; but who died in 1800. The manner in which his lordship was affected by this melancholy event, is supposed, in some degree, to have accelerated his own dissolution. Secondly, George, the present lord Kenyon, born in 1776. His lordship was appointed by his late father to the very lucrative situation of joint chief clerk of the Court of King’s-bench, on the demise of the late earl of Mansfield, better known as lord viscount Stormont, and joined in the patent with the late John Waye, esq. And, thirdly, the hon. Thomas Kenyon, born in 1780,

, a celebrated English admiral, the second son of William earl of Albemarle, was born April 2, 1725. He entered the sea-service while he was young, accompanied commodore Anson round the world, and by the zeal which he manifested in his profession, was raised to the first honours which it had to bestow. The most important occurrence in his life took place in 1778, when he had the command of the channel fleet, to which he had been appointed at the personal and urgent solicitation of the king, and which he readily accepted, though he could not help observing, that “his forty years’ services were not marked by any favour from the crown, except that of its confidence in the time of danger.” On the 12th of July he fell in with the French fleet, under count d'Orvilliers, off Ushant: an engagement ensued, which, though partial, was very warm while it lasted. It was necessary to take a short time to repair the damages: which being done, the admiral made proper signals for the van and rear division to take their respective stations. This order was obeyed with great alacrity by sir Robert Harland of the van, but admiral sir Hugh Palliser of the rear took no notice of the signal, and refused to join his commander, till night prevented a renewal of the battle. The French, taking advantage of the darkness, escaped to their own. coast. Admiral Keppel, willing to excuse sir Hugh Palliser, at least to screen him from public resentment, wrote home such a letter as seemed even to imply great impropriety of behaviour in the commander himself. The conduct, however, of the rear-admiral was attacked in the public papers: he demanded of his commander a formal disavowal of the charges brought against him, which Keppel indignantly refused. He immediately exhibited articles of accusation against the commander-in-chief, for misconduct and neglect of duty, although he had a second time sailed with him, and had never uttered a syllable to his prejudice. The lords of the admiralty instantly fixed a day for the trial of admiral Keppel, who was most honourfcbly acquitted, and received the thanks of both houses of parliament for his services. Palliser was next tried, and escaped with a censure only, but the resentment of the public was so great, that he was obliged to resign several offices which he held under government, and to vacate his seat in parliament. The acquittal of Keppel was celebrated with the most magnificent illuminations, and other marks of rejoicing which had never been known at that time in this country; and the houses of lord Sandwich, first lord of the admiralty, and sir Hugh Palliser, were with difficulty saved from destruction; the windows and much of the furniture being demolished by the fury of the populace. In 1782, admiral Keppel was raised to a peerage, with the titles of viscount Keppel baron Elden: he was afterwards, at two different periods, appointed first lord of the admiralty. He died Oct. 3, 1786, unmarried, and of course his titles became extinct He was a thorough seaman, and a man of great integrity and humanity.

, a very learned English bishop, was born, as Wood says, at Brighthelmstone in Sussex, but as others say, in Suffolk. In June 1649, he was admitted sizar in Emanuel -college, Cambridge, where he took his degree of A. B. 1652, was elected fellow in 1655, and took his degree of A. M. in 1656. He was presented by his college to the vicarage of Stanground, in Huntingdonshire; from which he was ejected for nonconformity, in 1662, by virtue of the Bartholomew act; but conforming soon after, he was presented by Arthur earl of Essex to the rectory 01 Raine, in Essex, 1664. Here he continued till 1674, when he was presented to the rectory of St. Martin’s Outwicb, London, by the Merchant-tailors company. In September 1681, he was installed into a prebend of Norwich; and in 1689 made dean of Peterborough, in the room of Simon Patrick, promoted to the see of Chichester. On this occasion he took the degree of D. D. Upon the deprivation of Ken, bishop of Bath and Wells, for not taking the oaths to king William and queen Mary, and Beveridge’s refusal of that see, Kidder was nominated in June 1691, and consecrated the August following. In 1693 he preached the lecture founded by the honourable Robert Boyle, being the second that preached it. His sermons on that occasion are inserted in his “Demonstration of the Messias,” in three parts; the first of which was published in 1694, the second in 1699, and the third in 1700, 8vo. It is levelled against the Jews, whom the author was the better enabled to combat from his great knowledge of the Hebrew and oriental languages, for which he had long been celebrated. He wrote also, “A Commentary on the Five Books of Moses; with a Disser tation concerning the author or writer of the said books, and a general argument to each of them.” This commentary was published in 1694, in two volumes, 8vo; and the reader in the preface is thus acquainted with the occasion of it: “Many years are now passed since a considerable number of the London clergy met together, and agreed to publish some short notes upon the whole Bible, for the use of families, and of all those well-disposed persons that desired to read the Holy Scriptures to their greatest advantage. At that meeting they agreed upon this worthy design, and took their several shares, and assigued some part to them who were absent. I was not present at that meeting; but I was soon informed that they had assigned to me the Pentateuch. The work was begun with common consent; we did frequently meet; and what was done was communicated from time to time to those that met together and were concerned. The methods of proceeding had been adjusted and agreed to; a specimen was printed, and an agreement was made when it should be put to the press. I finished my part in order thereto; but so it fell out, that soon after all this, the clouds began to gather apace, and there was great ground to fear that the popish party were attempting to ruin the church of England. Hence it came to pass that the thoughts of pursuing this design were laid aside; and those that were concerned in it were now obliged to turn their studies and pens against that dangerous enemy. During this time, also, some of the persons concerned in this work were taken away by death; and thus the work was hindered, that might else have been finished long since. I, having drawn up my notes upon this occasion, do now think myself obliged to make them public,” &c. To the first volume is prefixed a dissertation, in which he sets down, and answers all the objections made against Moses being the author of the Pentateuch; and having considered, among the rest, one objection drawn by Le Clerc, from Gen. xxxvi. 31, and spoken in pretty severe terms of him, some letters passed between them, which were printed by Le Clerc in his “Bibliotheque Choisie.” Dr. Kidder had likewise borne a part in the popish controversy, during which he published the following tracts: 1 “A Second Dialogue between a new Catholic Convert and a Protestant; shewing why he cannot believe the doctrine of Transubstantiation, though he do firmly believe the doctrine of the Trinity.” 2. “An Examination of Bellarmine’s Thirtieth note of the Church, of the Confession of Adversaries.” 3. “The Texts which Papists cite out of the Bible for the proof of their Doctrine, `of the Sacrifice of the Mass,' examined.” 4. “Reflections on a French Testament, printed at Bourdeaux, 1686, pretended to be translated out of the Latin by the divines of Louvain.” He published also several sermons and tracts of the devotional kind.

, a learned and philosophical antiquary, was a native of Norfolk, where he was born in 1735, and having inherited from an uncle, Mr. Brown of Exeter, an ample fortune, was early enabled to pursue his inclinations, which led him chiefly to the study of antiquities. He was partly educated at Clare-hall, Cambridge, but afterwards entered of Lincoln’s-inn, and, we presume, studied the law, as he was afterwards chosen recorder of Lynn in Norfolk. He was elected F.R.S. in 1767, and F.S.A. in 1770; and to the Archecologia made various communications, which gave him such reputation with the society, that in 1784, on the demise of Dr. Milles, he was elected president, on which occasion he introduced a number of new regulations, and the appointment of two regular secretaries, and a draughtsman, to attend constantly. On St. George’s day following, however, he was obliged to resign the chair, in favour of George lord de Ferrars, afterwards earl of Leicester and marquis Townsend, a majority of nearly two to one having appeared against him. He afterwards printed a letter in vindication of himself, and reflecting upon the noble earl, and from that period ceased to make any communications to the society.

Among his other literary labours were his composing a pack of cards containing the arms of the English nobility, in imitation of “Claud Oronce Fine Brianille;” and “the order of the installation of prince George of Denmark, Charles duke of Somerset, and George duke of Northumberland, at Windsor, April 8, 1684,” printed in London, in 1684, in folio. As also the “Installation of Henry duke of Norfolk, Henry earl of Peterborough, and Laurence earl of Rochester, Windsor, July 22, 1685,” printed in London in the same year, 1686, in folio. Besides these various occupations he afterwards became secretary to the commissioners for settling the public accounts, and secretary to the comptrollers of the army. In both he acquired the highest commendation. Mr. King was a man of great varied powers, and as an herald and genealogist, he equalled his great master Dugdale. He also wrote a valuable work, lately published from his ms. in the British Museum, by Mr. George Chalmers, entitled, “Natural and political observations and conclusions upon the State and Condition of England.” Dying August 29, 1712, aged 63, he was buried in the chancel of St. Bennet’s church, Paul’s Wharf, where is a handsome mural monument of marble. He was twice married, but left no issue.

Early in 1701, Dr. King was recalled to the busy scenes of life. His friend James the third earl of Anglesea (who had succeeded to that title April 1, 1690), married Oct. 28, 1699, the lady Catharine Darnley, natural daughter to king James II. by Catharine countess of Dorchester, and had by her one daughter. After living together little more than a year, a dispute arose between them, which ended in a separation. Lord Anglesea solicited the assistance of Dr. King; and the force of friendship prevailed over his natural aversion to the wrangling of the bar. He complied with the request took abundant pains for his old friend, more than he was ever known to do and distinguished himself so in the earl’s defence, as shewed him to have had abilities in his profession equal to any occasion that might call for them, and effectually established his reputation in the character of a civilian, as he had already done in that of a polite writer.

Notwithstanding the reputation acquired by Dr. King in this cause, he never afterwards attained any striking eminence in a profession where constant assiduity and a long course of years are requisites for the acquisition of fame. Captivated by the rnuses, he neglected business, and by degrees, as is natural to such tempers, began to dread and abhor it. Heedless of those necessary supplies which a due attention would actually have brought to his finances, they were so much impaired by his neglect, and by the gay course of life which he led, that he gladly accepted the offer of preferment in Ireland; a sure sign that his practice was then not very considerable, as he is perhaps the only civilian that ever went to reside in Ireland after once having experienced the emoluments of a settlement in Doctors Commons. The exact period of his quitting this kingdom cannot now be ascertained. It has been generally supposed that he went with the earl of Pembroke, who was appointed lord lieutenant in April 1707. But he was certainly in Ireland much earlier, as we have a correct copy of “Mully of Mountown,” in 1704, from the author himself, with a complaint that, before that time, some spurious copies had crept into the world. It is probable, therefore, that his preferment was owing to the united interests of the earl of Rochester, his relation (lord-lieutenant of Ireland from Dec. 12, 1700, to Feb. 4, 1702-3), and his noble patron the earl of Pembroke (lord high admiral of England and Ireland from Jan. 1601-2 to May 1702). If this conjecture be allowed, the date is fixed clearly to the beginning of 1702, and the thread of the history is properly connected. Dr. King was now in a new scene of action. He was judge of the high court of admiralty in Ireland, sole commissioner of the prizes, and keeper of the records in Bermingham’s tower. The latter, indeed, was rather a matter of honour than profit; the salary being at that time but ten pounds a year, though afterwards advanced to 400. He was likewise appointed vicar-general to the lord primate, Dr. Narcissus Marsh. With these honours he was well received and countenanced by persons of the highest rank, and might have made his fortune, if the change of climate could have wrought a change in his disposition. But so far was he from treasuring up the money in a manner thrown into his lap, that he returned to England with no other treasure than a few merry poems and humourous essays. Such indeed was his profusion, that he might have said with Virgil’s shepherd, non unquam grams arc domum mihi dextra redibat.

On Nov. 25, 1708, the earl of Wharton was appointed lord lieutenant. His secretary, Mr. Addison, immediately on his arrival in Ireland, was made keeper of the records; and Dr. King returned to London, where he almost immediately gave the world those admirable instances of the humour so peculiarly his own, by publishing “Useful transactions in philosophy and other sorts of Learning.” The last of these, containing “A Voyage to the Island of Cajamai in America,” is one of the severest and most humourous satires that ever was written in prose.

On Aug. 3, 1710, appeared the first number of “The Examiner,” the ablest vindication of the measures of the queen and her new ministry. Swift be^an with No. 13, and ended by writing part of No. 45 when Mrs.Mauley took it up, and finished the first volume it was afterwards resumed by Mr. Oldisworth, who completed four volumes more, and published nineteen numbers of a sixth volume, when the queen’s death put an end to the work. The original institntors of that paper seem to have employed Dr. King as their publisher, or ostensible author, before they prevailed on their great champion to undertake that task. It is not clear which part of the first ten numbers were Dr. King’s; but he appears pretty evidently the writer of No. H, Oct. 12 No. 12, Oct. 19 and No. 13, Oct. 26 and this agrees with the account given by the publisher of his posthumous works, who says he undertook that paper about the 10th of October. On the 26th of October, no Examiner at all appeared; and the next number, which was published Nov. 2, was written by Dr. Swift. Our author’s warm zeal for the church, and his contempt for the whigs (“his eyes,” says Dr. Johnson, “were open to all the operations of whiggism”), carried him naturally on the side of Sacheverell; and he had a hand, in his dry sarcastic way, in many political essays of that period. He published, with this view, “A friendly Letter from honest Tom Boggy, to the Rev. Mr. Goddard, canon of Windsor, occasioned by a sermon preached at St. George’s chapel, dedicated to her grace the duchess of Marlborough,” 1710; and “A second Letter to Mr. Goddard, occasioned by the late Panegyric given him by the Review, Thursday, July 13, 1710.” These were succeeded by “A Vindication of the Rev. Dr. Henry Sacheverell, from the false, scandalous, and malicious aspersions, cast upon him in a late infamous pamphlet entitled ‘The Modern Fanatic;’ intended chiefly to expose the iniquity of the faction in general, without taking any particular notice of their poor mad fool, Bisset, in particular in a dialogue between a tory and a whig.” This masterly composition had scarcely appeared in the world before it was followed by “Mr. Bisset’s Recantation in a letter to the Rev. Dr. Sacheverell” a singular banter on that enthusiast, whom our author once more thought proper to lash, in “An Answer to a second scandalous book that Mr. Bisset is now writing, to be published as soon as possible.” Dr. White Kennel’s celebrated sermon on the death of the first duke of Devonshire, occasioned, amongst many other publications, a jeu d'esprit of Dr. King-, under the title of “An Answer to Clemens Alexandrinus’s Sermon upon * Quis Dives salvetur?‘ ’ What rich man can be saved' proving it easy for a camel to get through the eye of a needle.” In 1711, Dr. King very diligently employed his pen in publishing that very useful book for schools, his “Historical account of the Heathen Gods and Heroes, necessary for the understanding of the ancient Poets;” a work still in great esteem, and of which there have been several editions. About the same time he translated “Political considerations upon Refined Politics, and the Master-strokes of State, as practised by the Ancients and Moderns, written by Gabriel Naude, and inscribed to the cardinal Bagni.” At the same period also he employed himself on “Rufinus, or an historical essay on the Favourite Ministry under Theodosius and his son Arcadius with a poem annexed, called ' Rufinus, or the Favourite.” These were written early in 1711, but not printed till the end of that year. They were levelled against the duke of Marlborough and his adherents and were written with much asperity. Towards the close of 1711 his circumstances began to reassume a favourable aspect and he was recommended by his firm friend Swift to an office under government. “I have settled Dr. King,” says that great writer, “in the Gazette; it will be worth two hundred pounds a year to him. To-morrow I am to carry him to dine with the secretary.” And in another letter, he tells the archbishop of Dublin, “I have got poor Dr. King, who was some time in Ireland, to be gazetteer; which will be worth two hundred and fifty pounds per annum to him, if he be diligent and sober, for which I am engaged. I mention this because I think he was under your grace’s protection in Ireland.” From what Swift te,lls the archbishop, and a hint which he has in another place dropped, it should seem, that our author’s finances were in such a state as to render the salary of gazetteer no contemptible object to him. The office, however, was bestowed on Dr. King in a manner the most agreeable to his natural temper; as he had not even the labour of soliciting for it. On the last day of December, 1711, Dr. Swift, Dr. Freind, Mr. Prior, and some other of Mr. secretary St. John’s friends, came to visit him; and brought with them the key of the Gazetteer’s office, and another key for the use of the paper-office, which had just before been made the receptacle of a curious collection of mummery, far different from the other contents of that invaluable repository. On the first of January our author had the honour of dining with the secretary; and of thanking him for his remembrance of him at a time when he had almost forgotten himself. He entered on his office the same day; but the extraordinary trouble he met with in discharging its duties proved greater than he could long endure. Mr. Barber, who printed the gazette, obliged him to attend till three or four o'clock, on the mornings when that paper was published, to correct the errors of the press; a confinement which his versatility would never have brooked, if his health would have allowed it, which at this time began gradually to decline. And this, joined to his natural indisposition to the fatigue of any kind of business, furnished a sufficient pretence for resigning his office about Midsummer 1712. On quitting his employment he retired to the house of a friend, in the garden-grounds between Lambeth and Vauxhall, where he enjoyed himself principally in his library; or, amidst select parties, in a sometimes too liberal indulgence of the bottle. He still continued, however, to visit his friends in the metropolis, particularly his relation the earl of Clarendon, who resided in Somerset-house.

