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

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 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.

, 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.

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.

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.

, 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.

, 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.

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.

, 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.

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.

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

, 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.

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 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.)

, viscount Tarbat, and first earl of Cromerty, a person eminent for his learning and for his abilities as a statesman, was descended from a branch of the family of Seaforth. He succeeded to the family estate on the death of his father sir John Mackenzie, and also to his unshaken fealty for Charles II. during whose exile he had a commission to levy what forces he could procure, to promote the restoration. After that event, he was made one of the senators of the college of justice, clerk register of the pri% 7 y council, and justice-general, an office which had been hereditary in the family of Argyle, till it was surrendered in the preceding reign. James II. made him a baron and viscount, but on the abdication of that monarch, whom it woukl appear he had favoured too much, he lost his office of lord-register for some time, until king William III. was pleased to restore it in 1692, being no stranger to his abilities. In queen Anne’s reign, 1702, he was constituted secretary of state, and the following year was advanced to the dignity of earl of Cromerty. He died in 1714, at the age of eighty-three, or, according to another account, eighty-eight.

In the midst of these studies he was always ready to promote any scheme xvhich might contribute to the service of his country. When the earl of Morton set out, in 1739, for Orkney and Shetland, to visit his estates there, he desired Mr. Maclaurjn to assist him in settling the geography of those countries, which is very erroneous in all our maps, to examine their natural history, to survey the coasts, and to take the measure of a degree of the meridian. Maclaurin’s family affairs, and other connections, however, not allowing of his absence, he drew up a memorial of what he thought necessary to be observed, furnished the proper instruments, and recommended Mr. Short, the famous optician, as a fit operator for the management of them. He had still another scheme for the improvement of geography and navigation, of a more extensive nature; which was, the opening a passage from Greenland to the South Sea by the North pole. That such a passage might be found, he was so fully persuaded, that he has been heard to say, if his situation could admit of such adventures, he would undertake the voyage, even at his own charge. But when schemes for finding it were laid before the parliament in 1744, and himself consulted by several persons of high rank concerning them, before he could finish the memorials he proposed to send, the premium was limited to the discovery of a North-West passage and he used to regret, that the word West was inserted, because he thought that passage, if at all to be found, must lie not far from the pole.

, lord of Thirlstone, and afterwards chancellor of Scotland, one of the Latin poets of that country, the second son of the preceding, was born about 1537. He was educated in Scotland, and afterwards sent to France to study the law. On his return to his native country, he practised that profession with great success. In 1567, as already noticed, his father resigned the privyseal in his favour; but in 1570 he was deprived of that office, from his attachment to queen Mary. In 1581 he was made a senator of the college of justice. In 1584 he became secretary of state to king James VI. and the year following, on the death of the earl of Arran, was created lord chancellor of Scotland. The power and influence of the chancellor created him many enemies among the Scotch nobility, who made several unsuccessful attempts to destroy him. In 1589 he attended the king on his voyage to Norway, where his royal bride, the princess of Denmark, was detained by contrary winds. The marriage was there completed, and they passed the winter at Copenhagen. During this residence in Denmark, Maitland became intimately acquainted with Tycho Brahe. In 1590 he was created lord Maitland of Thirlstone. Towards the end of 1592, the chancellor incurred the queen’s displeasure for refusing to relinquish his lordship of Musselburgh, which she claimed as part of Dumferling. He absented himself from court for some time, but was at length restored to favour. He died of a lingering illness Oct. 4, 1595, and was much regretted by the king. He is spoken of by Spotiswood and Johnston as a man of great learning, and eminent political abilities. Of his works, we have “Johannis Metellani, Thirlstoni domini, epigrammata Latina,” published in the second volume of the “Delicioe Poetarum Scotorum,” Amst. 1637; a satire in the Scotch language “aganist sklanderous toungis,” and an “admonitioun” to the regent Mar, published in Mr. Pinkerton’s collection of“Ancient Scotish Poems.”

, duke of Lauderdale, grandson of the preceding, was a statesman of great power and authority, but of most inconsistent character. On the breaking out of the wars in Scotland in the reign of Charles I. he was a zealous covenanter; and in Jan. 1644-5, one of the commissioners at the treaty of Uxbridge, during which, upon the death of his father the earl of Lauderdale, he succeeded to his titles and estate. He took an active but not very useful part in the above treaty; “being,” says lord Clarendon, “a young man, not accustomed to an orderly and decent way of speaking, and having no gracious pronunciation., and full of passion, he made every thing much more difficult than it was before.” In April 1647, he came with the earl of Dumfermling to London, with a commission to join with the parliament commissioners in persuading the king to sign the covenant and propositions offered to him; and in the latter end of the same year, he, in conjunction with the earl of Loudon, chancellor of Scotland, and the earl of Lanerick, conducted a private treaty with his majesty at Hampton court, which was renewed and signed by him on Dec. 26 at Carisbrook castle. By this, among other very remarkable concessions, the king engaged himself to employ the Scots equally with the English in all foreign employments and negociations; and that a third part of all the offices and places about the king, queen, and prince, should be conferred upon persons of that nation; and that the king and prince, or one of them, should frequently reside in Scotland. In August the year following, the earl of Lauderdale was sent by the committee of estates of Scotland to the prince of Wales, with a letter, in which, next to his father’s restraint, they bewailed his highness’s long absence from that kingdom; and since their forces were again marched into England, they desired his presence to countenance their endeavours for religion and his father’s re-establishment. In 1649, he opposed with great vehemence the propositions made by the marquis of Montrose to king Charles II.; and in 1651 attended his majesty in his expedition into England, but was taken prisoner after the battle of Worcester in September the same year, and confined in the Tower of London, Portland-castle, and other prisons, till the 3d of March, 1659-60, when he was released from his imprisonment in Windsor-castle.

Upon the Restoration he was made secretary of state for Scotland, and persuaded the king to demolish the forts and citadels built by Cromwell in Scotland; by which means he became very popular. He was likewise very importunate vfith his majesty for his supporting presbyterv in that kingdom; though his zeal, in that respect, did not continue long. In 1669, he was appointed lord commissioner for the king in Scotland, whither he was sent with great pomp and splendour to bring about some extraordinary points, and particularly the union of the two kingdoms. For this purpose he made a speech at the opening of the parliament at Edinburgh on the 19th of October that year, in which he likewise recommended the preservation of the church as established by law, and expressed a vast zeal for episcopal government. And now the extending of the king’s power and grandeur in that kingdom. was greatly owing to the management of his lordship although he had formerly been as much for depressing the prerogative; and from the time of his commission the Scots had reason to date all the mischiefs and internal commotions of that and the succeeding reign. Having undertaken to make his majesty absolute and arbitrary, he stretched the power of the crown to every kind of excess, and assumed to himself a sort of lawless administration, the exercise of which was supposed to be granted to him in consequence of the large promises he had made. In the prosecution of this design, being more apprehensive of other men’s officious interfering, than distrustful of his own abilities, he took care to make himself his majesty’s sole informer, as well as his sole secretary; and by this means, not only the affairs of Scotland were determined in the court of England, without any notice taken of the king’s council in Scotland, but a strict watch was kept on all Scotchmen, who came to the English court; and to attempt any access to his majesty, otherwise than by his lordship’s mediation, was to hazard his perpetual resentment. By these arrogant measures, he gradually made himself almost the only important person of the whole Scotch nation; and in Scotland itself assumed so much sovereign authority, as to name the privy-counsellors, to place and remove the lords of the session and exchequer, to grant gifts and pensions, to levy and disband forces, to appoint general officers, and to transact all matters belonging to the prerogative. Besides which, he was one of the five lords, who had the management of affairs in England, and were styled the Cabal, and in 1672, was made marquis of March, duke of Lauderdale, and knight of the garter. But these honours did not protect him from the indignation of the House of Commons; by whom, in November the year following, he was voted a *' grievance, and not fit to be trusted or employed in any office or place of trust.“And though his majesty thought proper on the 25th of June, 1674, to create him a baron of England by the title of Baron of Petersham in Surrey, and earl of Guildford, yet the House of Commons the next year presented an address to the king to remove him from all his employments, and from his majesty’s presence and counsels for ever; which address was followed by another of the same kind in May 1678, and by a third in May the year following. He died at Tunbridge Wells, August 24, 1682, leaving a character which no historian has been hardy enough to vindicate. In Clarendon, Burnet, Kennet, Hume, Smollet, &c. we find a near conformity of sentiment respecting his inconsistency, his ambition, and his tyranny . Mr. Laing observes, that” during a long imprisonment, his mind had been carefully improved by study, and impressed with a. sense of religion, which was soon effaced on his return to the world. His learning was extensive and accurate; in public affairs his experience was considerable, and his elocution copious, though unpolished and indistinct. But his temper was dark and vindictive, incapable of friendship, mean and abject to his superiors, haughty and tyrannical to his inferiors; and his judgment, seldom correct or just, was obstinate in error, and irreclaimable by advice. His passions were furious and ungovernable, unless when his interest or ambition interposed; his violence was ever prepared to suggest or to execute the most desperate counsels; and his ready compliance preserved his credit with the king, till his faculties were visibly impaired with age." The duke died without male issue, but his brother succeeded to the title of Earl, whose son Richard was the author of a translation of Virgil, which is rather literal than poetical, yet Dryden adopted many of the lines into his own translation.

From 1728 to 1732 he was employed in publishing, “Marmorum Arundellianorum, Seldenianorum, aliorumque Academies Oxoniensi donatorum, una cum Commentariis & Indice, editio secunda,” folio to which an “Appendix” was printed in 1733. “Epistola D. Mich. Maittaire ad D. P. Des Maizeaux, in qua Indicis in Annales Typographicos methodus explicatur,” &c. is printed in “The Present State of the Republic of Letters,” in August 1733, p. 142. The life of Robert Stephens, in Latin, revised and corrected by the author, with a new and complete list of his works, is prefixed to the improved edition of R. Stephens’s Thesaurus, 4 vols. in folio, in 1734. In 1736 appeared, “Antiques Inscriptiones cluae,” folio; being a commentary on two large copper tables discovered near Heraclea, in the bay of Tarentum. In 1738 were printed at the Hague, “Graecse Linguae Dialecti in Scholse Regias Westmonasterrensis usum recogniti opera Mich. Maittaire. Prosfationem & Appendicem ex Apollonii Discoli fragmento inedito addidit J. F. Reitzius.” Maittaire prefixed a dedication of this volume to the marquis of Granby, and the lords Robert and George Manners, his brothers; and a new preface, dated 3 Cal. Octob. 1737. This was again printed at London in 1742. In 1739, he addressed to the empress of Russia a small Latin poem, under the title of “Carmen Epinicium Augustissimae Russorum Imperatrici sacrum.” His name not having been printed in the titlepage, it is not so generally known that he was editor of Plutarch’s “Apophthegmata,” 1741, 4to. The last publication of Mr. Maittaire was a volume of poems in 4to, 1742, under the title of “Senilia, sive Poetica aliquot in argumentis varii generis tentamina.” It may be worth mentioning, that Baxter’s dedication to his “Glossarium Antiquitatum Britannicarum,” was much altered by Maittaire; who died August 7, 1747, aged seventy-nine. There is a good mezzotinto print of him by Faber, from a painting by B. Dandridge, inscribed, “Michael Maittaire, A. M. Amicorum jussu.” His valuable library, which he had been collecting fifty years, was sold by auction, by Messrs. Cock and Langford, at the close of the same year, and the beginning of the following, taking up in all forty-four nights. Mr. Cock, in his prefatory advertisement, tells us, “In exhibiting thus to the public the entire library of Mr. Maittaire, I comply with the will of my deceased friend; and in printing the catalogue from his own copy just as he left it (though, by so doing, it is the more voluminous), I had an opportunity not only of doing the justice I owe to his memory, but also of gratifying the curious.” Maittaire, it may be added, was patronized by the first earl of Oxford, both before and after that gentleman’s elevation to the peerage, and continued a favourite with his son the second earl. He was also Latin tutor to Mr. Stanhope, the earl of Chesterfield’s favourite son, and was esteemed by so many persons of eminence that we cannot wonder at his portrait being engraven jussu amicorum. He possessed many amiable qualities; in religion was orthodox and zealous ; in temper modest and unassuming despising the pride of learning, yet fond of friendly intercourse.

