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

He was accordingly presented next day, April 16, to the visitor, Dr. Mews, bishop of Winchester, and was the same day sworn in president of the college. He returned next day, and was solemnly installed in the chapel. Many applications were made to the king during this and the tblflowing month in behalf of the fellows, both by themselves, the bishop of Winchester, and by the duke of Ormond, chancellor of the university: notwithstanding which, they were cited to appear at Whitehall, in June following, before his majesty’s commissioners for ecclesiastical causes, who decreed that the election of Mr. Hough, who had now taken his doctor’s degree, was void, and that he be removed from his office of president. Still as Farmer’s moral character was too strong to get over, another mandate was sent to the fellows on August 27, to admit Dr. Samuel Parker president, who was at that time bishop of Oxford, and a Roman Catholic. But this was declined, on the ground of the office heing full, and being directly contrary to their statutes and the oath they had taken, although the king went to Oxford in September in order to enforce his mandate, attended by lord Sunderland and others. Among these was the celebrated William Penn the quaker, whose influence with his brethren, and the dissenters in general, James II. made use of to promote his own designs in favour of popery, under the colour of a. general toleration and suspension of the penal laws against all sectaries, as well as against the Roman catholics. Perm’s interference in the present business, however, does not appear to havebeen improper. He even allowed, after making himself acquainted with the circumstances of the case, that the “fe^ows could not yield obedience without a breach of their oaths, and that such mandates were a force on conscience, and not agreeable to the king’s other gracious indulgencies.”

The king, however, with whom no good advice had any weight, as soon as he arrived at Oxford, sent for the fellows, Sept. 4, to attend him in person, at three in the afternoon, at Christ Church, of which the bishop of Oxford was dean. The fellows accordingly attended, and presented a petition, recapitulating their obligations to obey the statutes, &c. which the king refused to accept, and threatened them, in a very gross manner, with the whole weight of his displeasure, if they did not admit the bishop of Oxford, which they intimated was not in their power; and having returned to their chapel, and being asked by the senior fellow whether they would elect the bishop of Oxford their president, they all answered in their turn, that it being contrary to their statutes, and to the positive oath which they had taken, they did not apprehend it was in their power. Their refusal was followed by the appointment of certain lords commissioners to visit the college. These were, Cartwright bishop of Chester, sir Robert Wright, chief justice of the king’s bench, and sir Thomas Jenner, baron of the exchequer, who cited the pretended president, as he was called, and the fellows, to appear before them at Magdalen college on Oct. 21, the day before which the commissioners had arrived at Oxford, with the parade of three troops of horse. Having assembled on the day appointed in the hall, and their commission read, the names of the president and fellows were called over, and Dr. Hough was mentioned first. It was upon this occasion that he behaved with that courage and intrepidity, prudence and temper, which will endear his memory to the latest posterity. The commissioners, however, struck his name out of the books of the college, and admonished the fellows and others of the society no longer to suhmit to his authority. At their next meeting the president came into court, and said, “My lords, you were pleased this morning to deprive me of my place of president of this college I do hereby protect against all your proceedings, and against all that you have done, or hereafter shall do, in prejudice of me and my right, as illegal, unjust, and null: and therefore I appeal to my sovereign lord the king in his courts of justice.” As he had refused them the keys, they sent for a smiHi to force the door of the president’s lodgings. Burnet savs, “the nation, as well as the university, looked on all this proceeding with a just indignation. It was thought an open piece of robbery and burglary, when men, authorized by no legal commission, came forcibly and turned men out of their possessions and freeholds.”

It was not until the end of September in the following year, 1688, that the infatuated James II. began to see the folly of 4iis conduct, and, conscious both of his past error and present danger, began to be alarmed. Among other steps taken too late for the preservation of his crown, he ordered lord Sunderland to write to the bishop of Winchester, that “the king, having declared his resolution topreserve the church of England, and all its rights and immunities, his majesty, as an evidence of it, commanded him to signify to his lordship his royal will and pleasure, that, as visitor of St. Mary Magdalen college in Oxford, he should settle that society regularly and statuteably.” In consequence of this, Dr. Hough, as president, and the fellows and demies who had been expelled, wej;e all restored.