, son of the rev. Peregrine King, was born at Stepney, in Mfddlesex, in 1685; and, after a school-education at Salisbury, was entered of Baliol-college, Oxford, July 9, 1701. Proceeding on the law line, he took his doctor’s degree in 1715; was secretary to the duke of Ormond and the earl of Arran, when chancellors of the university; and was made principal of St. Maryhall, in 1718. When he was candidate for the university, in 1722, he resigned his office of secretary; but his other preferment he enjoyed (and it was all he did enjoy) to the time of his death. Dr. Clarke, who opposed him, carried his election; and, after this disappointment, 1727, he went over to Ireland. With what design he went thither is to us unknown; but his enemies say, it was for the purposes of intrigue, and to expose himself to sale. But he says himself, and there are no facts alleged to disprove it, “At no time of my life, either in England or Ireland, either from the present or any former government, have I asked, or endeavoured by any means to obtain, a place, pension, or employment, of any kind. 1 could assign many reasons for my conduct; but one answer I have always ready: I inherited a patrimony, which I found sufficient to supply all my wants, and to leave me at liberty to pursue those liberal studies, which afforded me the most solid pleasures in my youth, and are the delight and enjoyment of my old age. Besides, I always conceived a secret horror of a state of servility and dependence: and I never yet saw a placeman or a courtier, whether in a higher or lower class, whether a priest or a layman, who was his own master.” During his stay in Ireland, he is said to have written an epic poem, called “The Toast,” bearing the name of Scheffer, a Laplander, as its author, and of Peregrine O' Donald, esq. as its translator; which was a political satire, and was printed and given away to friends, but never sold. Dr. Warton says that the countess of Newburgh was aimed at in this satire.

On being admitted to the friendship and intimacy of sir Joshua Reynolds, Hogarth (who furnished the curious frontispiece to his perspective), and most of the other artists of the kingdom, he removed from Ipswich to London, where he obtained the patronage of the earl of Bute. This nobleman introduced him to his present majesty when prince of Wales, by whom he was ever after highly and deservedly honoured. He was made clerk of the works at Kew, and under his majesty’s patronage, who defrayed the expence of the plates, he published in 1761 his very splendid work, “The Perspective of Architecture,” 2 vols. folio. Tn this work Mr. Kirby wholly confined himself to architectural representations; and gave a variety of designs, elegantly drawn and engraved, which he submitted as “new principles for a complete system of the perspective of architecture, both as it relates to the true delineation of objects, and the doctrine of light and shadow.” Mr. Edwards, however, remarks, as a curious circumstance, that the plates of this work contain no example of architectural features disposed obliquely to the picture; a circumstance from which he would infer that Mr. Kirby was no great adept in architecture, and that his practice in perspective was not very comprehensive, especially as his first work is equally deficient with the last in what relates to mouldings, when inclined to the picture, which position, if not the most abstruse in theory, is yet among the most troublesome in operation, and therefore ought to have been demonstrated.

Before the appearance of this work he wrote a pamphlet in vindication of the fame of Dr. Brook Taylor, which was indirectly struck at in the translation of a treatise on perspective by a foreigner. This pamphlet (which has no date) was entitled “Dr. Brook Taylor’s Method of Perspective, compared with the examples lately published on the subject, as Sirigatti'i,” 4to. In 1766, in conjunction with his brother William, then of Witnesham, in the county of Suffolk, attorney at law (who died Sept. 25, 1791, aged seventy-two) he published an improved edition of their father’s map of Suffolk, on a larger scale, with engravings of the arms of the principal families in the county. In 1768 he published a third edition of his treatise on perspective, with a dedication to the earl of Bute. He was a member both of the royal aud antiquary societies; and when the chartered society of artists was disturbed by the illiberal conduct of some of the members, Mr. Kirby was elected president in the place of Hay man, but he soon resigned the chair. He died June 20, 1774, and his widow the following year, and were both buried in Kew churchyard. By his wife he had only two children, William, a promising artist, who died in 1771, and Sarah, afterwards the wife of Mr. James Trimmer, of Brentford, a lady justly celebrated for her numerous works for the religious instruction of the young.

, an English antiquary and biographer, was a native of London (where his father was freje of the Mercers’ company), and received the early part of his education at St. Paul’s school. He was thence admitted of Trinity college, Cambridge, where, having: taken his degree of B. A. in 1702, and of M. A. in 1706 he became chaplain to Edward earl of Orford, who presented him to the vicarage of Chippenham, and also to the rectory of Borough- green in Cambridgeshire, to which last he was instituted Nov. 3, 1707. He afterwards was collated by bishop Moore to a prebendal stall in the church of Ely, June 8, 1714 and presented by him to the rectory of Bluntesham in Huntingdonshire, June 22, 1717. He was made chaplain to George II. in Feb. 1730-1, and promoted by bishop Sherlock to the archdeaconry of Berks, 1735. He died December 10, 1746, in the 72d year of his age, and was buried in the chancel of Bluntesham church, where a neat monument of white marble is erected to his memory, with an inscription written by his friend Mr. Castle, dean of Hereford. His only son, Samuel, was fellow of Trinity college, Cambridge, and rector of Fulham, in Middlesex. With the ample fortune which his father left him, he purchased the manor of Milton near Cambridge, and died Jan. 1790.

In 1567, Knox preached a sermon at the coronation of James VI. of Scotland, and afterwards the First of Great Britain and also another at the opening of the parliament. He went vigorously on with the work of reformation but, in 1572, was greatly offended with a convention of ministers at Leith, where it was agreed that a certain kind of episcopacy should be introduced into the church. At this time his constitution was quite broken; and what seems to have given him the finishing stroke was the dreadful news of the massacre of the Protestants at Paris about this time. He had strength enough to preach against it, which he desired the French ambassador might be acquainted with; but he fell sick soon after, and died November 24, 1572, after having spent several days in the utmost devotion. He was interred at Edinburgh, several lords attending, and particularly the earl of Morton, that day chosen regent, who, as soon as he was laid in his grave, said, u There lies he who never feared the face of man, who hath been often threatened with dag and dagger, but yet hath ended his days in peace and honour. For he had God’s providence watching over him in a special manner, when his very life was sought."

was many years rector of Stamford Rivers, near Ongar, in Essex; and author of the celebrated “Essay on Delicacy,” 1748. In speaking of Or. Lancaster, Mr. Hull the comedian, who was lus nepuew, (in a note on “Select Letters between the late Dutchess of Somerset, Lady Luxborough,” &c. &c. 1768, 2 vols. 8vo), says, “He w;is a man of strong natural parts, gieat erudition, refined taste, and master of a nervous, and at the same time elegant style, as is obvious to every one who has had the happiness to read the Essay here spoken of. His writings were fewer in number than their author’s genius seemed to promise to his friends, and his publications less known than their intrinsic excellence deserved. Had he been as solicitous as he was capable to instruct and please the world, few prose writers would have surpassed h m; but in his latter years he lived a recluse, and whatever he composed in the hours of retired leisure, he (unhappily for the public) ordered to be burned, which was religiously (I had almost said irreligiously) performed. He was a native of Cheshire; and in his early years, under the patronage and friendship of the late earl of Cholmondely, mixed in all the more exalted scenes of polished life, where his lively spirit and brilliant conversation rendered him universally distinguished and esteemed; and even till within a few months of his decease (near seventy-five years of age) these faculties could scarce be said to be impaired. The Essay on Delicacy (of which we are now speaking) the only material work of his which the editor knows to have survived him, was first printed in 1748, and has been very judiciously and meritoriously preserved by the late Mr. Dodsley in his Fugitive Pieces.” Notwithstanding Mr. Hull’s assertion, that his uncle wrote nothing but the “Essay,” a sermon of his, under the title of“Public Virtue, or the Love of our Country,” was printed in 1746, 4to. He was also author of a long anonymous rhapsodical poem, called “The Old Serpent, or Methodism Triumphant,” 4to. The doctor’s imprudence involved him so deeply in debt, that he was some time confined for it, and left his parsonage-house in so ruinous a condition, that his successor Dr. Beadon was forced entirely to take it down. He died June 20, 1775, leaving two daughters, one of whom married to the rev. Thomas Wetenhall, of Chester, chaplain of a man of war, and vicar of Walthamstow, Essex, from 1759 till his death, 1776.

, an eminent mathematician, was born at Peakirk, near Peterborough in Northamptonshire, in January 1719. He became very early a proficient in the mathematics, as we find him a contributor to the “Ladies Diary” in 1744, to which useful publication he continued to send articles until a few years before his death. In the “Philosophical Transactions” for 1754, he wrote “An investigation of some theorems, which suggest several very remarkable properties of the circle, and are at the same time of considerable use in resolving Fractions, &c.” In 1755, he published a small volume, entitled “Mathematical Lucubrations,” and containing a variety of tracts relative to the rectification of curve lines, the summation of series, the finding of fluents, and many other points in the higher parts of the mathematics. The title “Lucubrations,” was supposed to intimate that mathematical science was at that time rather the pursuit of his leisure hours, than his principal employment and indeed it continued to be so during the greatest part of his life for about the year 1762 he was appointed agent to earl Fitzwilliam an employment which he resigned only two years before his death.

, knt. lord chief baron of the exchequer, was born in the latter part of the sixteenth century, and was the son of Richard Lane of Courtenhall in Northamptonshire, by Elizabeth his wife, daughter of Clement Vincent of Harpole, in the same county. He studied law in the Middle Temple, with great success, and being called to the bar, became eminent in his profession. In the 5th Charles I. he was elected Lent reader of his inn, but the plague which broke out about that time, prevented his reading. In 1640 he was counsel for the unhappy earl of Strafford; and soon after was made attorney to prince Charles. As the Long-parliament grew more capricious and tyrannical in its proceedings, he began to be alarmed for his property, and entrusted his intimate friend Buistrode Whitlocke, with his chamber in the Middle Temple, his goods and library; and leaving London, joined the king at Oxford, where, in 1643, he was made serjeant at law, lord chief baron of the exchequer, a knight, and one of his majesty’s privy council. The university also conferred on him the degree of LL. D. “with more,” says Wood, “than ordinary ceremony.” In the latter end of the following year, he was nominated one of his majesty’s commissioners to treat of peace with the parliament at Uxbridge, and on Aug. 30, 1645, he had the great seal delivered to him at Oxford, on the death of Edward lord Littleton. In May and June 1646, he was one of the commissioners appointed to treat with the parliament for the surrender of the garrison of Oxford, apd soon alter went abroad to avoid the general persecution of the royalists which the parliament meditated. He died in the island of Jersey in 1650, or 1651, Wood tells a strange story of the fate of the goods he entrusted to Whitlocke. He says, that during sir Richard’s residence abroad, lm son applied to Whitlocke, who would not own that he knew such a man as sir Richard, and kept the goods. That this story is not without foundation, appears from Whitlocke’s receipt for his pension, &c. printed by Peck, to which he adds, “And I have likewise obtained some bookes and manuscripts, which were the lord Littleton’s; and some few bookes and manuscripts, which were sir Richard Lane’s; in all worth about So/.” Sir Richard Lane’s “Reports in the court of Exchequer in the reign of king James,” were published in 1657, folio.

, archbishop of Canterbury in the eleventh century, was an Italian, and born in 1005 at Pavia, being son of a counsellor to the senate of that town; but, losing his father in his infancy, he went to Bologna. Hence, having prosecuted his studies for some time, he removed into France in the reign of Henry I. and taught some time at Avranches, where he had many pupils of high rank. In a journey to Rouen, he had the misfortune to be robbed, and tied to a tree on the road, where he remained till next day, when being released by some passengers, he retired to the abbey of Bee, lately founded, and there took the monk’s habit in 1041. He was elected prior of this religious house in 1044; and opened a school, which in a little time became very famous, and was frequented by students from all parts of Europe. Amongst others, some of the scholars of Berenger, archdeacon of Angers, and master of the school at Tours, left that, and went to study at the abbey of Bee. This, it is said, excited the envy of Berenger, and gave rise to a long and violent controversy between him and Lanfranc, on the subject of the eucharist. (See Berengarius). In 1049, Lanfranc took a journey to Rome, where he declared his sentiments to pope Leo IX. against the doctrine of Berenger; for Berenger had xvritten him a letter, which gave room to suspect Lanfranc to be of his opinion. Soon after, he assisted in the council of Verceil, where he expressly opposed Berenger’s notions. He returned a second time to Rome in 1059, and assisted in the council held at the Lateran by pope Nicholas II. in which Berenger abjured the doctrine that he had till then maintained. Lanfranc now obtained a dispensation from the pope, for the marriage of William duke of Normandy with a daughter of the earl of Flanders his cousin. On his return to France, he rebuilt his abbey at Bee; but was soon removed from it by the duke of Normandy, who in 1062 made him abbot of St. Stephen’s at Caen in that province, where he established a new academy, which became no less famous than his former one at Bee. This duke, coming to the crown of England, sent for Lanfranc, who was elected archbishop of Canterbury in 1070, in the room of Stigand, who had been deposed by the pope’s legate. He was no sooner consecrated to this see, than he wrote to pope Alexander II. begging leave to resign it; which not being complied with, he afterwards sent ambassadors to Rome to beg the pall; but Hildebrand answering, in the pope’s name, that the pall was not granted to any person in his absence (which was not strictly true, as it had been sent to Austin, Justus, and Honorius), he went thither to receive that honour in 1071. Alexander paid him a particular respect, in rising to give him audience this pontiff, indeed, had a special regard for him, having studied under him in the abbey of Bee and kissed him, instead of presenting his slipper for that obeisance, nor was he satisfied with giving him the usual pall, but invested him with that pall of which he himself had made use in celebrating mass. Before his departure, Lanfranc defended the metropolitical rights of his see against the claims of the archbishop of York, and procured them to be confirmed by a national council in 1075, wherein several rules of discipline were established. At length, presuming to make remonstrances to the Conqueror upon some oppressions of the subjects, though he offered them with a becoming respect, the monarch received them with disdain and asked him, with an oath, if he thought it possible for a king to keep all his promises From this time, our archbishop lost his majesty’s favour, and was observed afterwards with a jealous eye. He enjoyed, however, the favour of William II. during the remainder of his life. Some years before this, Gregory VII. having summoned him several times to come to Rome, to give an account of his faith, at length sent him a citation to appear there in four months, on pain of suspension: Lanfranc, however, did not think proper to obey the summons. He died May 28, 1089.