Mandeville died Jan. 21, 1733, in his sixty-third year. He is said to have been patronized by the first earl of Macclesfield, at whose table he was a frequent guest, and had an unlimited licence to indulge his wit as well as his appetite. He lived in obscure lodgings, in London, and never had much practice as a physician. Besides the writings already enumerated, which came spontaneously from his pen, we are told by sir John Hawkins that he sometimes employed his talents for hire, and in particular wrote letters in the “London Journal” in favour of spirituous liquors, for which he was paid by the distillers. Sir John adds, that “he was said to be coarse and overbearing in his manners, where he durst be so, yet a great flatterer of some vulgar Dutch merchants, who allowed him a pension.”' The principles indeed, inculcated in some of his works, although there are many ingenious and many just remarks in them, forbid us to entertain any very high opinion of his morals; and among all his faults, we do not hear that he ever acted the hypocrite, or was ashamed of what he had written.

, a very learned Englishman, was descended from a good family in Huntingdonshire, and born at Margaret-Inge, in June 1631. He was educated under the famous Busby at Westminster-school, and being king’s scholar, was elected thence to Trinity college, Cambridge, in 1648. He took his degrees in arts at the regular time,' and was made fellow of his college in 1653. In 1658 he left the college in order to be tutor to Joscelin, son of Algernon, the last earl of Northumberland, with whom he continued till 1660, and then travelled at his own ex pence, to qualify himself for the profession of physic, into which he had resolved to enter some years before. He passed through France to Rome, where he lived near a year in the house of the hon. Algernon Sidney, to whom he was recommended by his uncle the earl of Northumberland. In 1663 he returned to England, and to that earl’s family; and, taking his doctor of physic’s degree at Cambridge in 1667, he practised in London. Here he contraded an acquaintance with many eminent persons in his own faculty, as Willis, Sydenham, Locke; and with several of the most distinguished divines, as Whichcote, Tillotson, Patrick, Sherlock, Stillingfleet, Sharp, and Clagget. In 1670 he attended lord Essex in his embassy to Denmark; and, in 1672, waited on the lady dowager Northumberland into France. In March 1675, he was chosen professor of physic in Gresbam college, London; and, in 1676, attended the lord ambassador Montague, and lady Northumberland, to France. The same year Dr. Sydenham published his “Observationes medicas circa morborum acutorum historiam et curationem,” which he dedicated to Dr. Mapletoft; who, at the desire of the author, had translated them into Latin. He held his professorship at Gresham till October 1679, and married the month following.

, a nobleman of great learning and accomplishments, was born in 1708. He was the third in succession to, and the last inheritor of, that title; there being no male descendants of his grandfather, sir Patrick Hume, the first earl, and his lordship having survived his only son, Alexander lord Polwarth, who had been created an English peer, but died without issue of his marriage with the lady Isabella Grey, daughter of the earl of Hardwicke, and heiress of the last duke of Kent; a peeress in her own right, under a limitation by Charles II. of the barony of Lucas of Cruduell.

Sir Patrick Hume, the first earl, was raised to the peerage by king William III, for having taken a very leading and active part to counteract the arbitrary proceedings of Charles II.; and afterwards the more dangerous measures of James II. which threatened the annihilation of the liberties of the country, as well as the complete subversion of its religion; for which attempts he was long imprisoned in the former reign; and persecuted with a most unrelenting spirit in the latter, for having joined in the unsuccessful attempt of the^earl of Argyle in 1685. King William’s private regard for sir Patrick was marked by his majesty’s granting an addition to his arms of an orange, ensigned with an imperial crown; and by giving him an original portrait of himself.

When his serene highness came over, and happily effected the bloodless revolution, sir Patrick Hume was one of those who accompanied him, and was by him created lord Polwarth of Polwarth, and afterwards earl of Marchmont. He was also made lord high chancellor of Scotland by king William; an office in that country, before the Union, of the highest rank, as it is here,

These qualifications, with an unwearied industry to reach the bottom of every subject of discussion, and a habit of speaking, attracted great attention to him, very soon after his coming into parliament for the town of Berwick, in 1734. He was one of the most active members of the opposition of that period; and on the secession of Mr. Pulteney, afterwards earl of Bath, in 1739, he took the decided lead in it; but his career in the House of Commons was stopped by his succession to the peerage, on the death of his father, in 1740. On which occasion sir Robert Walpole said to an intimate and confidential friend, that an event had occurred which had rid him of the opponent by far the most troublesome to him in the House.

After his lordship’s accession to the peerage in 1740, he did not mix in public business till 1747, when he was appointed first lord commissioner of police in Scotland; and had no opportunity of rendering himself conspicuous in polir tical life until 1750, when he was elected one of the sixteen peers, in the room of the earl of Crawford. From this time he took a very active share in most of the important debates that occurred, which led to his being appointed keeper of the great seal of Scotland in 1764 (on the death of the duke of Athol), the office substituted for that of lord chancellor. The last political act of his life, was the vote he gave on Mr. Fox’s India bill; on which occasion he was the first peer who went below the bar as a non-content.

Mr. Markland found the “Sylvae” of Statins in a very corrupt state, obscure in itself, and mangled by its editors; yet, notwithstanding the want of ms copies, of which there were none in England, he appears to have Accomplished his task by uncommon felicity of judgment and conjecture. It is not very easy to comprehend Ernesti’s objection, that he “sometimes rather indulged his ingenuity and exquisite learning against the expressed authority of books,” since his object was to prove how much those books had failed in exhibiting a pure text. Of the ancient editions, Mr. Markland owns his obligations to that of Venice, 1472, which he found in the duke of Devonshire’s library, and which is also in lord Spencer’s; and that of Parma, 1473, belonging to the earl of Sunderland. The “Statius,” as well as the “Epistola Critica,” was dedicated to his friend bishop Hare.

, an exemplary Irish prelate, was descended from a Saxon family, formerly seated in Kent, whence his great-grandfather removed; and was born at Hannington, in Wiltshire, Dec. 20, 1638. He received the first rudiments of learning in his native place; and being there well fitted for the university, was admitted of Magdalen-hall, in Oxford, in 1654. He became B. A. in 1657, master in 16 60, bachelor of divinity in 1667, and doctor in 1671. In the mean time he was made fellow of Exetercollege, in 1658; afterwards chaplain to Dr. Seth Ward, bishop of Exeter, and then to chancellor Hyde, earl of Clarendon. In 1673, he was appointed principal of Alban-hall, Oxford, by the duke of Ormond, chancellor of that university; and executed the duties of his office with such zeal and judgment, that, according to Wood, “he made it flourish more than it had done many years before, or hath since his departure.” In 1678 he was removed by the interest of Dr. John Fell, together with that of the duke of Ormond, then lord-lieutenant of Ireland, to the dignity of provost of Dublin-college. He was promoted to the bishopric of Leighlin and Ferns in 1683, translated to the archbishopric of Cashell in 1690, thence to Dublin in 1699, and then to Armagh in 1703. After having lived with honour and reputation to himself, and benefit to mankind in general, he died Nov. 2, 1713, aged seventy-five, and was buried in a vault in St. Patrick’s church-yard.

, a late eminent anatomist and physician, was born in Fifeshire, in 1742, at Park-hill, a large farm on the side of the Tay, near Newburgh, held by his father, Mr. John Marshal, of the earl of Rothes. His lather had received a classical education himself; and being desirous that his son should enjoy a similar advantage, sent him first to the grammar-school at Newburgh, and afterwards tothat of Abernethy, then the most celebrated place of education among the Seceders, of which religious sect he was a most zealous member. Here he was regarded as a quick and apt scholar. From his childhood he had taken great delight in rural scenery. One day, while under the influence of feelings of this kind, being then about fourteen years old, he told his father that he wished to leave school, and be a farmer, but he soon shewed that it had not arisen from any fondness for ordinary country labours. In the following harvest-time, for instance, having been appointed to follow the reapers, and bind up the cut corn into sheaves, he would frequently lay himself down in some shady part of the field, and taking a book from his pocket, begin to read, -utterly forgetful of his task. About two years after, however, he resumed his studies, with the intention of becoming a minister: and soon after, he was admitted a student of philosophy at Abernethy; and next became a student of divinity. In his nineteenth year he went to Glasgow, and divided his ­time between teaching a school, and attending lectures in the university. The branches of learning which he chiefly cultivated were Greek and morals. At the end of two years passed in this way, he became (through the interest of the celebrated Dr. Reid, to whom his talents and diligence had recommended him), tutor in a gentleman’s family, of the name of Campbell, in the Island of Islay. He remained here four years, and removed to the university of Edinburgh, with Mr. -Campbell’s son, whom the following year he carried back to his father. Having surrendered his charge, he returned to Edinburgh, where he subsisted himself by reading Greek and Latin privately with students of the university; in the mean time taking no recreation, but giving up all his leisure to the acquisition of knowledge. He still considered himself a student of divinity, in which capacity he delivered two discourses in the divinity-hall; and from motives of curiosity began in 1769 to attend lectures on medicine. While thus employed, he was chosen1 member of the Speculative society, where, in the beginning of 1772, he became acquainted with lord Balgonie, who was so much pleased with the display which he made of genius and learning in that society, that he requested they“should read together; and in the autumn of the following year made a proposal for their going to the Continent, which was readily accepted. They travelled slowly through Flanders to Paris, where they stayed a month, and then proceeded to Tours, where they resided eight months, in the house of a man of letters, under whose tuition they strove to acquire a correct knowledge of the French language and government. They became acquainted here with several persons of rank, among whom were a prince of Rohan, and the dukes of Clioiseul and Aguilon, at whose seats in the neighbourhood they were sometimes received as gnests. An acquaintance with such people would make Marshal feel pain on account of his want of external accomplishments; and this, probably, was the reason of his labouring” to learn to dance and to fence while he was at Tours, though he was then more than thirty years old. He returned to England in the summer of 1774; and proceeded soon after to Edinburgh, where he resumed the employment of reading Latin and Greek with young men. Hitherto he seems to have formed no settled plan of life, but to have bounded his views almost entirely to the acquisition of knowledge, and a present subsistence. His friends, however, had been induced to hope that he would at some time be advanced to a professor’s cl; ir and it is possible that he entertained the same hope himself. In the spring of 1775, this hope appeared to be strengthened by his being requested by Mr. Stewart, the professor of humanity at Edinburgh, to officiate for him, as he was then unwell: Marshal complied, but soon after appears to have given up all hopes of a professorship, and studied medicine with a determination to practise it. In the spring of 1777, he was enabled by the assistance of a friend, Mr. John Campbell of Edinburgh, to come to London for professional improvement; and studied anatomy under Dr. W. Hunter, and surgery under Mr. J, Hunter. After he had been here a twelvemonth, he was appointed surgeon to the S3rd, or Glasgow regiment, through the interest of the earl of Leverv, the father of his late pupil, lord Balgonie. The first year after was passed with his regiment, in Scotland. In the following he accompanied it to Jersey, where he remained with it almost constantly till the conclusion of the war in the beginning of 1783, when it was disbanded. In this situation he enjoyed, almost for the first time, the pleasures best suited to a man of independent mind. His income was more than sufficient for his support; his industry and knowledge rendered him useful; and his character for integrity and honour procured him general esteem. From Jersey he came to London, seeking for a settlement, and was advised by Dr. D. Pitcairn (with whom he had formed a friendship while a student at Glasgow) to practise surgery here, though he had taken the degree of doctor of physic the preceding year at Edinburgh; and to teach anatomy at St. Bartholomew’s hospital, it being at the same time proposed, that the physicians to that hospital (of whom Dr. Pitcairn was one) should lecture on other branches of medical learning. He took a house, in consequence, in the neighbourhood of the hospital; and proceeded to prepare for the execution of his part of the scheme. This proving abortive, he began to teach anatomy, the following year, at his own house; and at length succeeded in procuring annually a considerable number of pupils, attracted to him solely by the reputation of his being a most diligent and able teacher. In 1788 he quitted the practice of surgery, and commenced that of medicine, having previously become a member of the London college oF physicians. In the ensuing year a dispute arose between John Hunter and him, which it is proper to relate, as it had influence on his after-life. When Marshal returned to London, he renewed his acquaintance with Mr. Hunter, who thought so well of him, that he requested his attendance at a committee of his friends, to whose correction he submitted his work on the venereal disease, before it was published. He became also a member of a small society, instituted by Dr. Fordyce and Mr. Hunter, for the improvement of medical and surgical knowledge. Having mentioned at a meeting of this society, that, in the dissection of those who had died insane, he had always found marks of disease in the head, Mr. Hunter denied the truth of this in very coarse language. The other members interfering, Mr. Hunter agreed to say, that his expressions did not refer to Dr. Marshal’s veracity, but to the accuracy of his observation. Marshal, not being satisfied with this declaration, at the next meeting of the society demanded a.i ample apology; but Mr. Hunter, instead of making one, repeated the offensive expressions; on which Marshal poured some water over his head out of a bottle which had stood near them. A scuffle ensued, which was immediately stopped by the other members, and no father personal contention between them ever occurred. But Marshal, conceiving that their common friends in the society had, from the superior rank of Mr. Hunter, favoured him more in this matter than justice permitted, soon after estranged himself from them. He continued the teaching of anatomy till 1800, in which year, during a tedious illness, the favourable termination of which appeared doubtful to him, he resolved, rather suddenly, to give it up. While he taught anatomy, almost the whole of the fore-part of the day, during eight months in the year, was spent by him in his dissecting and lecture rooms. He had, therefore, but little time for seeing sick persons, except at hours frequently inconvenient to them; and was by this means prevented from enjoying much medical practice; but as soon as he had recovered his health, after ceasing to lecture, his practice began to increase. The following year it was so far increased as to render it proper that he should keep a carriage. From this time to within a few months of his death, an interval of twelve years, his life flowed on in nearly an equable stream. He had business enough in the way he conducted it to give him employment during the greater part of the day; and his professional profits were sufficient to enable him to live in the manner he chose, and provide for the wants of sickness and old age. After having appeared somewhat feeble for two or three years, he made known, for the first time, in the beginning of last November, that he laboured under a disease of his bladder, though he must then have been several years affected with it. His ailment was incurable, and scarcely admitted of palliation. For several months he was almost constantly in great pain, which he bore manfully. At length, exhausted by his sufferings, he died on the 2nd of April, 1813, at his house in Bartlett’s buildings, Holborn, being then in the seventy-first year of his age. Agreeably to his own desire, his body was interred in the church-yard of the parish of St. Pancras. His fortune, amounting to about bOOO/. was, for the most part, bequeathed to sisters and nephews.