Soon after the revolution, viz. in April 1690, Dr. Hough was nominated bishop of Oxford, with a licence to hold the presidentship of Magdalen -college in commendam, which he did till he succeeded Dr. William Lloyd, bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, in 1699. It must have been a singular satisfaction to him, as it was a most appropriate reward, that he should receive that mark of elevation in a place which was the scene of his degradation-, or rather of his exemplary fortitude and manly virtue; nor does it appear that this accession of rank at all altered the general benignity of his nature towards those with whom he was connected, either in his college or in his diocese; for even they who had taken a different part at the time of his election, or were of a different opinion with himself, were always treated by him with the greatest humanity and indulgence.

The remainder of bishop Hough’s life affords few incidents for biography, as he very seldom employed his pen, unless in correspondence, or other compositions not intended for the press, but the steady virtues of his character appeared throughout his whole conduct, and afforded subject for many a heart-felt and many a studied panegyric. Whilst in the see of Lichfield and Coventry, he repaired and almost rebuilt as well as adorned the episcopal house at Eccleshall, and afterwards, on his removal to Worcester, he rehuilt great part of the palace there, particularly the whole front, where his arms are impaled with those of the see in the pediment, and made considerable improvements at his other seat at the castle of Hardebury, so as to have laid out many thousand pounds upon them. He had before repaired the lodgings at Magdalen college at his own expence, and contributed 1000l. towards the hew building at that place of his education. He likewise contributed 1000l. towards building All Saints church in Worcester. In 1715 the metropolitan chair was offered to him, on the death of archbishop Tenison, which he declined, from the too modest and humble sentiments which he entertained of himself; but afterwards, in 1717, he succeeded bishop Lloyd in the see of Worcester. As his public benefactions have been just mentioned, it is necessary to add that his private acts of charity were very extensive. His usual manner of living was agreeable to his function, hospitable without profuseness, and his conversation with all was full of humanity and candour, as well as prudent and instructive.

His earliest biographer says, that *' his heavenly temper of mind, his contempt of the world, and his indifference to life, were most visible in the latter period of his own; his firm faith in the promises of the gospel exerted itself most remarkably in his declining years, as well in conversation with some of his friends about his hopes of a better state, and even in his own private thoughts on the nature of that state, as in several letters to others about the gradual decay of his body, the just sense he had of his approaching dissolution, and his entire resignation to the will of God. As he had on many occasions expressed his well-grounded hopes of immortality, so they gradually grew stronger on him, and seemed to be more vigorous in proportion to the decays of his body. Indeed, even the temper of his mind bore so just a proportion to his well-tempered constitution of body, as by an happy result of both, to extend his age to the beginning of his ninety-third year, and almost to the completion of the fifty-third year of his episcopate. But he cast only a cursory eye upon the minute distinctions of human life, as the whole is at best of a short duration. Bishop Hough’s lamp of life burnt clear,- if not bright, to the last^ and though his body was weak, he had no pain or sickness, as he himself acknowledged on several occasions, not only at a considerable distance from his death, but even a few minutes before he expired.“A little before his death, he wrote a letter to his friend lord Digby, where we find the following remarkable words” I am weak and forgetful In other respects 1 have ease to a degree beyond what I durst have thought on, when years began to multiply upon me. I wait contentedly for a deliverance out of this life into a better, in humble confidence, that by the mercy of God, through the merits of his Son, I shall stand at the resurrection on his right hand. And when you, my lord, have ended those days which are to come, which I pray may be many and comfortable, as innocently and as exemplary as those which are passed, I doubt not of our meeting in that state where the joys are unspeakable, and will always endure." He died March 8, 1743, and was buried in Worcester cathedral near his wife, where his memory is preserved by an elegant monument.