Several of our ancient historians who were almost his contemporaries, speak in very advantageous terms of the genius and erudition of Lanfranc; and some of them who were personally acquainted with him, represent him as the most learned man of the age in which he flourished. His charity is said to have been so great, that he bestowed in that way no less than 500l. a year, a very great sum in those days, and equal to 1500l. in ours. Besides this he rebuilt the cathedral of Canterbury, re-established the chapter there, founded the hospitals of St. Nicholas at Herbaldown and St. John at Canterbury, repaired several churches and monasteries in his diocese, obtained a restoration of the estates of the church which had been alienated, and maintained the ecclesiastical immunities. A remarkable suit, which he carried against Odo, bishop of Bayeux and earl of Kent, put him in possession of five and twenty estates, which had been usurped by that prelate. Lanfranc, besides his piece against Berenger already mentioned, wrote several others, which were published in one volume, folio, in 1647, by father Luke D'Achery, a Benedictine monk, of the congregation of St. Maur. They consist of commentaries on the epistles of St. Paul, and on the Psalms a treatise on confession, letters, &C.

The death of pope Urban happened at a period, as it was thought, critical to the affairs of the cardinal, as well as to those of the two kingdoms of England and France, as he had just appointed him to mediate a peace between them. But Gregory the Eleventh, who succeeded Urban, as sensible of his merit as his predecessor, confirmed his appointment, and even enlarged his powers. This treaty Tailing, as nad been foreseen by the cardinal, he proceeded from Melun, the place where he had met cardinal de Beauvois, to England with the sense of the French court upon the negotiation. Although unsuccessful in this business, he had, whilst abroad, an opportunity of displaying his diplomatic talents, wnich had a more fortunate issue. Through his (oediation a peace was made betwixt the king and the earl of Flanders, who had been at variance upon the account of the earl’s breaking his engagement to marry his daughter to Edmund earl of Cambridge, and betrothing her to Philip, the brother of Charles the Fifth, king of France. In the beginning of 1372, cardinal Langham left England in order to return to the pope; and when he arrived at Avignon, he found that his conduct had, during the course of his mission, been misrepresented to the pope, but he so amply satisfied his holiness on that point, that, in the same year, he elevated him to the dignity of cardinal bishop of Praeneste. On the death of Wittelsey, who succeeded him as archbishop of Canterbury, the monks endeavoured to persuade the king to allow Langham to return; but the king was enraged at their insolence, and in this was seconded by the pope, who preferred employing the cardinal at Avignon, where the affairs of the holy see rendered his presence necessary. From this situation, however, Langham had a strong desire to remove, and visit his native country, where he had projected some architectural plans, and meant to devote a large sum of money to the rebuilding of the abbey at Westminster. With this view he procured some friends at court to solicit leave to return, and their applications were successful; but before he could know the issue, he died suddenly of a paralytic stroke, July 22, 1376. His body was, according to 'the direction of his will, first deposited in a new-built church of the Carthusians, near the place of his decease, where it remained for three years. It was then with great state and solemnity removed to Saint Benet’s chapel, in Westminster abbey, where his tomb with his effigy upon it, and the arms of England, the monastery of Saint Peter, and the sees of Canterbury and Ely, engraved in tablets around it, still remains.

, archbishop of Canterbury, was son of William Laud, a clothier of Heading, in Berkshire, by Lucy his wife, widow of John Robinson, of the same place, and sister to sir William Webbe, afterwards lord-mayor of London, in 1591. His father died in 1594, leaving his son, after his mother’s decease, the house which he inhabited in Broad-street, and two others in Swallowfield; 1200l. in money, and the stock in trade. The widow was to have the interest of half the estate during her life. She died in 1600. These circumstances, although in themselves of little importance, it is necessary to mention as a contradiction to the assertion of Prynne, that he was of poor and obscure parents, which was repeated by lord Say, in the house of peers. He was born at Reading, Oct. 7, 1573, and educated at the free-school there, till July 1589; when, removing to St. John’s college, in Oxford, he became a scholar of the house in 1590, and fellow in 1593. He took the degree of A. B. in 1594, and that of master in 1598. He was this year chosen grammarlecturer; and being ordained priest in 1601, read, the following year, a divinity-lecture in his college, which was then supported by Mrs. Maye. In some of these chapel exercises he maintained against the puritans, the perpetual visibility of the church of Rome till the reformation; by which he incurred the displeasure of Dr. Abbot, then vice-chancellor of the university, who maintained that the visibility of the church of Christ might be deduced through other channels to. the time of that reformation. In 1603, Laud was one of the proctors; and the same year became- chaplain to Charles Blonnt, earl of Devonshire, whom he inconsiderately married, Dec. 26, 1605, to Penelope, then wife of Robert lord Rich; an affair that exposed him afterwards to much censure, and created him great uneasiness; in reality, it made so deep an impression upon him, that he ever after kept that day as a day of fasting and humiliation.

In 1634 our archbishop did the poor Irish clergy a very important service, by obtaining for them, from the king, a grant of all the impropriations then remaining in the crown. He also improved and settled the revenues of the London clergy in a better manner than before. On Feb. 5, 1634-5, he was put into the great committee of trade, and the king’s revenue, and appointed one of the commissioners of the treasury, March the 4th, upon the death of Weston earl of Portland. Besides this, he was, tvVo days after, called into the foreign committee, and had likewise the sole disposal of whatsoever concerned the church; but he fell into warm disputes with the lord^Cottington, chancellor of the exchequer, who took all opportunities of imposing upon him . After having continued for a year commissioner of the treasury, and acquainted himself with the mysteries of it, he procured the lord-treasurer’s staff" for Dr. William Juxon, who had through his interest been successively advanced to the presidentship of St. John’s college, deanery of Worcester, clerkship of his majesty’s closet, and bishopric of London, as already noticed in our life of Juxon. For some years Laud had set his heart upon getting the English liturgy introduced into Scotland; and some of the Scottish bishops hud, under his direction, prepared both that book and a collection of canons for public service; the canons were published in 1635, but the liturgy came not in use till 1637. On the day it was first read at St. Giles’s church, in Edinburgh, it occasioned a most violent tumult among the people, encouraged by the nobility, who were losers by the restitution of episcopacy, and by the ministers, who lost their clerical government. Laud, having been the great promoter of that affair, was reviled for it in the most abusive manner, and both he and the book were charged with downright popery. The extremely severe prosecution carried on about the same time in the star-chamber, chiefly through his instigation, against Prynne, Bastwick, and Burton, did him also infinite prejudice, and exposed him to numberless libels and reflections; though he endeavoured to vindicate his conduct in a speech delivered at their censure, June 14, 1637, which was published by the king’s command. Another rigorous prosecution, carried on with his concurrence, in the star-chamber, was against bishop Williams, an account of which may be seen in his article, as also of Lambert Osbaldiston, master of Westminster school.

It can be no wonder that his ruin should appear certain, considering his many and powerful enemies; almost the whole body of the puritans; many of the English nobility and others; and the bulk of the Scotch nation. The puritans considered him as the sole author of the innovations and of the persecutions against them; the nobility could not brook his warm and imperious manner, and his grasping at the office of prime-minister; and the Scots were excited to rebellion, by the restoring of episcopal government, and the introduction ol the English service-book among them. In this state of general discontent, he was not only examined, Dec. 4, on the earl of Strafford’s case, but, when the Commons came to debate upon the late canons and convocation, he was represented as the author of them; and a committee was appointed to inquire into all his actions, and prepare a charge against him on the 16th. The same morning, in the House of Lords, he was named as an incendiary, in an accusation from the Scottish commissioners; and, two days after, an impeachment of high-treason was carried up to the lords by Denzil Holies, desiring he might be forthwith sequestered from parliament, and committed, and the Commons would, in a convenient time, resort to them with particular articles. Soon after, the Scotch commissioners presented also to the upper House the charge against him, tending to prove liim an incendiary, and he was immediately committed to the custody of the black rod. After ten weeks, sir Henry Vane, junior, brought up, Feb. 26, fourteen articles against him, which they desired time to prove in particular, and, in the mean time, that he be kept safe. Accordingly, the black rod conveyed him to the Tower, March 1, 1640-1, amidst the insults and reproaches of the mob.

On Tuesday, March 12, 1643-4, the trial was opened in form; the original and additional articles of impeachment were read, and, after that, the archbishop’s answer, plea, and demurrer to them. He requested that the charge and evidence to all the articles might be given together; and the articles of misdemeanour separated from those of treason; to which the celebrated lawyer, Maynard, answered, that, in the earl of Strafford’s trial, he was put to answer every day the particular evidence given that day; that they were now only to try matters of fact, not of law, and that all the articles collectively, not any one separately, made up the charge of treason. Serjeant Wilde then made a long speech, upon the charge of high treason, insisting chiefly upon the archbishop’s attachment to popery, and his intention to introduce it into England; concluding with these words, that “Naaman was a great man, but he was a leper,” and that the archbishop’s leprosy had so infected all, “as there remained no other cure but the sword of justice.” The archbishop replied to the several charges, and mentioned various persons whom he had brought back from the Romish religion, particularly sir William Webbe, his kinsman, and two of his daughters; his son lui took from him; and, his father being utterly decayed, bred him at his own charge, and educated him in the protestant religion. The trial lasted above twenty days, and on Sept. 2, 1644, the archbishop made a recapitulation of the whole cause; but, as soon as he came into the House, he saw every lord present with a new thin book in folio, in a blue cover; which was his “Diary,” which Prynne, as already mentioned, had robbed him of, and printed with notes of his own, to disgrace the archbishop. On Sept. 11, Mr. Brown delivered, in the House of Lords, a summary of the whole charge, with a few observations on the archbishop’s answer. The queries of his counsel on the law of treason was referred to a committee which ordered his counsel to be heard on Oct. 11, when Mr. Herne delivered his argument with great firmness and resolution. The lord chancellor Finch told archbishop Sancroft that the argument was sir Matthew Hale’s, afterwards lord chief justice; and that being then a young lawyer, he, Mr. Finch, stood behind Mr. Herne, at the bar of the house, and took notes of it, which he intended to publish in his reports. With this argument, the substance of which may be seen in our authorities, the trial ended for that day; but, after this, a petition was sent about London, “for bringing delinquents to justice;” and many of the preachers exhorted the people to sign it; so that with a multitude of hands, it was delivered to the House of Commons, on Oct. 8. The archbishop was summoned on Nov. 2, to the House of Commons, to hear the whole charges, and to make his defence, which he did at large, Nov. 11. On the following Wednesday Mr. Brown replied and after the archbishop was dismissed, the House called for the ordinance, and without hearing his counsel, voted him guilty of high treason. After various delays, the Lords had a conference with the Commons, on Dec. 24, in which they declared, “that they had diligently weighed all things charged against the archbishop, but could not, by any one of them, or all, find him guilty of treason.” The judges had unanimously made the same declaration. At the second conference, on Jan. 2, 1644-5, the reasons of the Commons for the attainder of the archbishop were communicated to the Lords, who in a very thin house, passed the ordinance that he should suffer death by hanging, which was fixed for Friday the 10th. He pleaded the king’s pardon, under the great seal, which was over-ruled, and rejected, without being read, and the only favour granted, and that after delay and with reluctance, was, that his sentence should be changed to beheading.

, a native of Scotland, the author of a remarkable forgery, was educated at the university of Edinburgh, where he finished his studies with great reputation, and acquired a considerable knowledge of the Latin tongue. He afterwards taught with success the Latin tongue to some students who were recommended to him by the professors. In 1734, Mr. professor Watt falling ill of that sickness of which he died, Lauder taught for him the Latin class, in the college of Edinburgh, and tried, without success, to be appointed professor in his room. He failed also in his application for the office of librarian. In Feb. 1739, he stood candidate, with eight others, for the place of one of the masters of the high school; but, though the palm of literature was assigned by the judges to Lauder, the patrons of the school preferred one of his opponents. In the same year he published at Edinburgh an edition of “Johnston’s Psalms,” or rather a collection of Sacred Latin poetry, in 2 vols, but his hopes of profit from this were disappointed. In 1742, although he was recommended by Mr. Patrick Cuming and Mr. Colin Maclaurin, professors of church history and mathematics, to the mastership of the grammar-school at Dundee, then vacant, we find him, the same year, in London, contriving to ruin the reputation of Milton; an attempt which ended in the destruction of his own. His reason for the attack has been referred to the virulence of violent party-spirit, which triumphed over every principle of honour and honesty. He began first to retail part of his design in “The Gentleman’s Magazine,” in 1747; and, finding that his forgeries were not detected, was encouraged in 1751 to collect them, with additions, into a volume, entitled “An Essay on Milton’s Use and Imitation of the Moderns in his Paradise Lost,” 8vo. The fidelity of his quotations had been doubted by several people; and the falsehood of them was soon after demonstrated by Dr. Douglas, late bishop of Salisbury, in a pamphlet, entitled “Milton vindicated from the Charge of Plagiarism brought against him by Lauder, and Lauder himself convicted of forgeries and gross impositions on the public. In a letter humbly addressed to the right honourable the earl of Bath,” 1751, 8vo. The appearance of this detection overwhelmed Lauder with confusion. He subscribed a confession, dictated by Dr. Johnson, on whom he had imposed, in which he ingenuously acknowledged his offence, which he professed to have been occasioned by the injury he had received from the disappointment of his expectations of profit from the publication of “Johnston’s Psalms.” This misfortune he ascribed to a couplet in Mr. Pope’s Dunciad, book iv. ver. iii. and thence originated his rancour against Milton. He afterwards imputed his conduct to other motives, abused the few friends who continued to countenance him; and, finding that his own character was not to be retrieved, quitted the kingdom, and went to Barbadoes, where he was for some time master of the free-school in Bridgetown, but was discharged for misconduct, and passed the remainder of his life in universal contempt. “He died,” says Mr. Nichols, “sometime about the year 1771, as my friend Mr. Reed was informed by the gentleman who read the funeral-service over him.” It may be added, that notwithstanding Lauder’s pretended regret for his attack on Milton, he returned to the charge in 1754, and published a pamphlet entitled “The Grand Impostor detected, or Milton convicted of forgery against Charles I.” which was reviewed in the Gent. Mag. of that year, probably by Johnson.