, a learned popish writer, whose name is so much connected with some protestant writers of eminence as to deserve a brief notice here, was born at Maxfield, near Winchelsea, in Sussex, and was admitted one of the original scholars of St. John’s college, Oxford, in 1557, by sir Thomas White, the founder. In 1564 he proceeded M. A. and was afterwards taken into the family of Thomas, duke of Norfolk, as tutor to his children, and particularly to Philip, earl of Surrey. Such had been Martin’s reputation at college, that when the duke paid a visit to St. John’s, one of the society, in a Latin address to his grace, introduced his name with this panegyric: “Habes, illustrissime dux, Hebraeum nostrum, Grsecum nostrum, poetam nostrum, decus et gloriam nostrum,” implying that Martin was their best Hebrew and Greek scholar and poet, and an ornament to their college. Having embraced the Roman catholic religion, which he chose no longer to conceal, he went to the English college at Douay in 1570, where he was ordained priest in 1573, and licentiate in divinity in 1575. After a visit in the following year to Rome, he returned to Doway and taught Hebrew, and gave lectures on the Scriptures. When the college was removed to Rheims, he undertook to translate the Bible into English from the Vulgate, and Dodd is of opinion that what is called “The Rheims translation,” may be entirely ascribed to him. It was. not, however, published at one time. The New Testament appeared first atRheims and Antwerp, with Bristow’s notes, and the Old Testament several years afterwards, with the editor, Dr. Worthington’s notes. The New Testament, as we have noticed, under their respective articles, was answered by Fulk and Cartwright. Martin died Oct. 28, 1582, atRheims. He published some other works, a list of which may be seen, in Wood and Dodd, but is scarcely worth transcribing. Camden says that in 1584 a book of his appeared in which queen Elizabeth’s gentlewomen were exhorted to serve her as Judith had served Holofernes. The catholic "writers, however, deny this, and apparently with justice.

, queen of Scots, celebrated for her beauty, her wit, her learning, and her misfortunes, was born Dec. 8, 1542, and was the daughter and sole heiress of James the Fifth king of Scots, by Mary of Lorrain, his second queen, and dowager of Longueville. She was not eight days old when her father died; and therefore, after great animosities among the nobility, it was agreed, that the earl of Arran, as being by proximity of blood the next heir to the crown in legitimate descent, and the first peer of Scotland, should be made governor of the kingdom, and guardian of the queen: who remained, in the mean time, with her mother, in the royal palace of Linlithgow. Urgent application being made by Henry VIII. in the behalf of his son Edward, for this princess in her childhood, it was at last agreed between the chief peers of both kingdoms, that she should be given in marriage to that prince; but this was afterwards refused by her governor. She was, according to the custom of the day taught the Latin, French, Spanish, and Italian tongues; in which she afterwards arrived at so great perfection, that few were found equal to her in any of them, and none superior in them all.

All these accomplishments, added to a fine person, rendered her so amiable to Henry II. of France and his queen, as to make them desirous of marrying her to the dauphin, which was accordingly arranged: and the nuptials were solemnized the 20th of April, 1558. But this happy marriage, for such it seems to have been, lasted only a little while; as Francis II. as he then was, died Dec. 5, 1560. His disconsolate queen, being left without issue, returned soon after to Scotland; where she had not been long, before Charles archduke of Austria was proposed to her as an husband, by the cardinal of Lorrain. But queen Elizabeth interposed, and desired she would not marry with any foreign prince, but make choice of an husband out of her own nobility. She recommended to her either the earl of Leicester, or the lord Dandy; giving her to understand, that her succession to the crown of England would be very pred&rious, if she did not comply. Being thus overawed by Elizabeth, and not a little pleased with lord Darnly, who was extremely handsome, she consented to marry him; and creating him earl of Ross and duke of Rothesay, July 28, 1565, he was the same day proclaimed king at Edinburgh, and married to the queen the day after. By this husband she had one son, born at Edinburgh, June 19, 1566, who was afterwards James the Sixth of Scotland, and the First of England. Queen Elizabeth congratulated her upon this occasion; though, as Camden says, she inwardly grieved at being prevented by her rival in the honour of being a mother. She openly favoured her title to the succession; and the prince was commended to her majesty’s protection.

In Feb. 1567, the new king of Scotland was murdered in a very barbarous manner, by the contrivance of the earl of Murray, who was the queen’s illegitimate brother; and, in May following she was married to John Hepburn, earl of Bothwell, a man of an ambitious temper and dissolute manners, and who in reality had been lord Darnly’s murderer. From this time a series of infelicities attended her to the end of her life. The different views and interests of the nobility, clergy, and gentry, in regard to religious and political affairs, had so broken the peace of the kingdom, that all things appeared in the greatest disorder and confusion. The earl of Bothwell was forced to fly into Denmark to save his life; the queen was seized, carried prisoner to Lochleven, and was treated on the road with such scorn and contempt, as her own personal dignity might, one would think, have prevented. She was conveyed to the provost’s lodgiogs, and committed to the care of Murray’s mother; who, “having been James the Fifth’s concubine, insulted much,” says Camden, “over the unfortunate and afflicted =queen, boasting that she was the lawful wife of James the Fifth, and that her son Murray was his lawful issue.” What aggravated Mary’s misfortunes was, that she was believed to have been the cause of lord Darnly’s death, in order to revenge the loss of David Rizzio, an Italian musician, supposed her gallant, and whom lord Darnly had killed on that account. Be this as it will, when queen Elizabeth heard of this treatment of the queen of Scots, she seemed fired with indignation at it; and sent sir Nicholas Throgmorton into Scotland, to expostulate with the conspirators, and to consult by what means she might be restored to her liberty. But Elizabeth, as we have noticed in her article, was by no means in. earnest: she was not the friend to the queen of Scots which she pretended to be; and, if not in some measure the contriver of these troubles, there is great reason to think that she secretly rejoiced at them. When queen Elizabeth was crowned, the queen of Scots had assumed the arms and title of the kingdom of England, 'an indignity Elizabeth could never forget, as not thinking herself quite safe while Mary harboured such pretensions.

His father died in 1753, and in 1754- he went into orders; and through the interest of the earl of “Holdernesse, whose patronage he had obtained, he was preferred to be one of the king’s chaplains, and received about the same time the living of Aston. The reputation he had acquired by the odes of his” Elfrida,“encouraged him to publish, in 1756, four compositions of that class on <c Memory, Independency, Melancholy, and the Fate of Tyranny,” which were not received with favour or kindness. Both ridicule and legitimate criticism seem to have been employed on this occasion to expose the wanton profusion of glittering epithets, and the many instances of studied alliteration scattered over these odes. Colman and Lloyd, who were now beginning to look for satirical prey, published two excellent parodies Oh one of them, and on one of Gray’s. His praise of Andrew Marvell, and attack on bishop Parker, produced about the same time a dull letter of cet>sure, which probably gave him less uneasiness than the cool reception of his “Odes,” by those who then dispensed the laonours of literary fame. On the death of Gibber, he was proposed to succeed him as poet laureat; but, instead of an offer of this place, an apology was made to him by lord John Cavendish, that “being in orders, he was thought merely on that account, less eligible for the office than a layman.*' The notice of this circumstance in his life of W. Whitehead is followed by a declaration of his indifference.” A reason so politely put, I was glad to hear assigned; and if I had thought it a weak one, they who know me, will readily believe that I am the last man in the world who would have attempted to controvert it.“The probability, indeed^ is that Mr. Mason would not have thought himself honoured bv the situation, if compelled to fulfil its duties; for though by his mediation the office was tendered to Gray, it was” with permission to hold it as a mere sinecure."