, a French poetess, was born at Paris in 1638, and possessed all the charms of her sex, and wit enough to shine in the age of Louis XIV. Her taste for poetry was cultivated by the celebrated poet Henault, who is said to have instructed her in all he knew, or imagined he knew; but she not only imitated him in his poetry, but also in his irreligion; for her verses savour strongly of Epicureanism. She composed epigrams, odes, eclogues, tragedies; but succeeded best in the idyllium or pastoral, which some affirm she carried to perfection. She died at Paris in 1694, and left a daughter of her own name, who had some talent for poetry, but inferior to that of her mother. The first verses, however, composed by this lady, bore away the prize at the French academy; which was highly to her honour, if it be true, as is reported, that Fontenelle wrote at the same time, and upon the same subject. She was a member of the academy of the Ilicovrati of Padua, as,was her mother, who was also of that of Aries. She died at Paris in 1718. The works of these two ladies were collectively published in 1747, in 2 vols. 12mo. Several maxims of the elder of these ladies are much cited by French writers; as, that on gaming, “On commence par tre dupe, on finit par etre fripon.” People begin dupes, and end rogues. And that on self-love: “Nul n'est content cle sa fortune, ni mécontent de son esprit.” No one is satisfied with his fortune, or dissatisfied with his talents.

, an able promoter of exotic botany in England, went first to the West Indies, in the character of a surgeon, and upon his return, after two years’ residence at Leyden, took his degrees in physic under Boerhaave, in 1728 and 1729. At Leyden he instituted a set of experiments on brutes; some of which were made in concert with the celebrated Van Swieten. They were afterwards published in the Philosophical Transactions under the title of “Experimenta de perforatione thoracis, ejusque in respiratione affectibus,” the result of which proved, contrary to the common opinion, that animals could live and breathe for some time, although air was freely admitted into both cavities of the thorax. Soon after his return from Holland, he was in 1732 elected a fellow of the royal society, and went immediately to the West Indies, where he fell a sacrifice to the heat of the climate, July 14, 1733. He had previously sent over a description and figure of the dorsteria contrayerva, which were published in the Philosophical Transactions, vol. XXXVII. This was the first authentic account received of that drug, although known in England from the time of sir Francis Drake, or earlier. He also sent to his friend Mr. Miller, of Chelsea, the seeds of many rare and new plants collected by him in the islands. His ms Catalogue of plants also came into the hands of Mr. Miller, and after his death into the possession of sir Joseph Banks, who, out of respect to the memory of so deserving a man, gratified the botanists with the publication of them, under the title of " Reliquiae Houstonianae, 1781, 4to.

, a native of Paris, was eighteen years a member of the congregation called the oratory, and afterwards secretary to cardinal Dubois, by whom he was much esteemed. He was appointed in 1742 perpetual secretary to the French academy, but did not long enjoy his preferment, for he died the same year, being about fifty- four years old. He published a work entitled “La Verite” de la Religion Chretienne prouvée par les fails," the latter editions of which are far superior to the first. The best edition is that of Paris, 1741, 3 vols. 4to. This book had an astonishing success on its first appearance; but sunk afterwards into a state of discredit no less astonishing: it had been extolled too highly at first, ancl afterwards too much depreciated. The style is affected, and the author lays down useless principles, and, sometimes, even such as are dangerous and hurtful to his cause. His proofs are not always solid or well chosen; but he is particularly blameable for having separated the difficulties and objections from the proofs brought against them. By thus heaping objections on objections at the end of his work, and giving very short and concise answers for fear of repetitions, he gives greater forceto the former than to the latter, makes us lose sight of his proofs, and seems to destroy what he had established.

, an English historian, who flourished in the reign of Henry II. was born in Yorkshire, most probably in the town of that name, was of a good family, and lived beyond the year 1204, but the exact periods of his birth and death are not known. He is said to have had some situation in the family of Henry II. and to have been employed by that monarch in confidential services, such as visiting monasteries. He was by profession a lawyer, but, like other lawyers of that time, in the church, and also a professor of theology at Oxford. After the death of Henry, he applied himself diligently to the writing of history, ancl composed annals, which he commenced at the year 731, the period where Bede left off, and continued to the third year of king John, 1202. These annals were first published by Savile among the Historic! Anglici, in 1595, and reprinted at Francfort in 1601, folio, in two books. Leland says of him, “If we consider his diligence, his knowledge of antiquity, and his religious strictness of veracity, he may be considered as having surpassed, not only the rude historians of the preceding ages, but even what could have been expected of himself. If to that fidelity, which is the first quality of a historian, he had joined a little more elegance of Latin style, he might have. stood the first among the authors of that class.” Vossius says that he wrote also a history of the Northumbrian kings, and a life of Thomas a Becket. Edward the Third caused a diligent search to be made for the works of Hoveden when he was endeavouring to ascertain his title to the crown of Scotland. Savile bears the same testimony to his fidelity that we have seen given by Leland.