, an English prelate, and very eminent scholar, was descended from a family long settled in Wiltshire, and was born at the parsonage- house of Mildenhall, in the above county, and baptised Jan. 18, 1683, his grandfather, Constable, being then rector of that parish. Joseph, father to bishop Lavington, is supposed to have exchanged his original benefice of Broad Hinton, in Wiltshire, for Newton Longville, in Bucks, a living and a manor belonging to New college, in Oxford. Transplanted thither, and introduced to the acquaintance of several members of that society, he was encouraged to educate the eldest of his numerous children, George, the subject of this article, at Wykeham’s foundation, near Winchester, from whence he succeeded to a fellowship of New college, early in the reign of queen Anne. George, while yet a schoolboy, had produced a Greek translation of Virgil’s eclogues, in the style and dialect of Theocritus, which is still preserved at Winchester in manuscript. At the university he was distinguished by his wit and learning, and equally so by a marked attachment to the protestant succession, at a period when a zeal of that kind could promise him neither preferment nor popularity. But if some of his contemporaries thought his ardour in a good cause excessive, still their affection and esteem for him remained undiminished by any difference of political sentiment. In 1717, he was presented by his college to their rectory of Hayford Warren, in the diocese of Oxford. Before this his talents and principles had recommended him to the notice of many eminent persons in church and state. Among others Talbot, then bishop of Oxford, intended him for the benefice of Hook Norton, to which his successor, bishop Potter, collated him. Earl Coningsby not only appointed him his own domestic chaplain, but introduced him in the same capacity to the court of king George I. In this reign he was preferred to a stall in the cathedral church of Worcester, which he always esteemed as one of the happiest events of his life, since it laid the foundation of that close intimacy which ever after subsisted between him and the learned Dr. Francis Hare, the dean. No sooner was Dr. Hare removed to St. Paul’s, than he exerted all his influence to draw his friend to the capital after him; and his endeavours were so successful that Dr. Lavington was appointed in 1732, to be a canon residentiary of that church, and in consequence of this station, obtained successively the rectories of St. Mary Aldermary, and St. Michael Bassishaw. In both parishes he was esteemed a minister attentive to his duty, and an instructive and awakening preacher. He would probably never have thought of any other advancement, if the death of Dr. Stillingfleet, dean of Worcester, in 1746, had not recalled to his memory the pleasing ideas of many years spent in that city, in the prime of life. His friends, however, had higher views for him; and, therefore, on the death of bishop Clagget, lord chancellor Hardwick, and the duke of Newcastle, recommended him to the king, to till the vacancy, without his solicitation or knowledge. From this time he resided at Exeter among his clergy, a faithful and vigilant pastor, and died universally lamented, Sept. 13, 1762; crowning a life that had been devoted to God’s honour and service, by a pious act of resignation to his will; for the last words pronounced by his faultering tongue, were Ao<* in 0sa> “Glory to God.” He married Francis Maria, daughter of Lave, of Corf Mullion, Dorset, who had taken refuge in this kingdom from the popish persecution in France. She survived the bishop little more than one year, after an union of forty years. Their only daughter is the wife of the rev. N. Nutcombe, of Nutcombe, in Devonshire, and chancellor of the cathedral at Exeter. Bishop Lavington published only a few occasional sermons, except his “Enthusiasm of the Methodists and Papists compared,” three parts; which involved him in a temporary controvery with Messrs. Whitfield and Wesley.

Twenty years before, in 1633, Lawes had been chosen to assist in composing the airs, lessons, and songs of a masque, presented at Whitehall on Candlemas-night, before the king and queen, by the gentlemen of the four inns of court, under the direction of Noy the attorney- general, Hyde afterwards earl of Clarendon, Selden, Whitelock, and others. Whitelock has given an account of it in his “Memorials,” &c. Lawes also composed tunes to Mr. George Sandys’s “Paraphrase on the Psalms,” published in 1638: and Milton’s “Comus” was originally set by him, and published in 1637, with a dedication to lord Brady, son and heir of the earl of Bridgewater. It was represented in 1634, at Ludlow-castle, Lawes himself performing in it the character of the attendant spirit. The music to “Comus” was never printed and there is nothing in any of the printed copies of the poem, or in the many accounts of Milton, to ascertain the form in which it was composed.

Lawes taught music to the family of the earl of Bridgewater: he was intimate with Milton, as may be conjectured from that sonnet of the latter, “Harry, whose tuneful and well-measured song.” Peck says, that Milton wrote his masque of “Comus” at the request of Lawes, who engaged to set it to music. Most of the songs of Waller are set by Lawes; and Waller has acknowledged his obligation to him for one in particular, which he had set in 1635, in a poem, wherein he celebrates his skill as a musician. Fenton, in a note on this poem, says, that the best poets of that age were ambitious of having their verses set by this incomparable artist; who introduced a softer mixture of Italian airs than before had been practised in our nation. Dr. Burney entertains another kind of suspicion. “Whether,” says this historian, “Milton chose Lawes, or Lawes Milton for a colleague in Comus, it equally manifests the high rank in which he stood with the greatest poets of his time. It would be illiberal to cherish such an idea; but it does sometimes seem as if the twin-sisters. Poetry and Music, were mutually jealous of each other’s glory: * the less interesting my sister’s offspring may be,‘ says Poetry, * the more admiration will my own obtain.’ Upon asking some years ago, why a certain great prince continued to honour with such peculiar marks of favour, an old performer on the flute, when he had so many musicians of superior abilities about him? We were answered, * because he plays worse than himself.' And who knows whether Milton and Waller were not secretly influenced by some such consideration? and were not more pleased with Lawes for not pretending to embellish or enforce the sentiments of their songs, but setting them to sounds less captivating than the sense.”

, brother to the preceding, w placed early in life under Coperario, for his musical education, at the expence of the earl of Hertford. His first preferment was in the choir of Chichester, but he was soon called to London, where, in 1602, he was sworn a gentleman of the chapel royal; which place, however, he resigned in 1611, and became one of the private, or chamber-musicians, to Charles, then prince and afterwards king. Fuller says, “he was respected and beloved of all such persons as cast any looks towards virtue and honour:” and he seems well entitled to this praise. He manifested his gratitude and loyalty to his royal master by taking up arms in his cause against the parliament. And though, to exempt him from danger, lord Gerrard, the king’s general, made him a commissary in the royal army, yet the activity of his spirit disdaining this intended security, at the siege of Chester, 1645, he lost his life by an accidental shot. The king is said, by Fuller, to have been so affected at his loss, that though he was already in mourning for his kinsman lord Bernard Stuart, killed at the same siege, his majesty put “on particular mourning for his dear servant William Lawes, whom he commonly called the father of music.”

, a brave and successful English admiral, son of the preceding, was born in 1656, at Rotherhithe, in Surrey. His father instructed him both in mathematics and gunnery, with a view to the navy, and entered him early into that service as a midshipman; in which station he distinguished himself, under his father, at the above-mentioned engagement between sir Edward Spragge and Van Trump, in 1673, beingt'nen no more than seventeen years old. Upon the conclusion of that war soon after, hfc engaged in the merchants’ service, and had the command of a ship two or three voyages up the Mediterranean; but his inclination lying to the navy, he did not long remain unemployed in it. He had indeed refused a lieutenant’s commission; but this was done with a view to the place of master-gunner, which was then of much greater esteem than it is at present. When his father was advanced, not long after, to the command of a yacht, he gladly accepted the offer of succeeding him in the post of gunner to the Neptune, a second-rate man of war. This happened about 1675; and, the times being peaceable, he remained in this post without any promotion till 1688. James II. having then resolved to fit out a strong fleet, to prevent the invasion from Holland, Leake had the command of the Firedrake fireship, and distinguished himself by several important services; particularly, by the relief of Londonderry in Ireland, which was chiefly effected by his means. He was in the Firedrake in the fleet under lord Dartmouth, when the prince of Orange landed; after which he joined the rest of the protestant officers in an address to the prince. The importance of rescuing Londonderry from the hands of king James raised him in the navy; and, after some removes, he had the command given him of the Eagle, a third-rate of 70 guns. In 1692, the distinguished figure he made in the famous battle off La Hogue procured him the particular friendship of Mr. (afterwards admiral) Churchill, brother to the duke of Marlborough; and he continued to behave on all occasions with great reputation till the end of the war; when, upon concluding the peace of Ryswick, his ship was paid off, Dec. 5, 1697. In 1696, on the death of his father, his friends had procured for him his father’s places of mastergunner in England, and store- keeper of Woolwich, but these he declined, being ambitious of a commissioner’s place in the navy; and perhaps he might have obtained it, had not admiral Churchill prevailed with him not to think of quitting the sea, and procured him a commission for a third-rate of 70 guns in May 1699. Afterwards, upon the prospect of a new war, he was removed to the Britannia, the finest first-rate in the navy, of which he was appointed, Jan. 1701, first captain of three under the earl of Pembroke, newly made lord high admiral of England. This was the highest station he could have as a captain, and higher than any private captain ever obtained either before or since. But, upon the earl’s removal, to make way for prince George of Denmark, soon after queen Anne’s accession to the throne, Leake’s commission under him becoming void, May 27, 1702, he accepted of the Association, a second-rate, till an opportunity offered for his farther promotion. Accordingly, upon the declaration of war against France, he received a commission, June the 24th that year, from prince George, appointing him commander in chief of the ships designed against Newfoundland. He arrived there with his squadron in August, and, destroying the French trade and settlements, restored the English to the possession of the whole island. This gave him an opportunity of enriching himself by the sale of the captures, at the same time that it gained him the favour of the nation, by doing it a signal service, without any great danger of not succeeding; for, in truth, all the real fame he acquired on this occasion arose from his extraordinary dispatch and diligence in the execution.

, a herald and antiquary, son of captain Stephen Martin, mentioned in the preceding article, was born April 5, 1702. He was educated at the school of Mr. Michael Maittaire, and was admitted of the Middle-temple. In 1724 he was appointed a deputylieutenant of the Tower-hamlets; in which station he afterwards distinguished himself by his exertions during the rebellion in 1745. On the revival of the order of the Bath in 1725, he was one of the esquires of the earl of Sussex, deputy earl-marshal. He was elected F. A. S. March 2, 1726-7. In the same year he was created Lancaster herald, in the room of Mr. Hesketh; in 1729 constituted Norroy; in 1741 Clarenceux; and by patent dated December 19, 1754, appointed garter. In all his situations in the college Mr. Leake was a constant advocate for the rights and privileges of the office. He obtained, after much solicitation, a letter in 1731, from the duke of Norfolk to the earl of Sussex, his deputy earl -marshal, requesting him to sign a warrant for Mr. Leake’s obtaining a commission of visitation, which letter, however, was not attended with success. In the same year he promoted a prosecution against one Shiets, a painter, who pretended to keep an om'ce of arms in Dean’s-court. The court of chivalry was opened with great solemnity in the paintedchamber, on March 3, 1731-2, in relation to which he had taken a principal part. In 1733, he appointed Francis Bassano, of Chester, his deputy, as Norroy, for Chester and North Wales; and about the same time asserted his right, as Norroy, to grant arms in North Wales, which right was claimed by Mr. Longville, who had been constituted Gloucester King at Arms partium Walii<t, annexed to that of Bath King at Arms, at the revival of that order. He drew up a petition in January 1737-8, which was presented to the king in council, for a new charter, with the sole power of painting arms, &c. which petition was referred to the attorney and solicitor general; but they making their report favourable to the painters, it did not succeed. He printed, in 1744, “Reasons for granting Commissions to the Provincial Kings at Arms for visiting their Provinces.” Dr. Cromwell Mortimer having, in 1747, proposed to establish a registry for dissenters in the college of arms, he had many meetings with the heads of the several denominations, and also of the Jews, and drew up articles of agreement, which were approved by all parties: proposals were printed and dispersed, a seal made to affix to certificates, and the registry was opened on February 20, 1747-8; but it did not succeed, owing to a misunderstanding between the ministers and the deputies of the congregations. A bill having been brought in by Mr. Potter, in the session of parliament in the year 1763, for taking the number of the people, with their marriages and births, he solicited a claim in favour of the college: but the bill did not pass. In 1755-6, he made an abstract of the register- books belonging to the order of the garter, which being translated into Latin, was deposited in the register’s office of the order.

, a learned uivine and translator, the son of a citizen of Dublin, was born in that city in 1722. The first rudiments of classical education he received at the seuool kept by the celebrated Dr. Sheridan, whose talents and success in forming excellent scholars, were then well known. In 17^7 he entered a pensioner in Trinity college; and in 1741 was elected a scholar commenced bachelor of arts in 1742, and was a candidate for a fellowship in 1745, in which he failed at this time, but succeeded the following year by the unanimous voice of the electors, On bein^ thus placed in a state of independence, he did not resign himself to ease and indolence, but was conspicuous for the same ardent love of knowledge which appeared in the commencement of his studies, and was predominant throughout his whole life. In 1748 he entered into holy orders, and from a deep sense of the importance of his profession, drew up a discourse “On the helps and impediments to the acquisition of knowledge in religious and moral subjects,” wtiich was much admired at that time, but no copy is now to be found In 1754, in conjunction with Dr. John Stokes, he published, at the desire of the university, an edition of the “Orations of Demosthenes,” with a Latin version and notes, which we do not find mentioned by any of our classical bibliographers, except Harwood, who says it is in 2 vols. 12mo. In 1760 Dr. Leiand published the first volume of his English “Translation of Demosthenes,” 4to, with notes critical and historical; the second volume of which appeared in 1761, and the third in 1770. This raised his reputation very high as a classical scholar and critic, and public expectation was farther gratified in 1758 by his “History of the Life and Reign of Philip king of Macedon, the father of Alexander,” 2 vols. 4to. His attention to the orations of Demosthenes and Æschmes, and to Grecian politics, eminently qualified him for treating the life of Philip with copiousness and accuracy. After this he proceeded with translations of Æschines, and the other orations of Demosthenes. In 1762, he is supposed to have written, although he never formally avowed it, the ingenious historical romance of “Longsword, earl or Salisbury.”

She published, in 1751, “The Memoirs of Harriot Stuart,” and, in 1752, ' The Female Quixote.“In the latter of these novels, the character of Arabella is the counter-part of Don Quixote; and the work was very favourably received. Dr. Johnson wrote the dedication to the earl of Middlesex. In the following year she published” Shakespeare illustrated,“in 2 vols. J2mo, to wnich she afterwards added a third. This work consists of the novels and histories on which the plays of Shakspeare are founded, collected and translated from the original authors: to which are added critical notes, censuring the liberties which Shakspeare has generally taken with the stories on which his plays are founded. In 1756, Mrs. Lennox published,” The Memoirs of the Countess of Berci, taken from the French,“2 vols. 12mo; and,” Sully’s Memoirs,“translated, 3 vols. 4to; which have since been frequently reprinted in 8vo, and are executed with no small ability. In 1757, she translated” The Memoirs of Madame Maintenon.“In 1758, she produced” Philander, a Dramatic Pastoral,“and” Henrietta,“a novel of considerable merit, 2 vols. 12mo; and, in 1760, with the assistance of the earl of Cork and Orrery, and Dr. Johnson, she published a translation of” Father Brumoy’s Greek Theatre,“3 vols. 4to; the merit of which varies materially in different parts of the work. In 1760-1, she published a kind of Magazine, under the name of the” Ladies Museum,“which extended to two volumes, octavo, and seems to have been rather an undertaking of necessity than choice. Two years after, she published” Sophia, a Novel,“2 vols. 12mo, which is inferior to her earlier performances; and, after an interval of seven years, she brought out, at Covent-garden theatre,” The Sisters, a Comedy,“taken from her novel of Henrietta, which was condemned on the first night of its appearance. In 1773, she furnished Drurylane theatre with a comedy, entitled,” Old City Manners.“Her last performance, not inferior to any of her former in that species of composition, was” Euphemia, a Novel, 17yO,“4 vols. 12mo. In 1775, we find Dr. Johnson assisting her in drawing up proposals for an edition of her works, in 3 vols. 4to; but it does not appear to have been published. Dr. Johnson had such an opinion of Mrs. Lennox that, on one occasion, not long before his death, he went so far as to pronounce her superior to Mrs. Carter, miss Hannah Moore, and miss Burney. Sir John Hawkins has given a ludicrous account of the doctor’s celebration of the birth of Mrs. Lennox’s first literary child, ' The Life of Harriot Stuart.” This, however, was certainly not her first production, for in 1747, she published “Poems on several occasions,” printed for Sam. Paterson. She was then Miss Ramsay.