In 1762, Mason published “Three Elegies,” which are elegant, tender, and correct beyond the productions of any of his contemporaries. These, with all his former pieces, except the “Isis” and the “Installation Ode,” were collected into one volume, and published in 1764, with a beautiful dedicatory sonnet to his patron the earl of Holdernesse. Why he omitted “Isis” from this collection is not very evident. We have, indeed, his own authority that he never would have published it, if a surreptitious copy had not found its way to the press; but, although he omitted it now, he reprinted it in the third volume of his poems, published in 1796, when his sentiments on political topics were more perfectly in unison with those held at Oxford. MV. Mant, in his life of Mr. T. Warton, informs us that several years after he had written this elegy, he was coming into Oxford on horseback; and as he passed over Magdalen Bridge (it was then evening), he turned to his friend, and expressed his satisfaction, that, as it was getting dusk, they should enter the place unnoticed. His friend did not seem aware of the advantage. “What!” rejoined the poet, “do you not remember my Lsis?” This may be reckoned an instance of the “harmless and comical vanity” which Gray attributed to him when at college. But a more singular omission occurs in this volume, in the “Ode to a Water Nymph:” this formerly concluded with a handsome compliment to lord Lyttelton, both as a poet and as a speaker in the senate, which was now removed, and a favourite description substituted. In the same year his majesty presented our author to the canonry and prebend of Driffield in the cathedral church of York, together with the precentorship of that church, vacant by the promotion of Dr. Newton to the bishopric of Bristol.

, a very eminent dramatic writer, was born in 1584. His father was Arthur Massinger, a gentleman attached to the family of Henry second earl of Pembroke. He was born at Salisbury, and educated, probably, at Wilton, the seat of the earl of Pembroke. When he had reached his sixteenth year, he sustained an irreparable loss in the death of that worthy nobleman, who, from attachment to the father, would, not improbably, have extended his powerful patronage to the son. In May 1602 Massinger became a commoner of Aiban-Hall, Oxford, but left it soon without taking a degree. Various reasons have been assigned for this, as the earl of Pembroke’s withdrawing his support; or the same effect resulting from the death of the poet’s father; but his late excellent editor, Mr. Gifford, is probably right in attributing his removal to a change in his principles, to his becoming a Roman catholic. Whatever might be the cause, the period of his misfortunes commenced with his arrival in London, where he was driven by his necessities to dedicate himself to the service of the stage. We hear little, however, of him, from 1606, when he first visited the metropolis, until 1622, when his “Virgin Martyr,” the first of his printed works, was given to the stage. For this hiatus, his biographer accounts by his having assisted others, particularly Fletcher, and his having written some plays which have perished. He afterwards produced various plays in succession, of which eighteen only have descended to us. Massinger died March 17, 1640. He went to bed in good health, says Langbaine, and was found dead in his bed in the morning in his own house on the Bankside. He was buried in the church-yard of St. Saviour’s. It does not appear from the strictest search, that a stone, or inscription of any kind, marked the place where his dust was deposited: even the memorial of his mortality is given with a pathetic brevity, which accords but too well with the obscure and humble passages of his life: “March 20, 1639-40, buried Philip Massinger, a stranger!” So few particulars are known of his private history, that his life is little more than a detailed account of his various productions, for which we may refer the reader to Mr. Gifford’s edition. But, says this editor, though we are ignorant of every circumstance respecting- Massinger, unless that he lived, wrote, and died, we may yet form to ourselves some idea of his personal character from the incidental hints scattered through his works. In what light he was regarded may be collected from the recommendatory poems prefixed to his several plays, in which the language of his panegyrists, though warm, expresses an attachment apparently derived not so much from his talents as his virtues. All the writers of his life unite in representing him as a man of singular modesty, gentleness, candour, and affability; nor does it appear that he ever made, or found an enemy. He speaks indeed of opponents on the stage; but the contention of rival candidates for popular favour mast not be confounded with personal hostility. With all this, however, he appears to have maintained a constant struggle with adversity; since not only the stage, from which, perhaps, his natural reserve prevented him from deriving the usual advantages, but even the bounty of his particular friends, on which he chiefly relied, left him in a state of absolute dependence. Other writers for the stage, not superior to him in abilities, had their periods of good fortune, their bright as well as their stormy hours; but Massinger seems to have enjoyed no gleam of sunshine: his life was all one wintry day, and “shadows, clouds, and darkness” rested upon it.

In 1623, the king conferred the honour of knighthood upon him, and he was frequently and always favourably received at court. In Charles I.'s reign he was invited by the earl of Strafford, when appointed lord lieutenant of Ireland, to accompany him thither, which gave just alarm to some of the council, who probably suspected that his insinuating manners were a cloak to hide his zeal for the advancement of the Romish church in England. Wood, who speaks more favourably of him than he deserves, doubts his being in holy orders; but Dodd, an unquestionable authority in this point, mentions the attestations of various persons who had heard him say mass; and there seems every reason to suppose that he was a spy from the church of Rome. His character being probably understood in this light, when the rebellion broke out he left his country, and joined the Jesuits at Ghent, where he died Oct. 13, 1655.

He was an early and active advocate for inoculation; and when there was a doubt entertained that one might have the small-pox after inoculation a second time, tried it upon himself, unknown to his family. He was a member of the medical club (with the doctors Parsons, Templeman, Fothergill, Watson, and others), which met every fortnight in St. Paul’s church-yard. He was twice married, viz. the first time to Mrs. Elizabeth Boisragon; and the second to Mrs. Mary Deners. He left a son and three daughters. A portrait of Dr. Maty, by his own order, was engraved after his death by Bartolozzi, to be given to his friends; of which no more than 100 copies were taken off, and the plate destroyed. He had nearly finished the “Memoirs of the Earl of Chesterfield” which were completed by his son-in-law Mr. Justamond, and prefixed to that nobleman’s Miscellaneous Works, 1777, 2 vols. 4 to.

, a learned English lawyer, the eldest son of Alexander Maynard, esq. of Tavistock, in Devonshire, was born thereabout 1602. In 1618 he entered as a commoner of Exeter college, Oxford, where, as we have often seen in the case of gentlemen of the law, he took only one degree in arts, and then went to the Middle Temple. After the usual routine of study he was called to the bar, and in 1640 obtained a seat in parliament for Totness. The part he took in the political contests of the day, procured him to be appointed one of the managers of the evidence against the earl of Strafford, and that against archbishop Laud. Yet in 1644 he was appointed, with Bulstrodte Whitlocke, at the particular desire of the lord chancellor of Scotland, and other commissioners from that kingdom, to consult with them and general Fairfax concerning the best method of proceeding against Cromwell as an incendiary between the two kingdoms. He was also one of the laymen nominated in the ordinance of the Lords and Commons to sit with the assembly of Divines, whose object was to establish the presbyterian form of church government in England. Notwithstanding this, we find him in 1647 opposing the violence of the parliament-army, for which he and serjeant Glynn were sent to the Tower; and when the parliament voted that no more addresses should be sent to the king, he told them that by such a vote they dissolved themselves. He even went farther, and after being secluded from his seat in the House of Commons for two months, he broke in among them, and pleaded for the life of the king with such strength of reasoning, that Cromwell several times demanded that he should be brought to the bar of the House.

In March 1689, sir John was appointed one of the lords commissioners of the great seal of England, and next year was chosen member of parliament for Plymouth; but being now very infirm, he resigned his commissioner’s place, and returned to his house at Gunnersbury, near Ealing, where he died Oct. 9, 1690. He was thrice married. Elizabeth, his first wife, was buried at Ealing in 1654-5. Jane, his second wife (daughter of Cheney Selherst, esq. and relict of Edward Austen, esq.) was buried there in 1668. His last wife, who was daughter of Ambrose Upton, canon of Christ- church, Oxford, and relict of sir Charles Vermuyden, survived him many years, and died in 1721, being then the widow of Henry earl of Suffolk.

, an English poet and divine, was born at Hatherlagh in Devonshire, in 1604. He received his education at Westminster-school; and was afterwards removed to Christ-church in Oxford, when he was about twenty. He took his bachelor and master of arts degrees in the regular way; and then, entering into holy orders, was presented by his college to the vicarages of Cassington, near Woodstock, and of Pyrton, near Watlington in Oxfordshire. He became, says W T ood, “a quaint preacher, and a noted poet;” and, in the latter capacity, distinguished himself by the production of two plays, entitled “The City Match,” a comedy; and “The Amorous War,” a tragi-comedy. When the rebellion broke out, and Charles I. was obliged to keep his court at Oxford, to avoid being exposed to the resentment of the populace in London, where tumults then prevailed, Dr. Mayne was one of those divines who were appointed to preach before his majesty. In 1646, he was created a doctor of divinity; and the year after, printed a sermon at Oxford, “Against false prophets,” upon Ezek. xxii. 26. which occasioned a dispute between him and the memorable antagonist of Chillingworth, Mr. Cheynell. Cheynell had attacked his sermon from the pulpit at St. Mary’s in Oxford; and several letters passed between them, which were published by Dr. Mayne the same year, in a piece entitled “A late printed sermon against false prophets vindicated by letter from the causeless aspersions of Mr. Francis Cheynell; by Jasper Mayne, D. D. the misunderstood author of it.” Mayne having said, in one of his letters to Cheynell, that “God, upon a true repentance, is not so fatally tied to the spindle of absolute reprobation, as not to keep his promise, and seal merciful pardons;” Cheynell animadverted upon him in the following terms: “Sir, Reprobatio est tremendum mysterium. How dare you jet upon such a subject, at the thought of which each Christian trembles? Can any man repent, that is given up to a reprobate mind and impenitent heart? And is not every man finally impenitent, save those few to whom God gives repentance freely, powerfully, effectually? See what it is for a man to come from Ben Jonson or Lucian, to treat immediately of the high and stupendous mysteries of religion. The Lord God pardon this wicked thought of your heart, that you may not perish in the bond of iniquity and gall of bitterness. Be pleased to study the ixth chapter to the Romans.” The same year Mayne published also another piece, entitled, “OXAOMAXIAj or, the people’s war examined according to the principles of scripture and reason, in two of the most plausible pretences of it. ID answer to a letter sent by a person of quality, who desired satisfaction.” In this piece he examines, first, how far the power of a king, who is truly a king, not one only in name, extends itself over subjects; secondly, whether any such power belongs to the king of England; and, thirdly, if there does, how far it is to be obeyed, and not resisted. The conclusion he draws is, that the parliamentary resistance to the king was rebellion. We cannot be surprized if a man of such principles was deprived of his studentship at Christ-church, in 1648, and soon after of both his livings. During the time of the usurpation, he was chaplain to the earl of Devonshire, and consequently became the companion of the celebrated Hobbes, who then attended his lordship; but, as Wood informs us, Mayne and he did not agree well together. At the restoration he not only recovered both his livings, but, for his services and attachment to the royal cause, was promoted to a canonry of Christ-church, and made archdeacon of Chichester, and chaplain in ordinary to his majesty, which preferments he held to the time of his death, Dec. 6, 1672. He was interred in the choir at Christ-church, where a monument was erected for him, at the charge of his executors, Dr. Robert South, and Dr. John Lamphire. By his will he left 500l. towards the re-building of St. Paul’s cathedral, and lOOl each to both of his livings. Though very orthodox in his opinions, and severe in his manners, he is said to have been a most facetious and pleasant companion, and a great joker. Of this last, Langbaine gives an instance which affords no very pleasing specimen of Mayne, either as a serious or a jocular man. Langbaine says that he had a servant, who had long lived with him; to whom he bequeathed a trunk, “with something in it,” as he said, “which would make him drink after his death.” The doctor dying, the servant immediately paid a visit to the trunk; but instead of a treasure, or at least a valuable legacy, which he expected, he found Only a red herring.