, the first English botanist who gave a sketch of what is called a “Flora,” was bora in London in 1619, and educated at Merchant Taylors’ school. He became a commoner of St. John’s college in 1637, took his degree of B. A. in 1641, and that of M. A. in 1645, and began to study medicine, but we do not find that he graduated in that faculty, although he was commonly called Dr. How. With many other scholars of that time, he entered into the royal army, and was promoted to the rank of captain in a troop of horse. Upon the decline of the king’s affairs he prosecuted his studies in physic, and began to practise. His residence was first in Lawrencelane, and then in Milk-street. He died about the beginning of Sept, 1656, and was buried by the grave of his mother in St. Margaret’s church, Westminster; leaving behind him, as Wood says, “a choice library of books of his faculty, and the character of a noted herbalist.” The work which he published, fto which we have alluded, was entitled “Phytologia Britannica, natales exhibens indigenarum Stirpium sponte emergentium,” Lond. 1650, 12mo, This list contains 1220 plants, which (as few mosses and fungi are enumerated) is a copious catalogue for that time, even admitting the varieties which the present state of botany would reject, but there are many articles in it which have no title to a place as indigenous plants of England.

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

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

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

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

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

“He was recalled to England for some idle reason by the king, much sooner than he expected and he returned home, the most elegant traveller, the most polite lover, the most learned nobleman, and the most accomplished gentleman, of his age. Dexterity in tilting, and gracefulness in managing a horse under arms, were excellencies now viewed with a critical eye, and practised with a high degree of emulation. In 1540, at a tournament held in the presence of the court at Westminster^ and in which the principal of the nobility were engaged, Surrey was distinguished above the rest for his address in the use and exercise of arms. But his martial skill was not solely displayed in. the parade and ostentation of these domestic combats. In 1542, he marched into Scotland, as a chief commander in his father’s army; and was conspicuous for his conduct and bravery at the memorable battle of Flodden-Field, where James the Fourth of Scotland was killed.”

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

The birth of lord Surrey may be conjectured to have taken place some time between 1515 and 1520, probably the former, or at least earlier than 1520. He was, it is, universally agreed, the school companion of the duke of Richmond, who died in 1536, in his seventeenth year, and if we allow that Surrey was two or three years older, it will not much affect the high probability that he was a very young man at the time when his biographers made him fall in love with Geraldine, and maintain her beauty at Florence. None of the portraits of Surrey, as far as the present writer has been able to ascertain, mention his age, except that in the picture gallery at Oxford, on which is inscribed, that he was beheaded in “1547, set. 27.” The inscription, indeed, is in a hand posterior to the date of the picture (supposed to be by Holbein), but it may have been the hand of some successful inquirer. None of the books of peerage notice his birth or age, nor are these circumstances inserted on his monument at Framlingham. Conjecture, it has been already observed, supposes him to have been born some time between 1515 and 1520. If we take the earliest of these dates, it will still remain that his biographers have either crowded more events into his life than it was capable of holding, or that they have delayed his principal adventures until they become undeserving of credit, and inconsistent with his character.