L‘Estrange (Sir Roger), was descended from an ancient and reputable family, seated at Hunstanton-hall, Norfolk; where he was born Dec. 17, 1616. He was the youngest son of sir Hamond L’Estrange, knt. a zealous royalist during the disputes between king Charles and his parliament; who, having his estate sequestered, retired to Lynn, of which town he was made governor. The son had a liberal education, which was completed probably at Cambridge; and adopted his father’s principles with uncommon zeal, and in 1639, when about two-and- twenty, attended king Charles upon his expedition to Scotland, his attachment to whom some years after neatly cost him his life. In 1644, soon after the earl of Manchester had reduced the town of Lynn in Norfolk, Mr. L'Estrange, thinking he had sorpe interest in the place, as his father had been governor of it, formed a plan for surprizing it, and received a commission from the king, constituting him governor of the town in case of success: but, being seized, in consequence of the treachery of two of his associates, Leman and Hager, and his majesty’s commission found upon him, he was carried first to Lynn, thence to London, and there transmitted to the city court-martial for his trial; where, after suffering all manner of indignities, he was, as Whitlocke says, condemned to die as a spy, coming from the king’s quarters without drum, trumpet, or pass.

This appearance at the court of Cromwell was much censured, after the restoration, by some of the royal party, who also objected to him, that he had once been heard playing in a concert where the usurper was present, and, therefore, they nick-named him “Oliver’s Fidler.” He was charged also with having bribed some of the protector’s people, but he positively disavows it; averring, he never spoke to Thurloe but once in his life about his discharge; and that, though during the dependency of that affair he might well be seen at Whitehall, yet he never spoke to Cromwell on any other business, or had the least commerce of any kind with him. From this to the time of the restoration, he seems to have lived free from any disturbance from the then governing powers; and perhaps the obscurity into which he had fallen made him be overlooked by Charles II. and his ministry, on that prince’s recovering his throne. He did not, however, so undervalue his own sufferings and merits, as to put up quietly with this usage, and therefore addressed a warm expostulation to the earl of Clarendon, in the dedication to that minister of his “Memento,” published in 1662; where he joins himself with other neglected cavaliers, who had suffered for their attachment to the royal family during the civil wars and the succeeding usurpation, at the same tima acknowledging the personal obligations he had received from Clarendon. For some time his remonstrances appear to have produced little effect, but at length he was made licenser of the press, a profitable post, which he enjoyed till the eve of the revolution. This, however, was all the recompence he ever received, except being in the commission of the peace, after more than twenty years, as he says, spent in serving the royal cause, near six of them in gaols, and almost four under a sentence of death in Newgate. It is true, he hints at greater things promised him; and, in these hopes, exerted his talents, on behalf of the crown, in publishing several pieces. In 1663, for a farther support, he set up a paper, called “The Public Intelligencer, and the News;' f the first of which came out the 1st of August, and continued to be published twice a week, till January 19, 1665; when he laid it down, on the design then concerted of publishing the” London Gazette,“the first of which papers made its appearance on. Saturday Feb. 4. After the dissolution of Charles’s second parliament, in 1679, he set up a paper, called” The Observator;“the design of which was to vindicate the measures of the court, and the character of the king, from the charge of being popislily affected. With the same spirit he exerted himself in 1681, in ridiculing the popish plot; which he did with such vehemence, that it raised him many enemies, who endeavoured, notwithstanding his known loyalty, to render him obnoxious to the government. But he appeared with no less vehemence against the fanatic plot in 1682; and, in 1683, was particularly employed by the court to publish Dr. Tillotson’s papers exhorting lord Russel to avow the doctrine of non-resistance, a little before his execution. In this manner he weathered all the storms raised against him during that reign, and, in the next, unrewarded with the honour of knighthood, accompanied with this declaration,” that it was in consideration of his eminent services and unshaken loyalty to the crown, in all extremities; and as a mark of the singular satisfaction of his majesty, in his present as well as his past services.“In 1687, he was obliged to lay down his” Observator,“now swelled to three volumes; as he could not agree with the toleration proposed by his majesty, though, in all other respects, he had gone the utmost lengths. He had even written strenuously in defence of the dispensing power, claimed by that infatuated prince; and this was probably one reason, why some accused him of having become a proselyte to the church of Home, an accusation which gave him much uneasiness, and which was heightened by his daughter’s defection to that church. To clear himself from this aspersion, he drew up a formal declaration, directed to his kinsman, sir Nicolas L'Estrange, on the truth of which he received the sacrament at the time of publishing the same, which is supposed to be in 1690 . By this declaration we find he was married his lady’s name was Anne Doleman but what issue he had by her, besides the just- mentioned daughter, has not come to our knowledge. After the revolution, he seems to have been left out of the commission of the peace; and, it is said, queen Mary shewed her contempt of him by the following anagram she made upon his name,” Lying- Strange Roger:" and it is certain he met with some trouble, for the remainder of his life, on account of his being a disaffected person.

Archbishop Wake’s character of him was that of vir sobrius, et bonus pradicator: and a considerable dignitary in the church used to say, that he looked upon his life to have been spent in the service of learning and virtue, and thought the world to be more concerned for its continuance than himself: that it would be happy for us if there were many more of the profession like him, &c. It was his misfortune, however, to live in a time of much party violence, and being a moderate man, he met with ill usage from both parties, particularly from the clergy of his own diocese. His only object was the security of our church-establishment as settled at the Revolution. He was so diligent a preacher, that we are told he composed more than a thousand sermons. He was always of opinion that a clergyman should compose his own sermons, and therefore ordered his executor to destroy his stock, lest they should contribute to the indolence of others. Having no family, for his wife died young without issue, he expended a great deal of money on his library and the repairs of his dilapidated parsonage-houses; and was, at the same time, a liberal benefactor to the poor. His chief, and indeed only, failing was a warmth of temper, which sometimes hurried him on to say what was inconsistent with his character and interest, and to resent imaginary injuries. Of all this, however, he was sensible, and deeply regretted it. Hearne and Mr. Lewis Vvere, it appears, accustomed to speak, disrespectfully of each other’s labours, but posterity has done justice to both. The political prejudices of antiquariss are of very little consequence. Mr. Lewis’s works are, 1> “The Church Catechism efcplained,” already mentioned, 1700, 12mo. 2. A short Defence of Infant Baptism,“1700, 8vo. 3.” A serious Address to the Anabaptists,“a single sheet, 1701, with a second in 1702. 4.” A Companion for the afflicted,“1706. 5.” Presbyters not always an authoritative part of provincial synods,“1710, 4to. 6.” An apologetical Vindication of the present Bishops,“1711. 7.” The Apology for the Church of England, in an examination of the rights of the Christian church,“published about this time, or perhaps in 1714. 8.” The poor Vicar’s plea against- his glebe being assessed to the Church,“1712. 9.” A Guide to young Communicants,“1715. 10.” A Vindication of the Bishop of Norwich“(Trimnell), 1714. 11.” The agreement of the Lutheran churches with the church of England, and an answer to some exceptions to it,“1715. 12.” Two Letters in defence of the English liturgy and reformation,“1716. 13.” Bishop Feme’s Church of England man’s reasons for not making the decisions of ecclesiastical synods the rule of his faith,“1717, 8vo. 14.” An Exposition of the xxxivth article of Religion,“1717. 15.” Short Remarks on the prolocutor’s answer, &c.“16.” The History, &c. of John Wicliffe, D. D.“1720, 8vo. 17.” The case of observing such Fasts and Festivals as are appointed by the king’s authority, considered,“1721. 18.” A Letter of thanks to the earl of Nottingham, &c.“1721. 19.” The History and Antiquities of the Isle of Thanet in Kent,“1723, 4 to, and again, with additions, in 1736. 20.” A Specimen of Errors in the second volume of Mr. Collier’s Ecclesiastical History, being a Vindication of Bur-net’s History of the Reformation,“1724, 8vo. 21.” History and Antiquities of the abbey church of Faversham, &c.“1727, $to. 22.” The New Testament, &c. translated out of the Latin vulgate by John WicklifFe; to which is prefixed, an History of the several Translations of the Holy Bible,“&c. 1731, folio. Of this only 160 copies were printed by subscription, and the copies unsubscribed for were advertised the same year at I/. 1*. each. Of the” New Testament“the rev. H. Baber, of the British Museum, has lately printed an edition, with valuable preliminary matter, in 4to. 23.” The History of the Translations, &c.“reprinted separately in 1739, 8vo. 24.” The Life of Caxton,“1737, 8vo. For an account of this work we may refer to Dibdiu’s new edition of Ames. 25.” A brief History of the Rise and Progress of Anabaptism, to which is prefixed a defence of Dr. Wicliffe from the false charge of his denying Infant-baptism,“1738. 26.” A Dissertation on the antiquity and use of Seals in England,“1710. 27.” A Vindication of the ancient Britons, &c. from being Anabaptists, with a letter of M. Bucer to bishop Hooper on ceremonies,“1741. 28.” A Defence of the Communion office and Catechism of the church of England from the charge of favouring transubstantiation,“1742. 29.” The Life of Reynold Pecock, bishop of St. Asaph and Chichester,“1744, 8vo. Mr. Lewis published also one or two occasional sermons, and an edition of Roper’s Life of sir Thomas More. After his death, according to the account of him in the‘ Biog. Britannica (which is unpardonably superficial, as Masters’s History of Bene’t College had appeared some years before), was published” A brief discovery of some of the arts of the popish protestant Missioners in England,“1750, 8vo. But there are other curious tracts which Mr. Lewis sent for publication to the Gentleman’s Magazine, and which, for reasons stated in vol. X. of that work, were printed in” The Miscellaneous Correspondence," 1742 1748, a scarce and valuable volume, very little known to the possessors of the Magazine, no set of which can be complete without it. Of these productions of Mr. Lewis, we can ascertain, on the authority of Mr. Cave, the following: an account of William Longbeard, and of John Smith, the first English anabaptist; the principles of Dr. Hickes, and Mr. Johnson; and an account of the oaths exacted by the Popes. Mr. Lewis left a great many manuscripts, some of which are still in public or private libraries, and are specified in our authorities,

, an eminent lawyer in the early part of the seventeenth century, was the sixth and youngest son of Henry Ley, esq. of Tesfont Evias, in Wiltshire, and was born about 1552. In 1569 he entered of Brazen-nose college, Oxford, whence he removed to Lincoln’s-inn, studied the law, and was appointed Lent reader in 1601, after which his learning and abilities raised him to the highest rank of his profession. In 1603, he was made serjeant at law, and the year following chief justice of the king’s bench in Ireland; on the ancient history of which country he appears to have bestowed some attention, and collected with a view to publication, “The An.­nals of John Clynne, a Friar Minor of Kilkenny,” who lived in the reign of Edward III.; the “Annals of the Priory of St. John of Kilkenny,” and the “Annals of Multiferman, Rosse, and Clonmell.” All these he had caused to be transcribed, but his professional engagements prevented his preparing them for the press. They afterwards fell into the hands of Henry earl of Bath. Extracts from them are in Dublin college library.

In 1609, being then a knight, sir James was made the king’s attorney in the court of wards. In 1620 he was created a baronet; in 1621, chief justice of the court of king’s bench, England; and in 1625, lord high treasurer. From this office he was removed, under pretence of his great age, to make room for sir Richard VVeston. Lord Clarendon seems to intimate that his disability as well as age might be the cause, and that upon these accounts there was little reverence shewn towards him. This, however, is scarcely reconcileable with the honours bestowed on him immediately afterwards, for he was not only created baron Ley, and earl of Marlborough, but soon after made president of the council. Lloyd says he had better abilities for a judge than a statesman. He died at Lincoln’sinn, March 14, 1628, and was buried in the church at Westbury, where a sumptuous monument was erected to his memory. We have noticed his attention to Irish history while in that country. Lloyd has given us another trait of his character while there, which is highly honourable to him. “Here he practised the charge king James gave him at his going over (yea, what his own tender conscience gave himself), namely, not to build his estate upon the ruins of a miserable nation, hut aiming, by the impartial execution of justice, not to enrich himself, but civilize the people. But the wise king would no longer lose him out of his own land, and therefore recalled him home about the time when his father’s inheritance, by the death of his five elder brethren, descended upon him.”

He wrote several other pamphlets, before the long parliament granted him the liberties of the Fleet, Nov. 1640, which indulgence he likewise abused by appearing on May 3, 1641, at the head of a savage mob, who clamoured for justice against the earl of Stratford. Next day he was seized and arraigned at the bar of the House of Lords, for an assault upon colonel Lunsford, the governor of the Tower; but the temper of the times being now in his favour, he was dismissed, and the same day a vote passed in the House of Commons, declaring his former sentence illegal and tyrannical, and that he ought to have reparation for his sufferings and losses. This reparation was effectual, although slow. It was not until April 7, 1646, that a decree of the House of Lords passed for giving him two thousand pounds out of the estates of lord Cottington, sir Banks Windehank, and James Ingram, warden of the Fleet; and it was two years after before he received the money, in consequence of a petition to the House of Commons, when he obtained an ordinance for 3000l. worth of the delinquents’ lands, to be sold to him at twelve years purchase. This ordinance included a grant for some part of the sequestered estates of sir Henry Bellingham and Mr. Bowes, in the counties of Durham or Northumberland, from which he received about 1400l.; and Cromwell, soon after his return from Ireland, in May 1650, procured him a grant of lands for the remainder. This extraordinary delay was occasioned entirely by himself.