, an Irish physician and poet, was born at Ormond, about the close of the sixteenth century, in the county of Tipperary, and educated at Oxford. Wood doubts this, because he could find no record of his matriculation or degrees; but in one of his writings he styles himself “lately a member of the university of Oxford,” and it is probable that he took his medical degrees there, as immediately on his leaving Oxford, he settled in his own country, and soon attained the highest eminence in his profession. He was living in 1620, but the time of his death is not specified in our authorities. He wrote a heroic poem, in Latin, on the earl of Ormond and Ossory, entitled “Ormonius, sive illust. herois et Domini D. Thomse Butler, &c. prosapia, &c.” printed at London in 1615, 8vo, % with an English version by William Roberts, Ulster king at arms. He wrote also some medical treatises, of which one only was published, on hereditary disorders, “Pathologia hereditaria generalis, &c.” Dublin, 1619, 12mo. It was afterwards reprinted with the works of his son Edmund Meara, London, 1665, and Amsterdam, 1666, 12mo. This son, a graduate of Oxford, practised both in Ireland and England, was a member of the college of physicians of London, and resided for some time at Bristol. He died about 1680, and had a short controversy with Dr. Lower, occasioned by Meara’s publishing an “Examen Diatribae Thomae Willisii, de Febribus,” London, 1665, 8vo. Lower answered it by a “Vindicatio Diatribae Willisii,” written with much controversial bitterness.

, a portrait-painter, was the son of Medina de TAsturias, a Spanish captain, who had settled at Brussels, where this son was born in 1659, and was instructed in painting by Du Chatel. He married young, and came into England in 1686, where he drew portraits for several years. The earl of Leven encouraged him to go to Scotland, and procured him a subscription of five hundred pounds worth of business. He accepted the otFer, and, according to Walpole, carried with him a large number of bodies and postures, to which he painted heads. He returned to England for a short time, but went again to Scotland, where he died in 1711, aged fifty-two, and was buried in the Grey Friars church-yard. He was knighted by the duke of Queensbury, lord high commissioner, being the last instance of that honour conferred in Scotland while a separate kingdom. He painted most of the Scotch nobility; but was not rich, having twenty children. The portraits of the professors in the Surgeons’ ­hall at Edinburgh were painted by him. Walpole notices other portraits by him in England, and adds, that he was capable both of history and landscape. The duke of Gordon presented his portrait to the grand duke of Tuscany, who pLiced it in the gallery at Florence, among the series of eminent artists painted by themselves. The prints in an octavo edition of Milton were designed by him, but Mr. Walpole does not tell us of what date. Sir John’s grandson, John Medina, the last of the family, died at Edinburgh in 1796. He practised painting in some measure, although all we have heard specified is the repair he gave to the series of Scottish kings in Holy rood -house, which are well known to be imaginary portraits.

, a learned and worthy bencher of LincolnVinn, was born in 1666. In conjunction with Mr. Peere Williams, Mr. Melmoth was the publisher of “Vernon’s Reports,” under an order of the court of chancery. He had once an intention of printing his own “Reports;” and a short time before his death, advertised them at the end of those of his coadjutor Peere Williams, as then actually preparing for the press. They have, however, not yet made their appearance. But the performance for which he justly deserves to be held in perpetual remembrance, is, “The Great Importance of a Religious Life.” It is a singular circumstance that the real author of this most admirable treatise should never have been publicly known until mentioned in the Anecdotes of Bowyer. It was ascribed by Walpole in his “Royal and Noble Authors,” to the first earl of Egmont. Of this work Mr. Melmoth’s son says, in the short preface which accompanies it, that “It may add weight, perhaps, to the reflections contained in the following pages, to inform the reader, that the author’s life was one uniform exemplar of those precepts, which, with so generous a zeal, and such an elegant and affecting simplicity of style, he endeavours to recommend to general practice. He left others to contend for modes of faith, and inflame themselves and the world with dndless controversy; it was the wiser purpose of his more ennobled aim, to act up to those clear rules of conduct which Revelation hath graciously prescribed. He possessed by temper every moral virtue; by religion every Christian grace. He had a humanity that melted at every distress; a charity which not only thought no evil, but suspected none. He exercised his profession with a skill and integrity, which nothing could equal, but the disinterested motive that animated his labours, or the amiable modesty which accompanied all his virtues. He employed his industry, not to gratify his own desires no man indulged himself less not to accumulate useless wealth no man more disdained so unworthy a pursuit it was for the decent advancement of his family, for the generous assistance of his friends, for the ready relief of the indigent. How often did he exert his distinguished abilities, yet refuse the reward of them, in defence of the widow, the fatherless, and him that had none to help him In a word, few have ever passed a more useful, not one a more blameless life y and his whole time was employed either in doing good, or in meditating it. He died on the 6th day of April, 1743, and lies buried under the cloister of Lincoln’sinn chapel.” This passage is repeated in a short tract entitled “Memoirs of a late eminent Advocate,” published in 1796, in which the character of his father is rather -more unfolded. We learn from this tract, that Mr. Melmoth “from early youth performed the paiuful but indispensable duty of communing with his own heart, with the severest and most impartial scrutiny.” This appears by a copy of a letter from some eminent casuit, whom he had consulted respecting certain religious scruples. He was afterwards perplexed respecting taking the oaths at the revolution, which happened when he had the prospect of being admitted to the bar. On this occasion he consulted the celebrated Mr. Norris of Bemerton, and a correspondence took place, part of which is* published in the “Memoirs.” It is probable that he was at last convinced of the lawfulness of the oaths, as he was called to the bar in 1693. There are other letters and circumstances given in these “Memoirs,” which tend to raise the character of Mr. Melmoth as a man of sincerity and humility, not, however, perhaps, unmixed with what may now be reckoned a degree of superstitious weakness.

, an ingenious burlesque poet of Scotland, was born in the parish of Midmar in Aberdeenshire, about 1688. He received a liberal education at the Marischal college in Aberdeen, and, after finishing his studies, became one of the teachers in the high-school of New Aberdeen. Thence he removed into the family of Marshal, to be preceptor to the young earl of that name, and his brother, afterwards marshal Keith; and, in 1714, by the interest of the countess, was appointed professor of philosophy in the Marischal college. He did not long retain this situation, for, when the rebellion broke out in 1715, he followed the fortunes of his noble patrons, who made him governor of Dunotter castle. After the defeat at Sheriffmuir, he lurked among the mountains, till the act of indemnity was passed, with a few fugitive companions, for whose amusement and his own, he composed several of the burlesque poems, which he called “Mother Grim’s tales.” He appears to have remained steady to his principles, and consequently was not restored to his professorship but, while the countess of Marshal lived, resided chiefly in her family where his great pleasantry and liveliness made him always an acceptable guest. After her death, he must have been for some time without much provision, till he commenced an academy at Elgin, in conjunction with his brother Mr. Samuel Meston. He was, however, little formed for prudence and regularity, but much more given to conviviality; for which cause probably, among others, this academy at Elgin after a time began to decline. He then successively settled at Turiff, in Aberdeenshire, and* at Montrose, where he lost his brother and coadjutor. He made the same attempt at Perth, but soon after entered as preceptor into the family of a Mr. Oliphant, Here he continued till his health declined, when he removed to Peterhead for the benefit of the mineral waters. There he was chiefly supported by the bounty of the countess of Errol, under whose patronage he had formerly undertaken the academy at TuriflF. At length he removed to Aberdeen, where he was taken care of by some relations, till he died of a languishing distemper in the spring of 1745.

, an English divine and antiquary, was the grandson of the rev. Isaac Milles, rector of High Clear in Hampshire, probably by his second son Jeremiah. His eldest son was Dr. Thomas Milles, bishop of Waterford and Lismore, of whom it may be necessary to give some account, as Mr. Harris the editor and continuator of Ware has admitted a few mistakes, calling him Mills, and stating that he was the son of Joseph Mills. He was educated at Wadham college, Oxford, where he took the degree of B. A. in 1692, and that of M. A. in 1695. He was ordained by bishop Hough. In 1704 he took the degree of B. D. and in 1706 was appointed Greek professor of Oxford. In 1707 he attended the earl of Pembroke, lord lieutenant of Ireland, into that kingdom, and by him was promoted to the see of Waterford and Lismore. He died at Waterford May 13, 1740. He published a few controversial tracts, enumerated by Harris, but is best known by his valuable edition of the works of St. Cyril, published at Oxford in 1703, folio.

He spent five years at his father’s house at Horton, and during this time exhibited some of the finest specimens of his genius. The “Comus,” in 1634, and the “Lycidas,” in 1637, were written at Horton; and there is strong internal proof that the “L'AIlegro” and “II Penseroso” were also composed here. The Mask of Comus was acted before the earl of Bridgwater, the president of Wales, in 1634, at Ludlow-castle: and the characters of the lady and her two brothers were represented by the lady Alice Egerton, then about thirteen years of age, and her two brothers, lord Brackley and Thomas Egerton, who were still younger. The story of this piece is said to have been suggested by the circumstance of the lady Alice having been separated from her company in the night, and havincr wandered for some time by herself in the forest of Haywood, as she was returning from a distant visit to meet her father. This admirable drama was set to music by Lawes, and first published by him in 1637, and, in the dedication to lord Brackley, he speaks of the work as not openly acknowledged by the author. The author surely had little to fear; it would be difficult to discover an age barbarous enough to refuse the highest honours to the author of a work so truly poetical. The “Lycidas” was written, as there is reason to believe, at the solicitation of the author’s old college, to commemorate the death of Mr. Edward King, one of its fellows, a man of great learning, piety, and talents, who was shipwrecked in his passage from Chester to Ireland. It formed part of a collection of poems, published on this melancholy occasion, in 1638, at the university press; and its being thus printed in a collection, may perhaps diminish the wonder expressed by one of Milton’s biographers, that a poem, breathing such hostility to the clergy of the Church of England, and menacing their leader with the axe, should be permitted to issue from the university press. There is no other way of accounting for this than by supposing that it had not been read before it went to press. “Lycidas” has been severely criticised by Dr. Johnson, and but feebly supported by Milton’s other biographers.

About the time that the town of Reading was taken by the earl of Essex, Milton’s father came to reside in his house, and his school increased. In 1643, his domestic comfort was disturbed by an incident which he had hoped would have rather promoted it. This was his marriage to Mary, the daughter of Richard Powell, esq. a magistrate in Oxfordshire, and a loyalist. The lady was brought to London, but did not remain above a month with her husband, when under pretence of a visit to her relations, she wholly absented herself, and resisted his utmost and repeated importunities to return. His biographers inform us that the lady had been accustomed to the jovial hospitality of the loyalists at her father’s house, and that after a month’s experience of her new life, she began to sigh for the gaieties she had left, &c. Whether this will sufficiently account for her conduct, our readers may consider. Milton, however, appears to have felt the indignity, and determined to repudiate her for disobedience; and finding no court of law able to assist him, published some treatises to justify his intentions; such as “The Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce;” “The Judgment of Martin Bucer, concerning Divorce,” &c. In these he argued the point with great ingenuity, but made few converts, and the principal notice taken of these writings came in a very unfortunate shape. The Westminster assembly of divines procured that the author should be called before the House of Lords, who did not, however, institute any process on the matter; but in consequence of this attack, the presbyterian party forfeited his favour, and he ever after treated them with contempt.

His next publication was, “Observations upon the articles of Peace, which the earl of Ormond had concluded at Kilkenny, on Jan. 17, 1643-9, in the king’s name, and by his authority, with the popish Irish rebels,” &c. The purport of this also was to render the royal cause more odious by connecting it with the Irish massacre; and that the sentiments of the nation might become yet more completely republican, he now employed himself in composing “A History of England.” Of this, however, he wrote only six books, which bring it no lower down than to the battle of Hastings. It presents a perspicuous arrangement of the fabulous, and less interesting part of our history; but, as he never resumed the task, it is impossible to say in what way he could have rendered the events of more recent times subservient to his purpose. His regicide performance evidently shews that his ideas of our constitution are totally at variance with the opinions of the most enlightened of our present writers; and he probably found that even in the favourite republic now established, there was but little that suited with the order of things he had projected.