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

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

It is now time to inquire whether the accounts hitherto given can be confirmed by internal evidence. It has been so common to consider Geraldine as the mistress of Surrey, that all his love-poems are supposed to have a reference to his attachment to that lady. Mr. Warton begins his narrative by observing, that “Surrey’s life throws so much light on the character and subjects of his poetry, that it is almost impossible to consider the one without exhibiting a few anecdtes of the other.” We have already seen what those anecdotes are, how totally* irreconcileable with probability, and how amply refuted by the dates which hi biographers, unfortunately for their story, have uniformly furnished. When we look into the poems, we find the celebrated sonnet to Geraldine, the only specious foundation for his romantic attachment; but as that attachment and its consequences cannot be supported without a continual violation of probability, and in opposition to the very dates which are brought to confirm it, it seems more safe to conjecture that this sonnet was one of our author’s earliest productions, addressed to Geraldine, a mere child, by one who was only not a child, as an effort of youthful gallantry, in one of his interviews with her at Hunsdon. Whatever credit may be given to this conjecture, for which the present writer is by no means anxious, it is certain that if we reject it, or some conjecture of the same import, and adopt the accounts given by his biographers, we cannot proceed a single step without being opposed by invincible difficulties. There is no other poem in Surrey’s collection that can be proved to have any reference to Geraldine, but there are two with the same title, viz. “The Complaint of the absence of her lover being upon the sea,” which are evidently written in the character of a wife, lamenting the absence of her husband, and tenderly alluding to “his faire litle Sonne.” Mr. Wanon, indeed, finds Geraldine in the beautiful lines beginning “Give place, ye lovers, here before,” and from the lines “Spite drave me into Boreas reign,” infers that her anger “drave him into a colder climate,” with what truth may now be left to the reader. But another of his conjectures cannot be passed over. “In 1544,” he says, “lord Surrey was fieldmarshal of the English army in the expedition to Boulogne, which he took. In that age, love and arms constantly went together; and it was amid the fatigues of this protracted campaign, that he composed his last sonnet, called * The Fansie of a Wearied Lover.” But this is a mere supposition. The poems of Surrey are without dates, and were arranged by their first editor without any attention to a matter of so much importance. The few allusions made to his personal history in these poems are very dark, but in some of them there is a train of reflection which seems to indicate that misfortunes and disappointments had dissipated his Quixotism, and reduced him to the sober and serious tone of a man whose days had been “fevr and evil.” Although he names his productions songs and sonnets, they have less of the properties of either than of the elegiac strain. His scripture- translations appear to be characteristic of his mind and situation in his latter days. What unless a heart almost broken by the unnatural conduct of his friends and family, could have induced the gay and gallant Surrey, the accomplished courtier and soldier, to console himself by translating those passages from Ecclesiastes which treat of the shortness and uncertainty of all human enjoyments, or those Psalms which direct the penitent and the forsaken to the throne of almighty power and grace? Mr. Warton remarks that these translations of Scripture “show him to have been a friend to the reformation;” and this, which is highly probable, may have been one reason why his sufferings were embittered by the neglect, if not the direct hostility of his bigotted father and sister. The translation of the Scriptures into prose was but just tolerated in his time, and to familiarize them by the graces of poetry must have appeared yet more obnoxious to the enemies of the reformation.

Although the present writer has taken some liberties with the Historian of English poetry, in his account of Surrey’s life, he has not the presumption to omit Mr. Warton’s elegant and just criticism on his poems. “Surrey for justness of thought, correctness of style, and purity of expression, may justly be pronounced the first English classical poet. He unquestionably is the first polite writer of love-verses in our language, although it must be allowed that there is a striking native beauty in some of our love-verse, written much earlier than Surrey’s.” It is also worthy of notice, that while all his biographers send him to Italy to study its poetry, Mr. Warton finds nothing in his works of that metaphysical cast which marks the Italian poets his supposed masters, especially Petrarch. “Surrey’s sentiments are for the most part natural and unaffected; arising from his own feelings, and dictated by the present circumstances. His poetry is alike unembarrassed by learned allusions, or elaborate conceits. If our author copies Petrarch, it is Petrarch’s better manner; when he descends from his Platonic abstractions, his refinements of passion, his exaggerated compliments, and his play upon opposite sentiments, into a track of tenderness, simplicity, and nature. Petrarch would have been a better poet had he been. a worse scholar. Our author’s mind was not too much over-laid by learning.”

The translation of the two books of the Eneid is “executed with fidelity, without a prosaic servility; the diction is often poetical, and the versification varied with proper pauses.” Its principal merit, however, is that of being the first specimen in the English language, of blank verse, which was at that time growing fashionable in the Italian poetry. It is very probable that he intended to have translated the whole, and he is so much more elegant and correct in this than in his other translations, that the Eneid appears to have been the production of his happier days.

The fidelity which Mr. Warton attributes to the translations from Virgil, our author has not preserved in his translations from Scripture, which are very liberal, and by frequent omissions, and a different arrangement, made to suit his situation and feelings at the time they were written, which was probably when he was in the Tower.