When the parliament had voted an army to oppose the king, Lilburne entered as a volunteer, was a captain of foot at the battle of Edge-hill, and fought well in the engagement at Brentford, Nov. 12, 1612, but being taken prisoner, was carried to Oxford, and would have been tried and executed for high treason, had not his parliamentary friends threatened retaliation. After this, as he himself informs us, he was exchanged very honourably above his rank, and rewarded with a purse of 300l. by the earl of Essex. Yet, when that general began to press the Scots’ covenant upon his followers, Lilburne quarrelled with him, and by Cromwell’s interest was made a major of foot, Oct. 1643, in the new-raised army under the earl of Manchester. In this station he behaved very well, and narrowly escaped with his life at raising the siege of Newark by prince Rupert; but at the same time he quarrelled with his colonel (King), and accused him of several misdemeanours, to the earl, who immediately promoted him to be lieutenant-colonel of his own regiment of dragoons. This post Lilburne sustained with signal bravery at the battle of Marston-moor, in July; yet he had before that quarrelled with the earl for not bringing colonel King to a trial by a court* martial; and upon Cromwell’s accusing his lordship to the House of Commons, Nov. 1644, Lilburne appeared before the committee in support of that charge. Nor did he rest until he had procured an impeachment to be exhibited in the House of Commons in August this year, against colonel King for high crimes and misdemeanours. Little attention being paid to this, he first offered a petition to the House, to bring the colonel to his trial, and still receiving no satisfaction, he published a coarse attack upon the earl of Manchester, in 1646. Being called before the House of Lords, where that nobleman was speaker, on account of this publication, he not only refused to answer the interrogatories, but protested against their jurisdiction over him in the present case; on which he was first committed to Newgate, and then to the Tower. He then appealed to the House of Commons; and upon their deferring to take his case into consideration, he charged that House, in print, not only with having done nothing of late years for the general good, but also with having made many ordinances notoriously unjust and oppressive. This pamphlet, which was called “The Oppressed man’s oppression,” being seized, he printed another, entitled “The Resolved man’s resolution,” in which he maintained “that the present parliament ought to be pulled down, and a new one called, to bring them to a strict account, as the only means of saving the laws and liberties of England from utter destruction,” This not availing, he applied to the agitators in the army; and at length, having obtained liberty every day to go, without his keeper, to attend the committee appointed about his business, and to return every night to the Tower, he made use of that indulgence to engage in some seditious practices. For this he was recommitted to the Tower, and ordered to be tried; but, upon the parliament’s apprehensions from the Cavaliers, on prince Charles’s appearing with a fleet in the Downs, he procured a petition, signed by seven or eight thousand persons, to be presented to the House, which made an order, in August 1648, to discharge him from imprisonment*, and to make him satisfaction for his sufferings. This was not compassed, however, without a series of conflicts and quarrels with Cromwell; who, returning from Ireland in

Lilly was author of many works. His “Observations on the Life and Death of Charles late King of England,” if we overlook the astrological nonsense, may be read with as much satisfaction as more celebrated histories, Lilly being not only very well informed, but strictly impartial. This work, with the Lives of Lilly and Ashmole, written by themselves, were published in one volume, 8vo, in 1774. His other works were principally as follow: 1. “Merlinus Anglicus Junior.” 2. “Supernatural Sight.” 3. “The white King’s Prophecy.” 4. “England’s prophetical Merlin;” all printed in 1644. 5. “The starry Messenger,” 1645. 6. “Collection of Prophecies,” 1646. 7. “A Comment on the white King’s Prophecy,” ib. 8. “The Nativities of archbishop Laud, and Thomas earl Strafford,” ib. 9. “Christian Astrology,” 1647; upon this piece he read his lectures in 1648, before- mentioned. 10. “The third Book of Nativities,” ib. 11.“The World’s Catastrophe,” ib. 12. “The Prophecies of Ambrose Merlin, with a Key,” ib. 13. “Trithemius, or the Government of the World by presiding Angels.” See Cornelius Agrippa’s book with the same title. These three last were printed together in one volume; the two first being translated into English by Elias Ashmole, esq. 14. “A Treatise of the three Suns seen in the Winter of 1647,” printed in 1648. 15. “Monarchy or no Monarchy,” 1651. 16. “Observations on the Life and Death of Charles, late King of England,” ib. and again in 1615, with the title of Mr. William Lilly’s “True History of King James and King Charles I.” &c. 17. “-Annus Tenebrosus or, the black Year.” This drew him into the dispute with Gataker, which our author carried on in his almanack in 16.54.

, a Socinian writer, was born at Middlewich, in Cheshire, June 20th, 1723, old style. His father, Mr. Robert Lindsey, was an opulent proprietor of the salt-works in that neighbourhood; his mother’s name was Spencer, a younger branch of the Spencer family, in the county of Buckingham. Theophilus was the second of three children, and so named after his godfather, Theophilus earl of Huntingdon. He received the rudiments of grammar-learning at Middlewich, and from his early attachment to books, and the habitual seriousness of his mind, he was intended by his mother for the church. He lost some time by a change of schools, until he was put under the care of Mr. Barnard of the free-school of Leeds, under whom he made a rapid progress in classical learning. At the age of eighteen he was admitted of St. John’s college, Cambridge, where, by exemplary diligence and moral conduct, he obtained the entire approbation of his tutors. As soon as he had finished his studies at college, taken his first degree, and had been admitted to deacon’s orders, he was nominated by sir George Wheler to a chapel in Spital-square London. Soon after this, he was, by the recommendation of the earl of Huntingdon, appointed domestic chaplain to Algernon duke of Somerset. The duke, from a great regard for his merit, determined to procure him a high rank in the church, but an early death deprived Mr. Lindsey of his illustrious patron. In 1754, be accompanied the present duke of Northumberland to the continent, and on his return he supplied, for some time, the temporary vacancy of a good living in the north of England, called Kirkby-Wisk: here he became acquainted with Mr. archdeacon Blackburne, and in 1760 married his daughter-in-law. From Kirkby Mr. Lindsey went to Piddletown, in Dorsetshire, having been presented to the living of that place by the earl of Huntingdon: this, through the interest of the same patron, he exchanged, in 1764, for the vicarage of Catterick, in Yorkshire. Here he resided nearly ten years, an exemplary pattern of a primitive and conscientous pastor, highly respected and beloved by the people committed to his charge. Besides his various and important duties as a parish clergyman, Mr. Lindsey was ever alive, and heartily active, in every cause in which a deviation from the formularies and obligations of the church was considered as necessary. With this view, in 1771 he zealously co-operated with Mr. archdeacon Blackburne, Dr. John Jebb, Mr. Wyvil, and others, in endeavouring to obtain relief in matters of subscription to the thirty-nine articles. Mr. Lindsey had, probably, for some years, entertained doubts with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity, and other leading topics of the established faith; and these pressed so heavy upon him that he could no longer endure to remain in a church, partaking of its emoluments, which he could not deserve, and preaching its doctrines, which he could not believe. He therefore, in November 1773, wrote to the prelate of his diocese, informing him of his iateiuion to quit the church, and signifying, that in a few days he should transmit to him his deed of resignation. The bishop endeavoured to persuade him to remain at his post, but he had made up his mind that duty required the sacrifice, and he was resolved to bear the consequences. When the act was done, he said he felt himself delivered from a load which had long lain heavy upon him, and at times nearly overwhelmed him. Previously to his quitting Catterick, Mr. Lindsey delivered a farewell address to his parishioners, in which he stated his motives for quitting them in a simple and very affecting manner, pointing out the reasons why he could no longer conduct, nor join in their worship, without the guilt of continual insincerity before God, and endangering the loss of his favour for ever. He left Catterick about the middle of December, and after visiting some friends in different parts of the country, he arrived in London in January 1774, where he met with friends, who zealously patronized the idea which he entertained of opening a place of worship, devoted entirely to unitarian principles. A large room was at first fitted up for the purpose in Essex-street in the Strand, which was opened April 17, 1774. The service of the place was conducted according to the plan of a liturgy which had been altered from that used in the established church by the celebrated Dr. Samuel Clarke, whose conscience was not quite so delicate as that of Mr. Lindsey. Mr. Lindsey published the sermon which he preached on the opening of his chapel, to which was added an account of the liturgy made use of. About the same time he published his “Apology,” of which several editions were called for in the course of a few years. This was followed by a still larger volume, entitled “A Sequel to the Apology,” which was intended as a reply to his various opponents, and likewise to vindicate and establish the leading doctrines which he professed, and on account of which he had given up his preferment in the church. This work was published in 1776; and in 1778 he was enabled, by the assistance of his friends, to build the chapel of Essex-street, and to purchase the ground on which it stands. Till the summer of 1793, Mr. Lindsey, with the aid of his friend the Rev. Dr. Disney, conducted the services of the place, upon strict unitarian principles, to a numerous congregation. He then resigned the whole into the hands of his coadjutor, notwithstanding the, earnest wishes of his hearers that he should still continue a part of the services, Though he had quitted the duties of the pulpit, he continued to labour in the cause, by his publications, till he had attained his 80th, year. In 1802, he published his last work, entitled “Conversations on the Divine Government, shewing that every thing is from God, and for good to all.” The professed object of this piece is to vindicate the Creator from those gloomy notions which are too often attached to his providence, and to shew that the government of the world is the wisest that could have been adopted, and that afflictions and apparent evils are permitted for the general good. From this principle Mr. Lindsey derived consolation through life, and upon it he acted in every difficult and trying scene. On his death-bed he spoke of his sufferings with perfect patience and meekness, and when reminded, by a friend, that he doubtless was enabled to bear them with so much fortitude in the recollection of his favourite maxim, that “Whatever is, is right; w “No,” said he with an animation that lighted up his countenance, “Whatever is, is best.” This was the last sentence which he was able distinctly to articulate: he died Novembers, 1808. Besides the works already referred to, he published two dissertations: 1. On the preface to St. John’s Gospel; 2. On praying to Christ:” An Historical View of the State of the Unitarian Doctrine and Worship from the Reformation to our own Times;“and several other pieces. Among controversial writers Mr. Lindsey takes a place as his” Vindiciae Priestleianae,“and his” Examination of Mr. Robinson’s Plea for the Divinity of Christ," will shew. Two volumes of his Sermons have been published since his death.

In 1698, he attended the earl of Portland in his embassy from king William to the court of France; and having the pleasure to see his “Synopsis Conchyliorum” in the king’s library, he presented that monarch with a second edition of the treatise, much improved, in 1699, not long after his return from Paris. Of this journey he published an account, with observations on the state and curiosities of that metropolis; which, containing some things of a trifling nature, was pleasantly ridiculed by Dr. Wm. King, in another, entitled “A Journey to London.” In 1709, upon the indisposition of Dr. Hannes, he was made second physician in ordinary to queen Anne; in which post he continued to his death, Feb. 2, 1711-12. He was buried in Claphamchurch, near the body of his wife Hannah, who died in 1695, leaving six children. One of his daughters, who died in 1758, was the wife of the rev. Owen Evans, of St. Martin’s, Canterbury. Besides the books already mentioned, he published, 1. “Historiae Animalium Angliae tres Tractatus,” &c. 1678. 2. “John Goedertius of Insects,” &c. 1682, 4to. 3. The same book in Latin. 4. “De Fontibus medicalibus AnglitE,” Ebor. 1682. There is an account of most of these in Phil. Trans. Nos. 139, 143, 144, and 166. 5. “Exercitatio anatomica, in qua de Cochleis agitur,” &c. 1694, 8vo. 6. “Cochlearum & Limacum Exercitatio anatomica; accedit de Variolis Exercitatio,” 1695, 2 vols. 8vo. 7. “Conchy liorum Bivalvium utriusque Aquae Exercitatio anatom. tertia,” &c. 1696, 4to. 8. “Exercitationes medicinales,” &c. 1697, 8vo. In his medical writings he is rather too much attached to hypotheses, and preserves too great a reverence for ancient and now untenable doctrines; but his reputation is well founded on his researches in natural history and comparative anatomy.

, a celebrated English judge, descended of an ancient family, was the eldest son of Thomas Westcote, of the county of Devon, esq. by Elizabeth, daughter and sole-heir of Thomas Littleton or Lyttleton, of Frankley in Worcestershire, in compliance with whom she consented that the issue, or at least the eldest son, of that marriage should take the name of Lyttleton, and bear the arms of that family. He was born about the beginning of the fifteenth century at Frankley. Having laid a proper foundation of learning at one of the universities, he removed to the Inner-Temple; and, applying himself to the law, became very eminent in that profession. The first notice we have of his distinguishing himself is from his learned lectures on the statute of Westminster, “de donis conditionalibus,” “of conditional gifts.” He was afterwards made, by Henry VI. steward or judge of the court of the palace, or marshalsea of the king’s household, and, in May 1455, king’s serjeant, in which capacity he went the Northern circuit as a judge of the assize. Upon the revolution of the crown, from the house of Lancaster to that of York) in the time of Edward IV. our judge, who was now made sheriff of Worcestershire, received a pardon from that prince; was continued in his post of king’s serjeant, and also in that of justice of assi/r for the same circuit. This pardon passed in 1462, the second year of Edward IV.; and, in 1466, he was appointed one of the judges of the court of Common Pleas. The same year, he obtained a writ to the commissioners of the customs of London, Bristol, and Kingston-upon-Hull, enjoining them to pay him a hundred and ten marks annually, for the better support of his dignity; a hundred and six shillings and eleven pence farthing, to furnish him whh a furred robe; and six shillings and six-pence more, for another robe called Li num. In 1473, we find him residing near St. Sepulchre’s church, London, in a capital mansion, the property of the abbot of Leicester, which he held on lease at the yearly rent of 1 <'>.-. In 1475 he was created, among others, knight of the Hath, to grace the solemnity of conferring that order upon the king’s eldest son, then prince of Wales, afterwards Edward V. He continued to enjoy the esteem of his sovereign and the nation, on account of his profound knowledge of the laws of England, till his death, Aug. 23, 1481, the day after the date of his will. He was then said to be of a good old age, but its precise length has not been ascertained. He was honourably interred in the cathedral church of Worcester, where a marble tomb, with his statue, was erected to his memory; his picture was also placed in the church of Frankley; and another in that of Hides-Owen, where his descendants purchased a good estate. He married, and had three sons, William, Richard, and Thomas. Kichard, bred to the law, became eminent in thut profession; and it was for his use that our judge drew up his celebrated treatise on tenures or titles, which will probably hand his name down to the latest posterity. The judge’s third son, Thomas, was knighted by Henry VII. for taking Lambert Simnel, the pretended earl of Warwick. His eldest son and successor, sir William Littleton, after living many years in great splendour, at Frankley, died in 1508; and from this branch the late celebrated lord Lyttelton of Frankley co. Worcester, who was created a baron of Great Britain, Nov. 1756, derived his pedigree; but who, owing to the alteration in the spelling of the name (which, however, appears unnecessary) will occur in a future part of this work.