, knight of the bath, and a distinguished ambassador at the court of Berlin, was the only child of the rev. William Mitchell, formerly of Aberdeen, but then one of the ministers of St. Giles’s, commonly called the high church of Edinburgh. The time of his birth is not specified, but he is said to have been married in 1715, when very young, to a lady who died four years after in child-birth, and whose loss he felt with so much acuteness, as to be obliged to discontinue the study of the law, for which his father had designed him, and divert his grief by travelling, amusements, &c. This mode of life is said to have been the original cause of an extensive acquaintance with the principal noblemen and gentlemen in North Britain, by whom he was esteemed for sense, spirit, and intelligent conversation. Though his progress in the sciences was but small, yet no person had a greater regard for men of learning, and he particularly cultivated the acquaintance of the clergy, and professors of the university of Edinburgh. About 1736 he appears to have paid considerable attention to mathematics under the direction of the celebrated Maclaurin; and soon after began, his political career, as secretary to the marquis of Tweedale, who Wc-s appointed minister for the affuirs of Scotland in 1741. He became also acquainted with the earl of Stair, and it was owing to his application to that nobleman that Dr. (afterwards sir John) Pringle, was in 1742 appointed physician to the British ambassador at the Hague.

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

, viscount Molesworth of Swordes in Ireland, an eminent statesman and polite writer, was descended from a family, anciently seated in the counties of Northampton and Bedford in England; but his father having served in the civil wars in Ireland, settled afterwards in Dublin, where he became an eminent merchant, and died in 1656, leaving his wife pregnant with this only child, who raised his family to the honours they now enjoy. He was born in Dec. at Dublin, and bred in the college there; and engaged early in a marriage with a sister of Richard earl of Bellamont, who brought him a daughter in 1677. When the prince of Orange entered England in 1688, he distinguished himself by an early and zealous appearance for the revolution, which rendered him so obnoxious to king James, that he was attainted, and his estate sequestered by that king’s parliament, May 2, 1689. But when king William was settled on the throne, he called this sufferer, for whom he had a particular esteem, into his privy council; and, in 1692, sent him envoy extraordinary to the court of Denmark. Here he resided above three years, till, some particulars in his conduct disobliging his Danish majesty, he was forbidden the court. Pretending business in Flanders, he retired thither without any audience of leave, and came from thence home: where he was no sooner arrived, than he drew up “An Account of Denmark;” in which he represented the government of that country as arbitrary and tyrannical. This piece was greatly resented by prince George of Denmark, consort to the princess, afterwards queen Anne; and Scheel, the Danish envoy, first presented a memorial to king William, complaining of it, and then furnished materials for an answer, which was executed by Dr. William King. From King’s account it appears, that Molesworth’s offence in Denmark was, his boldly pretending to some privileges, which, by the custom of the country, are denied to every body but the king; as travelling the king’s road, and hunting the king’s game: which being done, as is represented, in defiance of opposition, occasioned the rupture between the envoy and that count. If this allegation have any truth, the fault lay certainly altogether on the side "of Molesworth whose disregard of the customs: of the country to which he was sent, cannot be defended.

In the mean time his book was well received by the public, reprinted thrice (and as lately as 1758), and translated into several languages. The spirit of it was particularly approved by the earl of Shaftesbury, author of the “Characteristics;” who from thence conceived a great esteem for him, which afterwards ripened into a close friendship. Molesworth’s view in writing the “Account of Denmark,” is clearly intimated in the preface, where he plainly give us his political, as well as his religious creed. He censures very severely the clergy in general, for defending the revolution upon any other principles than those of resistance, and the original contract, which he maintains to be the true and natural basis of the constitution; and that all other foundations are false, nonsensical, rotten, derogatory to the then present government, and absolutely destructive to the legal liberties of the English nation. As the preservation of these depends so much upon the right education of youth in the universities, he urges, also, in the strongest terms, the absolute necessity of purging and reforming those, by a royal visitation: so that the youth may not be trained up there, as he says they were, in the< slavish principles of passive obedience and jus divinum, but may be instituted after the manner of the Greeks and Romans, who in their academies recommended the duty to their country, the preservation of the law and public liberty: subservient to which they preached up moral virtues, such as fortitude, temperance, justice, a contempt of death, &c. sometimes making use of pious cheats, as Elysian fields, and an assurance of future happiness, if they died in the cause of their country; whereby they even deceived their hearers into greatness. This insinuation, that religion is nothing more than a pious cheat, and an useful state-engine, together with his pressing morality as the one thing necessary, without once mentioning the Christian religion, could not but be very agreeable to the author of the “Characteristics.” In reality, it made a remarkably strong impression on him, as we find him many years after declaring, in a letter to our author, in these terms: “You have long had my heart, even before I knew you, personally. For the holy and truly pious man, who revealed the greatest of mysteries: he who, with a truly generous love to mankind and his country, pointed out the state of Denmark to other states, and prophesied of things highly important to the growing age: he, I say, had already gained me as his sworn friend, before he was so kind as to make friendship reciprocal, by his acquaintance and expressed esteem. So that you may believe it no extraordinary transition in me, from making you in truth my oracle in public affairs, to make you a thorough confident in my private.” This private affair was a treaty of marriage with a relation of our author; and though the design miscarried, yet the whole tenor of the letters testifies the most intimate friendship between the writers.

, was the son of sir Francis Monckton, knt. of Cavil Hall, and of Newbold, both in the East-riding of Yorkshire, and descended from an ancient family in that county, who possessed the lordship of Monckton before the place was made a nunnery, which was in the 20th Edward II. (1326). Sir Philip was born at Heck, near Howden, in Yorkshire, and was high sheriff for that county in the 21st Charles II. (1669). He served for some time in parliament for Scarborough, and had been knighted in 1643. His loyalty to Charles I. brought him under the cognizance of the usurpers, and for his loyal services he underwent two banishments, and several imprisonments during the course of the civil war; his grandfather, father, and himself, being all at one time sequestered by Cromwell. In consideration of these services and sufferings, king Charles II. in 1653, wrote a letter to him in his own hand (which was delivered by major Waters) promising that if it pleased God to restore him, he should share with him in his prosperity, as he had been content to do in his adversity; but he afterwards experienced the same ingratitude as many of his father’s friends, for when he waited on the lord chancellor Clarendon with a recommendation from the earl of Albemarle for some compensation for his services, he was treated with the utmost insolence, and dismissed with marked contempt. Sir Philip had been a prisoner in Belvoir castle, and was released on col. Rossiter’s letter to the lord general Fairfax in his favour. He fought at the several battles of Hessey Moor, Marston Moor, Aderton Moor, and at Rowton Heath, near Chester, where he was wounded in his right arm, and was forced to manage his horse with his teeth whilst he fought with his left, when he was again wounded and taken prisoner. He was likewise at the siege of Pontefract castle, and at York. He married miss Eyre, of an ancient family, of Hassop, in Derbyshire. His manuscripts are now in. the possession of his descendant, the lord viscount Galway.

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

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

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

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

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

, an English statesman and poet, was born April 16, 1661, at Horton in Northamptonshire. He was the son of Mr. George Montague, a younger son of the earl of Manchester. He was educated first in the country, and then removed to Westminster, where, in 1677, he was chosen a king’s scholar, and recommended himself to the celebrated master of the school, Busby, by his felicity in extemporary epigrams. He contracted a very intimate friendship with Mr. Stepney; and, in 1682, when Stepney was elected to Cambridge, the election of Montague not being to proceed till the year following, he was afraid lest by being placed at Oxford, he might be separated from his companion, and therefore solicited to be removed to Cambridge, without waiting for the advantages of another year. He was now in his twenty-first year, and his relation, Dr. Montague, was then master of Trinity college in which he was placed a fellow-commoner, and took him under his particular care. Here he commenced an acquaintance with, the great Newton, which continued through his life, and was at last attested by a legacy.

In 1685, he wrote some verses on the death of king Charles, which made such an impression on the earl of Dorset, that he was invited to town, and introduced by that universal patron to the other wits. In 1687, he joined with. Prior in “The City Mouse and the Country Mouse,” one of his best compositions, which was intended as a burlesque of Dryden’s “Hind and Panther.” Commencing his political career, he signed the invitation to the prince of Orajge, and sat in the convention. He about the same time married the countess dowager of Manchester, and intended to have taken orders; but afterwards altering his purpose, he purchased for 1500l. the place of one of the clerks of the council.

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

His retirement was not of long duration; and upon the nearer approach of the restoration, general Monk having procured him to be replaced in his former rank in the navy, he convoyed the king to England, who made him a knight of the garter, and soon afterwards created him baron Montague of St. Neots in Huntingdonshire, viscount Hinchinbroke in the same county, and earl of Sandwich in Kent, He was likewise sworn a member of the privy council, made master of the king’s wardrobe, admiral of the narrow seas, and lieutenant admiral to the duke of York, as lord high admiral of England. When the Dutch war 'began in 1664, the duke of York took upon him the command of the fleet as high admiral, and the earl of Sandwich commanded the blue squadron; and by his well-timed efforts, a great number of the enemy’s ships were taken. In the great battle, JuneS, 1665, when the Dutch lost their admiral Opdam, and had eighteen men of war taken, and fourteen destroyed, a large share of the honour of the victory was justly assigned to the earl of Sandwich, who also on Sept. 4, of the same year, took eight Dutch men of war, two of their best East India ships, and twenty sail of their merchantmen.

Soon after his return to England, he was sent to the court of Madrid, to negociate a peace between Spain and Portugal, which he not only effected in the most satisfactory manner, but also concluded with the court of Spain, one of the most beneficial treaties of commerce that ever was made for this nation. On the renewal of the Dutch war in 1672, his lordship embarked again with the duke of York, and commanded the blue squadron. The fleet came in sight of the Dutch about break of day, May 28, and in the subsequent engagement he performed such exploits as could not fail to have rendered the victory complete, had he been properly seconded by his squadron, but a Dutch fire-ship, covered by the smoke of the enemy, having grappled the Royal James (that on which the earl of Sandwich fought), set her in a flame, and the brave earl perished with several gallant officers. His body being found about a fortnight afterwards, was, by his majesty’s orders brought to London, and interred with great solemnity in Henry VII.'s chapel, Westminster-abbey. It was supposed by many, though unjustly, that the duke of York did not support him as he might have done towards the beginning of the action; but it was agreed by all, that sir Joseph Jordan, the earl’s vice-admiral, might have disengaged him. His loss occasioned great reflections on the duke; and in the parliament which met at Westminster in Oct. 1680, when the exclusion bill was in debate, soma members openly charged him in the House of Commons with the death of the earl of Sandwich.

Lord Orford, who has given this nobleman a place iri his “Catalogue of Royal and Noble Authors,” mentions of his writing, “A Letter to Secretary Thurloe,” in the first volume of “Thurloe’s State-papers;” -“Several Letters during his Embassy to Spain,” published with “Arlington’s Letters;” and “Original Letters and Negotiations of Sir Richard Fanshaw, the Earl of Sandwich, the Earl of Sunderland, and Sir William Godolphin, wherein divers matters between the three Crowns of England, Spain, and Portugal, from 1603 to 1678, are set in a clear light,” in 2 vols. 8vo. He was also the author of a singular translation, called “The Art of Metals, in which is declared, the manner of their Generation, and the Concomitants of them, in two books, written in Spanish by Albaro Alonzo Barba, M. A. curate of St. Bernard’s parish, in the imperial city of Potosi, in the kingdom of Peru, in the West Indies, in. 1640; translated in 1669, by the right honourable Edward earl of Sandwich,” 1674, a small 8vo. A short preface of the editor says “The original was regarded in Spain and the West Indies as an inestimable jewel but that, falling int the earl’s hands, he enriched our language with it, being content that all our lord the king’s people should be philosophers.” There are also some astronomical observations of his in No. 21 of the Philosophical Transactions.