The translation of the second and fourth book of the Eneid was published in 1557, but it seems doubtful whether together or separately. The translations of the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and the few additional original poems, were printed, but not published, many years ago, by Dr. Percy, from a ms.f now in the possession of Thomas Hill, esq. A more correct and perfect edition of Surrey may soon be expected from Dr. Nott.

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

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

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

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

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

, the indefatigable friend of the poor and unfortunate, was born at Hackney, in 1726. His father, who kept a carpet-warehouse in Long-lane, Smithfield, ciymg wiule he was very young, left him to the care or' guardians, by whom he was apprenticed to Mr. Newnham, grandfather to the late alderman Newhham, a wholesale grocer in the city of London. His constitution appearing too weak for attention to trade, and his father having left him, and an only sister, in circumstances which placed them above the necessity of pursuing it, he bought out the remainder of his indentures before the time, and took a tour in France and Italy. On his return, he lodgei at the house of a Mrs Lardeau^ a widow, in Stoke- Newing. ton, where he was so carefully attended by the lady, thai though she was many years older than himself, he form an attachment to her, and in 1752 made her his wife. She Wag possessed of a small fortune, which he generously presented to her sister. She lived, however, only three yeai after their union, and he was a sincere mourner for hei loss. About this time he became a fellow of the royal society, and, in 1756, being desirous to view the state ol Lisbon after the dreadful earthquakej he embarked for thai city. In this voyage, the Hanover frigate, in which hi sailed, was taken by a French privateer, and the inconveniences which he suffered during his subsequent confine ment in France, are supposed to have awakened his sympathies with peculiar strength in favour of prisoners, and to have given rise to his plans for rendering prisons less pernicious to health. It is supposed, that after his release, he made the tour of Italy. On his return, he fixed himself at Brokenhurst, a retired and pleasant villa near Lymington, in the New Forest. Mr. Howard married a second time in 1758; but this lady, a daughter of a Mr. Leeds, of Croxton in Cambridgeshire, died in child-bed of her only child, a son, in 1765. Either before, or soon after the death of his second wife, he left Lymington, and purchased an estate at Cardington, near Bedford, adjoining to that of his relation Mr. Whitbread. Here he much conciliated the poor by giving them employment, building them cottages, and other acts of benevolence; and regularly attended the congregations of dissenters at Bedford, being of that persuasion. His time was also a good deal occupied by the education of his only son, a task for which he is said to have been little qualified. With all his benevolence of heart, he is asserted to have been disposed to a rigid severity of discipline, arising probably from a very strict sense of rectitude, but not well calculated to form a tender mind to advantage. In 1773, he served the office of sheriflj which, as he has said himself, “brought the distress of prisoners more immediately under his notice,” and led to his benevolent design of visiting the gaols and other places of confinement throughout England, for the sake of procuring alleviation to the miseries of the sufferers. In 1774, trusting to his interest among the sectaries at Bedford, he offered himself as a candidate for that borough, but was not returned; and endeavouring to gain his seat by petition, was unsuccessful. He was, however, in the same year, examined before the House of Commons, on the subject of the prisons, and received the thanks of the house for his attention to them. Thus encouraged, he completed his inspection of the British prisons, and extended his views even to foreign countries. He travelled with this design, three times tnrough France, four through Germany, five through Holland, twice through Italy, once in Spain and Portugal, and once also through the northern states, and Turkey. These excursions were taken between 1775 and 1787. In the mean time, his sister died, and left him a considerable property, which he regarded as the gift of Providence to promote his humane designs, and applied accordingly. He published also in 1777, “The State of the Prisons in England and Wales, with preliminary Observations, and an Account of some Foreign Prisons,” dedicated, to the House of Commons, in 4to. In 1780 he published an Appendix to this book, with the narrative of his travels in Italy; and in 1784, republished it, extending his account to many other countries. About this time, his benevolence had so much attracted the public attention, that a large subscription was made for the purpose of erecting a statue to his honour; but he was too modest and sincere to accept of such a. tribute, and wrote himself to the subscribers to put a stop to it. “Have I not one friend in England,” he said, when he first heard of the design, “that would put a stop to such a proceeding?” In 1789, he published “An Account of the principal Lazarettos in Europe, with various Papers relative to the Plague, together with further Observations on some foreign Prisoas and Hospitals; and additional remarks on the present state of those in Great Britain and Ireland.” He had published also, in 1780, a translation of a French account of the Bastille; and, in 1789, the duke of Tusany' new code ef civil law, with an English translation. In his book on Lazarettos, he had announced his. intention of revisiting Russia, Turkey, and some other conntries, and extending his tour in the East. “I am not insensible,” says he, “<>f the dangers that must attend such a journey. Trusting, however, in the protection of that kind Providence which has hitherto preserved me, I calmly and cheerfully commit myself to the disposal of unerring wisdom. Should it please God to cut off my life in the prosecution of this design, let not my conduct be uncandidly imputed to rashness or enthusiasm, but to a serious, deliberate conviction, tnat I am pursuing the path of duty; and to a sincere desire of being made an instrument of more extensive usefulness to my fellow-creatures, than couid be expected in the narrower circle of a retired life.” He did actually fall a sacrifice to this design; for in visiting a sick patient at Cherson, who had a malignant epidemic fever, he caught the distemper, and died, Jan, 20, 1790. An honour was now paid to him, which we believe is without a precedent: his death was announced in the London Gazette.