In this station he preserved the esteem of both parties for some time, and the two houses of parliament agreed to return their thanks by him to the king, for passing the triennial bill, and that of the subsidies; but, as he concurred in the votes for raising an army, and seizing the militia, in March 1641, measures very hostile to the royal cause, the king sent an order from York to lord Falkland, to demand the seal from him, and to consult about a successor with Hyde, afterwards earl of Clarendon; but this last step prevented the former order from being put into execution. Hyde, who always entertained a great regard for the keeper, had, upon his late behaviour, paid him a visit at Exeter-house, on which occasion the keeper freely disclosed his mind, lamenting that he had been removed from the common-pleas, of which court he was acquainted with the business aud the persons with whom he had to deal, to an higher office, which involved him with another sort of men, and in affairs to which he was a stranger; and this without his having one friend among them, to whom he could confide any difficulty that occurred to him. Adverting likewise to the unhappy state of the king’s affairs, he said that the party in hostility to the court “would never have done what they had already, unless they had been determined to do more: that he foresaw it would not be long before a war would break out, and of what importance it was, in that season, that the great seal should be with his majesty; that the prospect of this necessity had made him comply to a certain degree with that party; that there had lately been a consultation, whether, in case the king might send for him, or the great seal be taken from him, it were advisable to keep it in some secure place, where the keeper should receive it upon occasion, they having no mind to disoblige him: that the knowledge of this had induced him to vote as he did in the late debates; and by that compliance, which he knew would give the king a bad impression of him, he had gained so much credit with them, that he should be able to preserve the seal in his own hands till his majesty should demand it, and then he would be ready to wait on the king with it, declaring that no man should be more willing to perish with and for his majesty than himself.” Mr. Hyde acquainted lord Falkland with this conference; and, being confident that the lord-keeper would keep his promise, recommended to advise his majesty to write a kind invitation to the keeper to come to York, and bring the seal with him, rather than, think of giving it to any other person. The advice was embraced by the king, who, though he still had his doubts of Littleton’s sincerity, was influenced by the reasons assigned; and accordingly the seal was sent to York on the f2d, and followed by the keeper on the 23d of May, 1642. But, notwithstanding this piece of service and eminent proof of his loyalty, at the risk of his life, he could never totally regain the king’s confidence, or the esteem of the court-party. He continued, however, to enjoy his post, in which he attended his majesty to Oxford, was there created doctor of laws, and made one of the king’s privycouncil, and colonel of a regiment of foot in the same service, some time before his death, which happened Aug. 27, 1645, at Oxford. His body was interred in the cathedral of Christ church; uu which Qccasioa a funeral oration was pronounced by the celebrated Dr. Hammond, then orator to the university. In May 1683, a monument was erected there to his memory, by his only daughter and heiress, the lady Anne Lyttelton, widow of sir Thomas Lyttelton; and the same year came out his “Reports,” in folio, which, however, Mr. Stevens, in his introduction to lord Bacon’s Letters, edition 1702, p. 21, thinks were not composed by him, many of the cases being the same verbatim as in Hetley’s reports. Lord Clarendon says of sir Edward Littleton, that “he was a man of great reputation in the profession of the law, for learning, and all other advantages which attend the most eminent men. He was of a very good extraction in Shropshire, and inherited a fair fortune and inheritance from his father. He was a handsome and a proper man, of a very graceful presence, and notorious courage, which in his youth he had manifested with his sword. He had taken great pains in the hardest and most knotty part of the law, as well as that which was most customary; and was not only ready and expert in the books, but exceedingly versed in records, in studying and examining whereof he had kept Mr. Selden company, with whom he had great friendship, and who had much assisted him: so that he was looked upon as the best antiquary of his profession, who gave himself up to practice; and, upon the mere strength of his abilities, he had raised himself into the first of the practisers of the common law courts, and was chosen recorder of London before he was called to the bench, and grew presently into the highest practice in all the other courts, as well as those of the law.” Whitelocke also observes, that he was a man of courage, and of excellent parts and learning. But we fear he cannot be altogether acquitted of unsteadiness in some parts of his conduct, although it must at the same time be owned that when he found he could no longer retain the seal with credit, he delivered it, with his own hands, to his unhappy sovereign, and died firmly attached to his cause.

Lloyd’s other publications were: 1. “Modern Policy compleated, or the public actions and councils, '&c. of General Monk,” Lond. 1660, 8vo. 2. “The Pourtraictuue of his sacred Majesty Charles II. &c.” ibid. 1660, 8vo. 3. “The Countess of Bridgwater’s Ghost, &c.” Lond. 1663, a character of this amiable lady, published, as Wood allows, “to make her a pattern for other women to imitate;” but we can scarcely credit what he adds, that “the earl being much displeased that the memory of his lady should be perpetuated under such a title, and by such an obscure person, who did not do her the right that was <Jue, he brought him into trouble, and caused him to suffer six months imprisonment /” We have not seen this work; but had it been a libel instead of a panegyric, which last appears to have been the author’s honest intention, it could not have been punished with more severity. 4. “Of Plots, &c.” Lond. 1664, 4to, published under the name of Oliver Foulis. 5. “The Worthies of the World, &c.” an abridgment of Plutarch, ibid. 1665, 8vo. 6. “Dying and Dead men’s Living Words; or a fair warning to a careless world,” 1665, and 1682, 12mo. 7. “Wonders no miracles; or Mr. Valentine Greatrack’s Gift of Healing examined, &c.” ibid. 1665, 4to. 8. “Exposition of the Catechism and Liturgy, &c.” 9. “A Treatise on Moderation,” 1674.

Besides the “Considerations,” &c. mentioned above, he wrote, 1. “The late Apology in behalf of Papists, reprinted and answered, in behalf of the Royalists,” 1667, 4to. 2. “A seasonable Discourse, shewing the necessity of maintaining the Established Religion in opposition to Popery,” 1672, 4to, which passed through five editions in the following year. 3. “A reasonable Defence of the Seasonable Discourse,” &c. 1673, 4to, in answer to the earl of Castlemain’s observations on the preceding article. 4. “The difference between the Church and the Court of Rome considered,” 1673, 4to. All the preceding were published without the author’s name, nor were they at first acknowledged by, though generally attributed to him. They were reprinted in 1689, 4to. 5. “An Alarm for Sinners,” 1679, 4to. This was published by our author when dean of Bangor, from an original copy containing the confession, prayers, letters, and last words of Robert Foulks, vicar of Stanton-Lucy, in Shropshire, who was executed at Tyburn, in 1678, for the murder of a natural child; and whom Dr. Lloyd and Dr. Buraet attended during his imprisonment. 6. Various occasional Sermons, printed separately. 7. “An historical account of Church Government,” 1684, 8vo. 8. “A Letter to Dr. William Sherlock, in vindication of that part of Josephus’s History, which gives an account of Jaddua the high priest’s submitting to Alexander the Great,” 1691, 4to. 9. “A Discourse of God’s ways of disposing Kingdoms,” 1691, 4to. 10. “The Pretences of the French Invasion examined,” &c. 1692, 4to. 11. “A Dissertation upon Daniel’s 70 Weeks,” the substance of which is inserted in the chronology of sir Isaac Newton. 12. An exposition of the same subject, left printed imperfect, and not published. 13. *‘ A Letter upon the same subject, printed in the ’ Life of Dr. Humphrey Prideaux,' p. 288, edit. 1758,“8vo. 14.” A System of Chronology,“left imperfect, but out of it his chaplain, Benjamin Marshall, composed his” Chronological Tables,“printed at Oxford, 1712, 1713. 15.” A Harmony of the Gospels,“partly printed in 4to, but left imperfect. 16.” A Chronological account of the Life of Pythagoras,“&c. 1699. 17. He is supposed to have had a hand in a book published by his son at Oxford, 1700, in folio, entitled” Series Chronologica Olympiadum,“&c. He wrote also some” Explications of some of the Prophecies in the Revelations,“and added the chronological dates at the head of the several columns, with an index to the Bible, and many of the references and parallel places, first printed in the fine edition of the Bible published in folio, under the direction of archbishop Tenison, in 1701. He left a Bible interlined with notes in short hand, which was in the possession of Mr. Marshall, his chaplain, who married a relation, and would have published these notes had he met with encouragement, as Whiston informs us, who always, even in his index, calls Dr. Lloyd” the great bishop,“and in speaking of Wasse says,” one more learned than any bishop in England since bishop Lloyd."

In 1664, sir William Swan being appointed envoy from the English court to the elector of Brandenburgh, and some other German princes, Mr. Locke attended him as his secretary, but returned to England within the year, and applied himself again with great vigour to his studies, and particularly to that of natural philosophy. While at Oxford, in 1666, he became acquainted with lord Ashley, afterwards earl of Shaftesbury, and that in the character of a medical practitioner. Lord Ashley by a fall had hurt his breast in such a manner, that there was an abscess formed in it, and being advised to drink the mineral waters at Astrop, wrote to Dr. Thomas, a physician at Oxford, to procure a quantity of those waters, which might be ready on his arrival. Dr. Thomas, being obliged to be absent from Oxford at that time, desired his friend Mr. Locke to execute this commission. By some accident or neglect, the waters were not ready the day after lord Ashley’s arrival, and Mr. Locke thought it his duty to wait on his lordship to make an apology, which he received with his usual civility, and was so pleased with Locke’s conversation as to detain him to supper, and engaged him to dine with him next day, that he might have the more of his company. And when his lordship left Oxford to go to Surinirig-hill, where he drank the waters, he made Mr. Locke promise to come thither, as he did in the summer of 1667. Lord Ashley afterwards returned, and obliged him to promise that he would come and lodge at his house. Mr. Locke accordingly went thither, and though not a regular practitioner, his lordship confided entirely in his advice, with regard to the operation, which was to be performed by opening the abscess in his breast, and which saved his life, though it never closed.

In 1668, he attended the earl and countess of Northumberland into France; but the earl’s death did not allow him to remain long in that country. On his return, Mr. Locke lived, as before, at lord Ashley’s, who was then chancellor of the exchequer, but made frequent visits to Oxford, in the prosecution of his studies, as well as for change of air, which appeared to be necessary to his health. While he was at lord Ashley’s, he had the care of the education of that nobleman’s eldest son, who was then about sixteen years of age. This province he executed with great care, and to the full satisfaction of his noble patron. The young lord being of a weakly constitution, his father wished to see him married, lest the family should be extinct by his death; and as he thought him too young to make a proper choice for himself, he not only consulted Mr. Locke on the subject, but even requested he would make a suitable choice for the youth. This was an affair of some delicacy, and no small risk; for, although lord Ashley did not regard fortune, yet he conditioned for a lady of a good family, an agreeable temper, and a fine person; of good education, and of good understanding, and whose conduct would be different from that of the generality of court-ladies. In all these respects Mr.Xocke had the happiness to succeed, and the marriage was fruitful. The eldest son, afterwards the author of the “Characteristics,” was committed to the care of Mr. Locke in his education, and his pupil, when lord Shaftesbury, always spoke of Mr. Locke with the highest esteem, and manifested on all occasions a grateful sense of his obliga r tions to him, but there are some passages in his works, in which he speaks of Mr. Locke’s philosophy with great severity. It will not, however, be thought a very serious objection to Mr. Locke, that his philosophy did not give entire satisfaction to lord Shaftesbury.

In 1670, and the year following, our author began to form the plan of his celebrated “Essay on Human Understanding,” at the earnest request of Mr. Tyrrell, Dr. Thomas, and some other friends, who met frequently in his chamber to converse together on philosophical subjects; but his employments and avocations prevented him from finishing it then. In 1668 he had been elected a fellow of the royal society, and appears to have been now looked up to as a man of superior talents, and an authority in those pursuits to which he more particularly addicted himself. In 1672, his patron Lord Ashley, being created earl of Shaftesburj', and lord high chancellor of England, appointed Mr. Locke secretary of the presentations to benefices; which place he held until 1673, when his lordship resigned the great seal. As he had been the confidant of this statesman in his most secret affairs, he now assisted his lordship in publishing some treatises, which were designed to excite the people to watch the Roman catholics, and to oppose the arbitrary measures of the court.

In 1675, Mr. Locke travelled into France on account of his health, and at Montpelier became first acquainted with Mr. Herbert, afterwards earl of Pembroke, to whom he dedicated his “Essay on Human Understanding.” From Montpelier he went to Paris, where he was introduced to various men of letters. In 1679 he was recalled to London, on the earl of Shaftesbury’s having regained his favour at court and been made president of the council, but this was of short duration. The earl lost his place in a few months, for refusing to comply with the designs of the Court, which aimed at the establishment of popery and arbitrary power; attd having incurred the implacable hatred of the duke of York, on account of his supporting the exclusion-bill, he was, in 1681, committed to the lower, and although acquitted upon trial, thought it most safe to retire to Holland, where he died in 1683. Mr. Locke, also thinking himself not quite secure in England, followed his lordship to Holland, and was introduced to many of the learned men of Amsterdam, particularly 1 anborrh, and Le Clerc, whose intimacy and friendship he preserved throughout life.

During his residence in Holland, he was accused at court of having written certain tracts against the government of his country, which were afterwards discovered to be the production of another person; and upon that suspicion he was deprived of his studentship of Christ-church. This part of Mr. Locke’s history requires some detail. The writer of his life in the Biographia Britannica (Nicoll) says that “being observed to join in company with several English malcontents at the Hague, this conduct was communicated by our resident there to the earl of Sunderland, then secretary of state; who acquainting the king therewith, his majesty ordered the proper methods to be taken for expelling him from the college, and application to be made for that purpose to bishop Fell, the dean; in obedience to this command, the necessary information was given by his lordship, who at the same time wrote to our author, to appear and answer for himself on the first of January ensuing, but immediately receiving an express command to turn him out, was obliged to comply therewith, and, accordingly, Air. Locke was removed from his student’s place on the 15th of Nov. 1684.” This account, however, is not correct. All that lord Sunderland did, was to impart his majesty’s displeasure to the dean, and to request his opinion as to the proper method of removing Mr. Locke. The dean’s answer, dated Nov. 8, contains the following particulars of Mr. Locke, and of his own advice and proceedings against him. “I have,” says the dean, “for divers years had an eye upon him; but so close has his guard been on himself, that after several strict inquiries, I may confidently affirm there is not any man inthe college, however familiar with him, who had heard him speak a word either against or so much as concerning the government; and although very frequently, both in public and private, discourses have been purposely introduced to the disparagement of his master, the earl of Shaftesbury, his party and designs, he never could be provoked to take any notice, or discover in word or look the least concern. So that I believe there is not a man in the world so much master of taciturnity and passion. He has here a physician’s place (he had taken the degree of B. M. in 1674) which frees him from the exercise of the college, and the obligations which others have to residence in it; and he is now abroad for want of health.”

About this time Mr. Locke’s attention was directed to the state of the coin, which had been so much clipped, as to want above a third of its real value; and although his sentiments on the subject were at first disregarded, the parliament at length was obliged to take the matter into consideration, aud to assist the members in forming a right opinion on the matter, aud introduce a proper remedy. Mr. Locke, therefore, published “Some considerations of the consequence of the lowering of the interest, and raising the value of money,” and shortly followed it by two more on the same subject, in answer to objections. These writings extended his acquaintance among men of rank in the political world, with some of whom he used to associate on the most familiar terms. He had weekly interviews with the earl of Pembroke, then lord keeper of the privy seal; and when the air of London began to affect his lungs, he went for some days to the earl of Peterborough’s seat at Parsons’ Green, near Fulham, where he always met with the most friendly reception: but was obliged afterwards entirely to leave London*, at least during the whole of the winter season.

This edition contains, principally, the following treatises, to which we have here appended the years of their first publication 1. “Three Letters upon Toleration;” the first, printed at London in 168y, was in Latin. 2. “A Register of the Changes of the Air observed at Oxford,” inserted in Mr. Boyle’s “General History of the Air,” 1692, 8ro. 3. “New Method for a Common-place Book,” 1686. 4. “Essay concerning Human Understanding,” 1690, fol. 5. “Two Treatises of Civil Government,” &c. 1690, 8vo; again in 1694, and in 1698. A French translation at Amsterdam, and then at Geneva, in 1722. 6. “Some Considerations of the Consequences of lowering the Interest, and raising the Value, of Money,” 1691, 8vo, and again in 1695. 7. Some observations on a printed paper, entitled, “For coining silver Money in England,” &c. “Farther Observations concerning the raising the Value of Money,” &c. 9. “Some Thoughts concerning Education,” &c. 1693, 8vo, and again in 1694 and 1698; again after his death, with great additions; and in French, entitled, “De l'Education des Enfans,” Amster. 1695. 10. “The Reasonableness of Christianity,” &c. 1695, 8vo. 11. “Vindication of the Reasonableness,” &c. 1696, 8vo. 12. “A second Vindication,” &c. 1696, 8vo. 13. “A Letter to the Bishop of Worcester,” 1697, 8vo. 14. “Reply to the Bishop of Worcester,” &c. 1697, 4to. 15. “Reply, in answer to the Bishop’s second Letter,” 1698. 16. Posthumous Works of Mr. John Locke, viz. “Of the Conduct of the Understanding;” “An Examination of Malebranche’s Opinion,” &.c. “A Discourse of Miracles;” “Part of a fourth Letter for Toleration;” “Memoirs relating to the Life of Anthony first earl of Shaftesbury,” &c. &c. He deft behind him several Mss. from which his executors, sir Peter King aud Anthony Collins, esq. published, in 1705, his paraphrase and notes upon St. Paul’s epistle to the Galatians, which were soon followed by those upon the Corintbians, Romans, and Ephesians, with an essay prefixed, “For the understanding of St. Paul’s epistles, by consulting St. Paul himself.” In the following year the posthumous works of Mr. Locke were published, comprising a treatise “On the Conduct of the Understanding,” intended as a supplement to the “Essay:” “An Examination of Malebranche’s Opinion of seeing all Things in God.” In 1708, some familiar letters between Mr. Locke and several of his friends were published. All the works of this great man have been collected, and frequently reprinted in different sizes; in three vols. folio, in four vols. quarto, by bishop Law, and lately in nine vols. 8vo.