, fourth earl of Sandwich, son of Edward Richard Montague, lord viscount Hinchinbroke, and Elizabeth only daughter of Alexander Popham, esq. of Littlecote in the county of Wilts, was born in the parish of St. Martin in the Fields, Westminster, Nov. 15, 1718. He was sent at an early age to Eton school, where, under the tuition of 'Dr. George, he made a considerable proficiency in the classics. In 1735, he was admitted of Trinity college, Cambridge, and during his residence there, he and the late lord Halifax were particularly distinguished for their college exercises; and were the first noblemen who declaimed publicly in the college chapel. After spending about two years at Cambridge, he set out on a voyage round the Mediterranean, his account of which has recently been published. Mr. Ponsonby, late earl of Besborough, Mr. Nelthorpe, and Mr. Mackye, accompanied his lordship (for he was now earl of Sandwich) on this agreeable tour, with Liotard the painter, as we have noticed in his article (vol. XX.) On his lordship’s return to England, he brought with him, as appears by a letter written by him to the rev. Dr. Dampier, “two mummies and eight embalmed ibis’s from the catacombs of Memphis a large quantity of the famous Egyptian papyrus fifteen intaglios five hundred medals, most of them easier to be read than that which has the inscription TAMttlN a marble vase from Athens, and a very long inscription as yet nndecyphered, on both sides of a piece of marble of about two feet in height.” This marble was afterwards presented to Trinity college, and the inscription was explained by the late learned Dr. Taylor, in 1743, by the title of Marmor Sandvicense.

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

In his private character, his biographer bears testimony to the easy politeness and affability of his manners his chearfulness and hospitality the activity of his disposition and his readiness to perform acts of kindness. Of his morals less can be said. He was indeed a man of pleasure, in all the extent of that character; his most harmless enjoyment was music, in which he was at once a man of taste, a warm enthusiast, and a liberal patron. He is said to have been the author of a pamphlet, entitled “A State of Facts relative to Greenwich hospital, 7 ' 1779, in reply to captain Baillie’s” Case of the Royal Hospital at Greenwich,“published in 1778. Since his death has been published,” A Voyage performed by the Earl of Sandwich round the Mediterranean, in the years 1738 and 1739, written by himself." This was edited by his chaplain the rev. John Cooke in 1799, with a memoir of the noble author, from which we have extracted the above particulars. This noble lord’s narrative is less interesting now than it would have been about the period when it was written, and is indeed very imperfect and unsatisfactory, but the plan and execution of such a voyage are creditable to his lordship’s taste and youthful ambition.

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

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

His mother died in 1762, and left him only one guinea, he having offended her irreconcileably: but as he was now independent by his father’s liberal bequest, he once more took leave of his native country, and passed the remainder of his life in foreign parts, In 1762, while at Turin, he wrote two letters to the earl of Macclesfield, which were read at the Royal Society, and afterwards published in a quarto pamphlet, entitled, “Observations upon a supposed antique bust at Turin.” In the Philosophical Transactions are also, by him, “New Observations on Pompey’s Pillar,” and an account of his journey from Cairo in Egypt to the Written Mountains in the desarts of Sinai. It is said that he published “An Explication of the Causes of Earthquakes;” but it is not recollected where. His travels in the East occupied some years, and in the course of them he first abjured the protestant for the Roman catholic religion, and then the latter for Mahometanism, all the rite’s and ceremonies of which he performed with a punctuality which inclines us to think that he was in some degree deranged! He died at length at Padua in May 1776, and was buried under a plain slab, in the cloister of the HermitauTs, with an inscription recording his travels and his talents. The latter would have done honour to any character, but in him were obscured by a disposition which it would be more natural to look for in romance than in real life.

She had early a love for society, and it was her lot to be introduced to the best. In 1742, she was married to Edward Montague, esq. of Denton-hall in Northumberland and Sandleford priory in Berkshire, grandson of the first earl of Sandwich, and member of several successive parliaments for the borough of Huntingdon. By his connections and her own she obtained an extensive lange of acquaintance, but selected as her especial friends and favourites persons distinguished for taste and talents. By Mr. Montague, who died without issue in 1775, she was left in great opulence, and maintained her establishment in the learned and fashionable world for many years with great eclat, living in a style of most splendid hospitality. She died in her eightieth year, at her house in Portman-square, Aug. 25, 1800.

, an eminent English prelate, was the son of Thomas Moore of Market- Harborough in Leicestershire, where he was born. He was admitted June 28, 1662, of Clare-hall college, Cambridge, where he took the degree of B. A. in 1665, M. A. in 1669, and D. D. in 1681. He was also fellow of that college, and afterwards became chaplain to Heneage Finch, earl of Nottingham, by whose interest he rose to considerable preferments, and in particular, was promoted to the first prebendal stall in the cathedral church of Ely. His next preferment was the rectory of St. Austin’s, London, to which he was admitted Dec, 3, 1687, but he quitted that Oct. 26, 1689, on his being presented by king William and queen Mary (to whom he was then chaplain in ordinary) to the rectory of St. Andrew’s, Holborn, vacant by the promotion of Dr. Stillingfleet to the see of Worcester. On the deprivation of Dr. William Lloyd, bishop of Norwich, for not taking the oaths to their majesties, he was advanced to that see, and consecrated July 5, 1691, and was thence translated to Ely, July 31, 1707, in which he remained until his death f He died'at Ely-house, in Holborn, July 31, 1714, in his sixty-eighth year. He was interred on the north side of the presbytery of his cathedral church, near his predecessor bishop Patrick, where an elegant monument was erected to his memory.

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

, one of the founders of the Royal Society, was descended of an ancient and noble family in the Highlands of Scotland, and had his education partly in the university of St. Andrews, and partly in France. In this last country he entered into the army, in the service of Lewis XIII, and became such a favourite with cardinal Richlieu, that few foreigners were held in equal esteem by that great statesman. According to Anthony Wood, sir Robert Moray was general of the ordnance in Scotland, against king Charles 1, when the presbyterians of that kingdom first set up and maintained their covenant. But if this be true, which we apprehend to be very doubtful, he certainly returned to France, and was raised to the rank of colonel, from which country he came over to England for recruits, at the time that king Charles was with the Scotch army at Newcastle. Here he grew into much favour with his majesty, and, about December 1646, formed a design for his escape, which was to have been executed in the following manner: Mr. William Moray, afterwards earl of Dysert, had provided a vessel near Tinmouth, and sir Robert Moray was to have conducted the king thither in a disguise. The matter proceeded so far, that his majesty put himself in the disguise, and went down the back-stairs with sir Robert. But, apprehending that it was scarcely possible to pass all the guards without being discovered, and judging it highly indecent to be taken in such a condition, he changed his resolution, and returned back. Upon the restoration of king Charles II. sir Robert Moray was appointed a privycounsellor for Scotland. Wood says, that, though sir Robert was presbyterianly affected, he had the king’s ear as much as any other person. He was, undoubtedly, in no small degree of esteem with his majesty but this was probably more upon a philosophical than apolitical account for he was employed by Charles the Second in his chymical processes, and was, indeed, the conducter of his laboratory. When the design was formed, in 1661, of restoring episcopacy in Scotland, sir Robert was one, among others, who was for delaying the making of any such change, till the king should be better satisfied concerning the inclinations of the nation. In the next year, sir Robert Moray was included in an act, passed in Scotland, which incapacitated certain persons from holding any place of trust under the government. This act, which was carried by the management of a faction, and to which the lord commissioner (the earl of Middleton) gave the royal assent, without acquainting his majesty with the whole purport of it, was very displeasing to the king, who, when it was delivered to him, declared, that it should never be opened by him. In 1667, sir Robert Moray was considerably entrusted in the management of public affairs in Scotland, and they were then conducted with much greater moderation than they had been for some time before. It is a circumstance highly to his honour, that though the earl of Lauderdale, at the instigation of lady Dysert, had used him very unworthily, yet that nobleman had such an opinion of his virtue and candour, that, whilst he was in Scotland, in 1669, as his majesty’s high commissioner, he trusted all his concerns in the English court to sir Robert’s care. Sir Robert Moray had been formerly the chief friend and main support of the earl of Lauderdale, and had always been his faithful adviser and reprover. Anthony Wood says, that sir Robert was a single man; but this is a mistake; for he had married a sister of lord Balcarras. He died suddenly, in liis pavilion, in the garden of Whitehall, on the 4th of July, 1673, and was interred, at the king’s expence, in Westminster-abbey, near the monument of Sfir William Davenant.

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

In 1688 he accompanied his highness in his expedition into England; and, upon his advancement to the throne, was sworn of the privy council, made one of the lords of the bedchamber, and, in order to attend at the coronation as an earl, advanced to the dignity of earl of Monmouth, April 9, 1689, having the clay before been constituted first commissioner of the treasury. He had likewise the command of the royal regiment of horse, which the city of London had raised for the public service, and of which his majesty was colonel: but, in the beginning of Nov. 1690, he was removed from his post in the treasury. On Juno 19, 1697, upon the death of his uncle Henry earl of Peterborough, he succeeded to that title; and, upon the accession of queen Anne, was designed for the West-Indies, being invested with the commission of captain-general and governor of Jamaica, and commander of the army and fleet for that expedition. In March 1705, he was sworn of the privy-council; and the same year declared general and commander in chief of the forces sent to Spain, and joint admiral of the fleet with sir Cloudsley Shovell, of which, the year following, he had the sole command, sir Cloudsley remaining in the British seas. His taking Barcelona with an handful of men, and relieving it afterwards, when greatly distressed by the enemy; his driving out of Spain the duke of Anjou and the French army, which consisted of twenty-five thousand men, though his own troops never amounted to ten thousand; the possession he gained of Catalonia, of the kingdoms of Valencia, Arragon, and Majorca, with part of Murcia and Castile, and thereby giving opportunity to the earl of Galway of advancing to Madrid without a blow; were all astonishing instances of valour, prudence, and conduct in military affairs, and, together with his wit, ready address, and singularities of character, made him be considered as one of the ablest servants of the public, and one of the most extraordinary characters of his time.

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

In 1675, he accepted a prebend in the church of Gloucester, being collated to it by lady Conway’s brother, lord Finch, who was then chancellor of England, and afterwards earl of Nottingham; but soon resigned it to Dr. Edward Fowler, afterwards bishop of Gloucester, on whom it was conferred at his request. It was thought to be with this view that Dr. More accepted of this preferment, it being the only one he could ever be induced to accept, after he liad devoted himself to a college life, which he did very early for, in 1642, he resigned the rectory of Ingoldsby in Lincolnshire, soon after he had been presented to it by his father, who had bought the perpetual advowson of it for him. Here he made himself a paradise, as he expresses it; and he was so fearful of hurting it by any change in his present situation, that he even declined the mastership of his own college, into which, it is said, he might have been elected in 1654, in preference to Dr. Cudworth. After this, we cannot be surprised that he withstood various solicitations, particularly to accept the deanery of Christ church in Dublin, and the provostship of Trinity college, as well as the deanery of St. Patrick’s; but these he persisted in refusing, although he was assured they were designed only to pave the way to something higher, there being two bishoprics in view offered to his choice, one of which was valued at 1500l. per annum. This attempt to draw him into Ireland proving insufficient, a very good bishopric was procured for him in England; and his friends got him as far as Whitehall, in order to kiss his majesty’s hand for it; but as soon as he understood the business, which had hitherto been concealed from him, he could not be prevailed on to stir a step farther.