, one of the chiefs of the republican party during the civil wars, was descended of an ancient and good family, originally of Shropshire, and thence removed into Wiltshire, in which county he wag born, at Maiden- Bradley, about 1620. After a proper foundation in grammar, he was sent to Trinity-college in Oxford, where he took the degree of batchelor of arts in 1636, but removed to the Temple, to study the law, as a qualification for serving his country in parliament, his ancestors having frequently represented the county of Wiltshire. His father, sir Henry Ludlow, who was a member of the long parliament and an enemy to the measures of the court, encouraged his son to engage as a volunteer in the earl of Essex’s life-guard. In this station he appeared against the king, at the battle of Edge-hill, in '1642; and, having raised a troop of horse the next summer, 1643, he joined sir Edward Hungerford in besieging Wardour-castle. This being taken, he was made governor of it; but being retaken the following year, 1644, by the king’s forces, he was carried prisoner to Oxford. After remaining here some time, he was released by exchange, went to London, and was appointed high-sheriff of Wiltshire by the parliament. He then appears to have declined a command under the earl of Essex, but accepted the post of major in sir Arthur Haslerig’s regiment of horse, in the army of sir William Waller, and marched to form the blockade of Oxford. From Oxford, however, he was immediately sent, with a commission from sir William, to raise and command a regiment of horse, and was so successful as to be able to join Waller with about five hundred horse, and was engaged in the second battle fought at Newbury. Upon new modelling the army, he was dismissed with Waller, and was not employed again in any post, civil or military, till 1645, when he was chosen in parliament for Wiltshire in the room of his father, who died in 1643.

Soon after the death of the earl of Essex, Sept. 1646, Ludlow had reason to suspect, from, a conversation with Cromwell, who expressed a dislike to the parliament and extolled the army, that his ambition would lead him to destroy the civil authority, and establish his own; and therefore he gave a flat negative to the vote for returning Cromwell thanks, on his shooting ' Arnell, the agitator, and thereby quelling that faction in the army. In the same spirit of what has been called pure rep ublicanism, he joined in the vote for not addressing the king, and in the declaration for bringing him to a trial: and soon alter, in a conference with Cromwell and the leaders of the army, he harangued upon the necessity and justice of the king’s execution, and, after that, the establishment of an equal commonwealth, in which he differed from another pure republican, Lilburne, who was for new-modelling the parliament first, and then, as a natural consequence, putting the king to death. Ludlow induced the Wiltshire people to agree to the raising of two regiments of foot, and one of horse, against the Scots, when they were preparing to release the king from Carisbrook- castle. After which, he went to Fairfax, at the siege of Colchester, and prevailed with him to oppose entering into any treaty with the king; and when the House of Commons, on his majesty’s answer from Newport, voted that his concessions were ground for a future settlement, Ludlow not only expressed his dissatisfaction, but had a principal share both in forming and executing the scheme of forcibly excluding all that party from the house by colonel Pride, in 1648. Agreeably to all these proceedings, he sat upon the bench at the trial and condemnation of the king, concurred in the vote that the House of Peers was useless and dangerous, and became a member of the council of state.

In this manner he was employed till his death, which happened in 1546. That year, accompanied by Melancthon, he paid a visit to his own country, which he had not seen for many years, and returned again in safety. But soon after he was called thither again by the earls of Mansfelt, to compose some differences which had arisen about their boundaries. He had not been used to such matters; but because he was born at Isleben, a town in the territory of Mansfelt, he was willing to do his country what service he could, even in this way. Preaching his last sermon, therefore, at Wittemberg, Jan. 17, he set off the 23d; and at Hall in Saxony lodged with Justus Jonas, with whom he stayed three days, because the waters were out. The 28th he passed over the river with his three sons, and Jonas and being in some danger, he said to the doctor, “Do not you think it would rejoice the deril exceedingly, if I and you, and my three sons, should be drowned” When he entered the territories of the earl of Mansfelt, he was received by 100 horsemen or more, and conducted in a very honourable manner; but was at the same time so very ill that it was feared he would die. He said that these fits of sickness often came upon him when he had any great business to undertake: of this, however, he did not recover, but died Feb. 18, in his sixty-third year. A little before he expired he admonished those that were about him to pray to God for the propagation of the gospel “because,” said he, “the council of Trent, which had sat once or twice, and the pope, will devise strange things against it.” Soon after, his body was put into a leaden coffin, and carried with funeral pomp to the church at Isleben, when Jonas preached a sermon upon the occasion. The earls of Mansfelt desired that his body should be interred in their territories; but the elector of Saxony intsted upon his being brought back to Wittemberg, which was accordingly done; and there he was buried with the greatest pomp that perhaps ever happened to any private mail. Princes, earls, nobles, aad students without number, attended the procession; and Melancthon made his funeral oration.

Having now qualified himself completely for a work of that nature, he undertook the arduous task of publishing the “Etymologicum Anglicanum” of Francis Junius, from the manuscript of the author in the Bodleian Library. To this undertaking he was led, as he tells us in his preface, by the commendations which Hickes and other learned antiquaries had given to that unpublished work. In the seventh year from the commencement of his design, he published the work, with many additions, and particularly that of an Anglo-Saxon Grammar prefixed. The work was received with the utmost approbation of the learned. In 1750, Mr. Lye became a member of the society of antiquaries, and about the same time was presented by the earl of Northampton to the vicarage of Yardley Hastings, on which accession he resigned his former living of Houghton; giving an illustrious example of primitive moderation, especially as he had hitherto supported his mother, and had still two sisters dependent upon him. The next publication which he issued, was that of the Gothic Gospels, undertaken at the desire of Eric Benzelius, bishop of Upsal, who had collated and corrected them. This, which he had been long preparing, appeared from the Oxford press in the same year, with a Gothic Grammar prefixed. His last years were employed chiefly in finishing for the press his own great work, the Anglo-Saxon and Gothic Dictionary, which was destined to owe that to another editor, which he had performed for Junius. His manuscript was just completed, and given to the printer, when he died at Yardley Hastings, in 1767; and was there buried, with a commendatory but just and elegant epitaph. His Dictionary was published in 1772, in two volumes folio, by the rev. Owen Manning, with a grammar of the two languages united, and some memoirs of the author, from which this account is taken. It appears by some original correspondence between Mr. Lye and Dr. Ducarel (for the perusal of which we are indebted to Mr. Nichols), that Mr. Lye had been employed on his dictionary a long time before 1765, and that he had almost relinquished the design from a dread of the labour and expence. In the labour he had none to share with him, but at the time above mentioned archbishop Seeker offered him a subscription of 50l. to forward the work, and he appears to have hoped for similar instances of liberality.

, a pious clergyman of the seventeenth century, was born about 1598, at Peysmere, near Newbury in Berkshire, of which place his father was rector. In 16 14 he became a commoner of Magdalen hall, Oxford, and a demy of Magdalen college in 1617. In 1622 he took his degree of M. A. and was then chosen a fellow. In 1631 he was admitted to the reading of the sentences, and, having taken orders, was presented to the living of Shirburne, in Dorsetshire, by John Earl of Bristol. Here, says Wood, “he was very much resorted to for his edifying and practical way of preaching;” and appears indeed to have deserved the affections of his flock, by the most constant diligence in discharging the duties of his office. He divided his day into the following portions: nine hours for study, three for visits and conferences with his parishioners, three for prayers and devotion, two for his affairs, and the rest for his refreshment. He divided likewise his estate into three parts, one for the use of his family, one for a reserve in case of future wants, and one for pious uses. His parish he divided into twentyeight parts, to be visited in twenty-eight days every month, “leaving,” says one of his biographers, “knowledge where he found ignorance, justice where he found oppression, peace where he found contention, and order where he found irregularity.”

, or Graham, the name of her second husband, was born in 1733, at Ollantigh, in Kent, the seat of her father, John Sawbridge, esq. She appears to have had none of the regular education given to young ladies of her ranl$, but had an early taste for promiscuous reading, which at length terminated in a fondness for history. That of the Romans is supposed to have inspired her with the republican notions which she professed throughout life, and in which she was probably encouraged by her brother the late alderman Sawbridge, whose politics were of the same cast. In 1760 she married Dr. George Macaulay, a physician of London. Soon after this, she commenced her career in literature, and in 1763 published the first volume, in 4to, of her “History of England, from the accession of James I. to that of the Brunswick Line.” This work was completed in 8 vols. in 1783; it was read with some avidity at the period of its publication, as the production of a female pen, but has since fallen into so much disrepute, as scarcely ever to be inquired after. It was written in the true spirit of rancorous republicanism, and was greatly deficient in that impartiality which ought to be the characteristic of true history. While in the height of her fame, Mrs. Macaulay excited the admiration of Dr. Wilson, rector of St. Stephen’s, Walbrook, who in his dotage placed her statue, while living, in the chancel of his church. This disgraceful appendage, however, his successor thought himself justified in removing. Having been left a widow, Mrs. Macaulay in 1778 married Mr. Graham, a step which, from the disparity of years, exposed her to much ridicule. In the year 1785 she went to America, for the purpose of visiting the illustrious Washington, with whom she had before maintained a correspondence. She died at Bin field, in Berkshire, June 22, 1791. Her works, besides the history already referred to, which may be regarded as the principal, are, “Remarks on Hobbes’s Rudiments of Government and Society;” “Loose Remarks on some of Mr. Hobbes’s Positions;” the. latter being an enlarged edition of the former: the object of these is to shew the superiority of a republican to a monarchical form of government. In 1770, Mrs. Macaulay wrote a reply to Mr. Burke’s celebrated pamphlet entitled “Thoughts on the Causes of the Present Discontents;” and in 1775 she pub.­lished “An Address to the People of England, Scotland, and Ireland, on the present important Crisis of Affairs.” She wrote also “A Treatise on the Immutability of Moral Truth;” which she afterwards re-published, with much other original matter, under the title of “Letters on Education,” 1790. Her last publication was “Observations on the Reflections of the Right Hon. Edmund Burke, oo the Revolution in France, in a letter to the Right Hon. the Earl of Stanhope,” 1790, 8vo. Many curious particulars of this lady may be found in our authorities.

, who in his Latin works called himself Cavellus, was titular primate of Armagh, and a learned writer in defence of Duns Scotus, whose opinions were generally embraced by his countrymen. He was born in the county of Down, in Ireland, in 1571, and became a Franciscan friar. He studied at Salamanca, in Spain, and afterwards for many years governed the Irish Franciscan college at Louvain, dedicated to St. Anthony, in the founding of which he had been instrumental. In this college he was also professor of divinity, which office he filled afterwards in the convent of Ara Cceli at Rome, was definitor-general of his order, and at length advanced by the pope to the see of Armagh; but died at Rome, as he was preparing for his journey to Ireland, Sept. 22, 1626, in the fifty -fifth year of his age. He was buried in the church of St. Isidore, under a monumental stone, and inscription, placed there by the earl of Tyrone. He was reckoned a man of great learning, and one of the best schoolmen of his time. His works, which consist chiefly of commentaries on and a defence of Scotus, were in substance incorporated in Wading' s edition of Scotus’s works, printed at Lyons, 1639, in 12 vols. folio.

, an ingenious and learned writer, and eminent lawyer of Scotland, was descended from an ancient and noble family, his father Simon Mackenzie being brother to the earl of Seaforth. He was born at Dundee, in the county of Angus, in 1636, and gave early proofs of an extraorJinary genius, having gone through the usual classic authors, at ten years of age. He was then sent to the universities of Aberdeen and St. Andrew’s, where he finished his studies in logic and philosophy before he had attained his sixteenth year. After this, he turned his thoughts to the civil law, and to increase his knowledge of it, travelled into France, and became a close student in the university of Bourges, for about three years. On his return home, he was called to the bar, became an advocate in 1656, and gained the character of an eminent pleader in a few years.

While he made the law his profession and chief study, he cultivated a taste for polite literature; and produced some works which added not a little to his reputation. In 1660, came out his “Aretino, or serious Romance,” in which he shewed a gay and exuberant fancy. In 1663, he published his “Religio Stoici;” or a short discourse upon several divine and moral subjects, with a friendly address to the fanatics of all sects and sorts. This was followed, in 1665, by “A Moral Essay,” preferring solitude to pubHe employment, and all its advantages; such as fame, command, riches, pleasures, conversation, &c. This was answered by John Evelyn, esq. in another essay, in which the preference was given to public employment. In 1667, he printed his “Moral gallantry;” a discourse, in which he endeavours to prove, that the point of honour, setting aside all other ties, obliges men to be virtuous; and that there is nothing so mean and unworthy of a gentleman, as vice: to which is added, a consolation against calumnies, shewing how to bear them with chearfulness and patience. Afterwards he published “The moral history of frugality,” with its opposite vices, covetousness, niggardliness, prodigality, and luxury, dedicated to the university of Oxford; and “Reason,” an essay, dedicated to the hon. Robert Boyle, esq. All these works, except “Aretino,” were collected and printed together at London, in 1713, 8vo, under the title of “Essays upon several moral subjects:” and have been regarded as abounding in good sense and wit, although upon the whole the reasoning is rather superficial. Besides these essays, which were the production of such hours as could be spared from his profession, he was the author of a play and a poem. The poem is entitled “Caelia’s country-house and closet;” and in it are the following lines upon the earl of Montrose:

Soon after Mr. Mackenzie had been employed as counsel for the marquis of Argyle, he was promoted to the office of a judge in the criminal court; which he discharged with so much credit and reputation, that he was made king’s advocate in 1674, and one of the lords of the privycouncil in Scotland. He was also knighted by his majesty. In these offices he met with a great deal of trouble on account of the rebellions which happened in his time; and his office of advocate requiring him to act with severity, he did not escape being censured for having, in the deaths of some particular persons who were executed, stretched the laws too far. This alludes to the noted trials of Baillie of Jerviswood, that of the earl of Argyle, and the prosecutions against Mitchel and Learmonth, events which make a great figure in the history of that unhappy period; but in the opinion of the late lord Woodhcusc lee, “his own defence will fully justify his conduct in the breast of every man whose judgment is not perverted by the same prejudices, hostile to all good government, which led those infatuated offenders to the doom they merited.” (See Mackenzie’s Works, Vindication of the government of Charles II.)