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

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

10. “Letter to Anne Duchess oF York, some few months before her death,” written, 1670. This lady, the daughter of sir Edward Hyde, was instructed in the Protestant religion by our author, while he lived at Antwerp in her father’s family; but afterwards went over to the church of Rome, which occasioned this letter. 11. “Ad Viruni Janum Ulitium Epistolae dute de Invocatione Sanctorum;” written 1659. All the abo've pieces, except the first and second, were printed together in 1683, 4to. 12. “A Letter to the Earl of Anglesey, concerning the Means to keep out Popery, &c.” printed at the end of “A true Account of the whole Proceedings betwixt James Duke of Ormond and Arthur Earl of Anglesey,” 1683. 13. “Vindication of himself from Mr. Baxter’s injurious Reflexions,” &c. 1683. He made also, 14. “An Epitaph for James I. 1625” which was printed at the end of “Spotswood’s History of the Church of Scotland” and is said to have been the author of, 15. “A Character of King Charles II. 1660” in one sheet, 4to.

, an English artist, at one time of considerable fame, was born at Eastbourne in the county of Sussex, in November 1739. His father, who was a collector of the customs at that port, was descended from Mortimer earl of March, and a man of most respectable character. His uncle was an itinerant painter, of merit much above mediocrity; from frequently seeing his productions, the nephew imbibed an early fondness for that art, which he afterwards practised with considerable success. His taste for the terrific he is said to have acquired from the scenery of the place, and the tribe of ferocious smugglers, whom it was his father’s duty to watch, whose countenances, unsoftened by social intercourse, were marked with that savage hardihood, which he afterwards so much admired, and sometimes imitated, in the banditti of Salvator Rosa.

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

, a learned English bishop in the seventeenth century, was of the same family with cardinal Morton, and was the sixth son of nineteen children of Mr. Richard Morton, an eminent mercer and alderman of York, by Elizabeth Leedale his wife. He was born at York, March 20, 1564, and was 6rst educated there under Mr. Pullen, and afterwards at Halifax under Mr. Maud. In 1582 he was sent to St. John’s college in Cambridge, and placed under the tuition of Mr. Anthony Higgon, afterwards dean of Rippon, who left him to the care of Mr. Henry Nelson, afterwards rector of Hougham ia Lincolnshire, who lived to see his pupil bishop of Durham, and many years after. In the beginning of November 1584, he was chosen to a scholarship of Constable’s foundation, peculiar to his native county of York; and in 1586 took the degree of bachelor of arts, and in 1590 that of master, having performed the exercises requisite to each degree with great applause. He continued his studies at his father’s charge until March 17, 1592, when he was admitted fellow, of the foundation of Dr. Keyson, merely on account of his merit, against eight competitors for the place. About the same time he was chosen logic lecturer of the university, which, office he discharged with ^reat skill and diligence, as appeared from his lectures found among his papers. The same year he was ordained deacon, and the year following priest by Richard Rowland, bishop of Peterborough. He continued five years after this in the college, pursuing his private studies, and instructing pupils. In 1598 he took the degree of bachelor of divinity; and ahout the same year was presented to the rectory of Long Marston four miles from York. He was afterwards made chaplain to the earl of Huntingdon, lord president of the North, who selected him for his zeal and acuteness in disputing with the Romish recusants. It was queen Elizabeth’s command to his lordship, to prefer arguments to force with these people: and this she expressed, as the earl used to say, in the words of scripture, “Nolo mortem peccatoris.” Afterwards, when lord Huntingdon was dead, and lord Sheffield was appointed lord president, Morton held a public conference before his lordship and the council, at the manor-, house at York, with two popish recusants, then prisoners in the castle. In 1602, when the plague raged in that city, he behaved with the greatest charity and resolution. The year following, the lord Eure being appointed ambassador-extraordinary to the emperor of Germany, and king of Denmark, Morton attended him as chaplain, along with Mr. Richard Crakenthorp, and took this opportunity to make a valuable collection of books, as well as to visit the universities of Germany. At his return he became chapJain to Roger earl of Rutland, and was afterwards presented by archbishop Matthews to a prebend in the cathedral of York. In 1606 he took the degree of doctor of divinity; and about the same time was sworn chaplain in ordinary to king James I. and preferred to the deanery of Gloucester, June 22, 1607. While he was dean there, the lord Eure above mentioned, then lord president of Wales, appointed him one of his majesty’s council for the marches. In 1609, he was removed to the deanery of Winchester; and while there, the bishop (Bilson) collated him to the rectory of Alesford. In the same year, Dr. Sutcliff, dean of Exeter, founding a college at Chelsea, for divines to be employed in defending the protestant religion against the papists, he was appointed one of the fellows. About this time, he became acquainted with Isaac Casaubon. In 1615, he was advanced to the see of Chester and, in 1618, to that of Lichfield and Coventry about which time he became acquainted with Antonio de Dominis, abp. of Spalato, whom he endeavoured to dissuade from returning to Rome. The archbishop’s pretence for going thither was, to attempt an unity between the church of Rome and that of England, upon those terms which he had laid down in his book entitled “De Repnblica Christiana.”

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

, a statesman of great learning, prudence, and integrity, is supposed by some to have been born in Essex, and by others in Oxfordshire; but the visitations of Hertfordshire inform us that he was the son of Thomas Morysin of that county (descended from a Yorkshire family), by a daughter of Thomas Merrey of Hatfield. Wood having supposed him born in Oxfordshire, asserts that he spent several years at Oxford university, in “Log;cals and philosophical,” and took a degree in arts. But Mr. Lodge says that he was educated at Eton, and in the university of Cambridge, from whence he went, with the reputation of an excellent Greek and Latin scholar, to the inns of court, where he became a proficient in the common and civil law. According, however, to Wood and others, he had previously to this, travelled to Italy, with an intention to improve his knowledge of the Greek and Latin languages. Padua, in particular, was one of the places he visited, and he remained there until 1537, and soon after his return was made prebendary of Yatminster Secunda in the church of Salisbury, which dignity he kept until 1539. About 1541, Henry VI 11. is said to have given him the library belonging to the Carmelites in London. The same sovereign sent him ambassador to the emperor Charles V. and he had acquired by long habit, so thorough a knowledge of the various factions which distracted the empire, that the ministers of king Edward VI. found it necessary to continue him in that court much against his inclination. In 1549 he was joined with the earl of Warwick, viscount Lisle, sir William Paget, sir William Petre, bishops Holbeach and Hethe, and other personages, in a commission to hold visitation at Oxford, in order to promote the reformation, and their commission also extended to the chapel of Windsor and Winchester college. The celebrated Peter Martyr preached before them, on their entering on business, and was much noticed and patronized by Morysin. From Edward VI. he received the honour of knighthood, and appears to have gone again abroad, as Mr. Lodge gives us a long letter from him relating to the affairs of the imperial court, dated Brussels, Feb. 20, 1553. He returned not long before that prince’s death, and was employed in building a superb mansion at Cashiobury, in Hertfordshire, a manor which had been granted to him by Henry VIIL when queen Mary’s violent measures against the protestants compelled him to quit England, and after residing a short time in Italy, he returned to Strasburgh, and died there, March 17, 1556. He married Bridget, daughter of John lord Hussey, and left a son and three daughters sir Charles, who settled at Cashiobury Elizabeth, married, first, to William Norreys, son and heir to Henry lordNorreys; secondly, to Henry Clinton, earl of Lincoln Mary, to Bartholomew Hales, of Chesterfield in Derbyshire and Jane, to Edward lord Russel, eldest son of the earl of Bedford, and afterwards to Arthur lord Grey of Wilton. The family of Morysin ended in an heiress, Mary (great grand-daughter of sir Richard), who married Arthur lord Capel of Hadham, an ancestor of the present earl of Essex.

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

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

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

, an English lawyer, and classical editor, the son of Richard Mounteney of Putney in Surrey, was born there in 1707, and educated at Eton school, whence he went, in 1725, to King’s college, Cambridge, and took his degrees of A. B. in 1729, and A. M. 1735, and obtained a fellowship. He then studied law in the Inner Temple, and became, in 1737, one of the barons of the exchequer in Ireland. In 1743 he distinguished himself in the famous trial between James Annesley, esq. and Richard earl of Anglesey. In 1759 he married the countess dowager of Mount Alexander, and died in 1768. To these scanty memoirs, we have only to add that, in 1731, he published the first edition of his “Select Orations” of Demosthenes, which has been often reprinted, but seldom with accuracy. The best part of the work is the critical observations upon the Ulpian commentary by Dr. Chapman, fellow of King’s college, Cambridge; and perhaps the most curious is his dedication to the deceased sir Robert Walpole, in the edition of 1748. It was to the Walpoles he owed his promotions. In 1748 he also published “Observations on the probable issue of the Congress,” 8vo, printed by Mr. Bowyer. Mounteney’s Demosthenes was long a favourite book with the university students to give up, as it is called, on their examinations, but at Oxford it has of late been rejected by the examiners, as an insufficient proof of classical proficiency.

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

, an eminent mechanist, was born at Exeter, September 1715. He was the second son of the rev. Zachariah Mudge, prebendary of Exeter, and vicar of St. Andrew’s, Plymouth, who died April 3, 1769, and was honoured by Dr. Johnson with a very elegant testimony of respect, which was inserted in the London Chronicle at that time, and may be seen in Mr. Boswell’s Life of the doctor. Mr. Z. Mudge had three other sons besides the subject of this article. The eldest, Zachariah, was a surgeon and apothecary at Taunton, and afterwards surgeon on board an East Indiaman; he died in 1753 on ship-board, in the river Canton in China. The third, the rev. Richard Mudge, was officiating minister of a chapel of ease at Birmingham, and had a small living presented to him by the earl of Aylesford. He was not only greatly distinguished by his learning, but by his genius for music. He excelled as a composer for the harpsichord; and as a performer on that instrument is said to have been highly complimented by Handel himself. The fourth son, John, was originally a surgeon and apothecary at Plymouth, but during the latter part of his life practised as a physician with great success. Like his brother Thomas, he had great mechanical talents; and, until prevented by the enlargement of his practice, he found time to prosecute improvements in rectifying telescopes. In 1777 the Royal Society adjudged to him Sir Godfrey Copley’s gold medal, for a paper which he presented to that learned body on the best methods of grinding the specula of reflecting telescopes. He also considerably improved the inhaler, an ingenious contrivance for the curing of coughs, by inhaling steam. In 1777 he published “A Dissertation on the inoculated Small-pox;” which was followed, some years after, by “A Treatise on the Catarrhous Cough and Vis Vitae.” He died in 1792. It was to this gentleman, Mr. Boswell informs us, that Dr. Johnson, during his last illness, addressed many letters on his case.

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

It will take from the credit of this narrative to observe, that our author was, after this time, servant to the earl of Oxford, and a messenger of the queen’s bed-chamber, posts which he would scarcely have held had his character been so infamous as is represented above.

, an eminent English lawyer, was fourth son of David, earl of Stormont, and was born March 2, 1705, at Perth, in Scotland. He was brought to England at the age of three years, for his education, which accounts for his always being free from the accent so peculiar in the natives of that country. He was educated at Westminster-school, being admitted a king’s scholar at the age of fourteen years. During the time of his being at school, he afforded proofs of his ability, not so much in poetry, as in declamation, and other exercises, which gave promise of the eloquence that grew up to such perfection when at the bar, and in parliament. At the election in May 1723, he stood first on the list of those scholars who were to go to Oxford, and was entered of Christ church June 18 of that year, where in 1727, he appears to have taken the degree of bachelor of arts; and, on the death of king George I. he was amongst those who contributed their poetical compositions, in Latin, on that event.