Mr. Howard was, in his own habits of life, rigidly temperate, and even abstemious; subsisting entirely, at one time, on. potatoes; at another, chiefly on tea and bread and butter; of course not mixing in convivial society, nor accepting invitations to public repasts. His labours have certainly had the admirable effect of drawing the attention of this country to the regulation of public prisons. In many places his improvements have been adopted, and perhaps in all our gaols some advantage has been derived from them. We may hope that these plans will terminate in such general regulations as will make judicial confinement, instead of the means of confirming and increasing depravity (as it has been too generally), the successful instrument of amendment in morality, and acquiring habits of industry. While the few criminals, and probably very few, who may be too depraved for amendment, will be compelled to be beneficial to the community by their labour; and, being advantageously situated in point of health, may suffer nothing more than that restraint which is necessary for the sake of society, and that exertion which they ought never to have abandoned. Considered as the first mover of these important plans, Howard will always be honoured with the gratitude of his country; and his monument, lately erected in St. Paul’s cathedral, is a proof that this gratitude is not inert. The monument is at the same time a noble proof of the skill and genius of the artist, Mr. Bacon, and represents Mr. Howard in a Roman dress,- with a look and attitude expressive of benevolence and activity, holding in one hand a scroll of plans for the improvement of prisons, hospitals, &c. and in the other a key while he is trampling on chains and fetters. The epitaph contains a sketch of his life, and concludes in words which we also heartily adopt: “He trod an open but unfrequented path to immortality, in the ardent and unremitted exercise of Christian charity. May this tribute to his fame excite an emulation of his truly glorious achievements!” To this may be added the eloquent eulogium pronounced upon Mr. Howard by Mr. Burke, in his “Speech at Bristol, previous to the election in 1780.” Having occasion to mention him, he adds, “I cannot name this gentleman without remarking, that his labours and writings have done much to open the eyes and hearts of mankind. He has visited all Europe, not to survey the sumptuousness of palaces, or the stateliness of temples; not to make accurate measurements of the remains of ancient grandeur, nor to form a scale of the curiosity of modern art not to collect medals, or collate manuscripts; but to dive into the depths of dungeons to plunge into the infection of hospitals to survey the mansions of sorrow and pain; to take the gage and dimensions of misery, depression, and contempt to remember the forgotten, to attend to the neglected, to visit the forsaken, and to compare and collate the distresses of all men in all countries. His plan is original, and it is as full of genius as it is of humanity. It was a voyage of discovery; a circumnavigation of charity. Already the benefit of his labour is felt more or less in every country; I hope he will anticipate his final reward, by seeing all its effects fully realised in his own. He will receive, not by retail, but in gross, the reward of those who visit the prisoner; and he has so forestalled and monopolized this branch of charity, that there will be, I trust, little room to merit by such acts of benevolence hereafter”

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

, Mus. D. was brought up in the king’s chapel, and took his degree of doctor of music at Cambridge at the time of the Installation of theduke of Grafton as chancellor of that university. Dr. Howard had studied much under Dr. Pepusch at the Charter-house, and was well acquainted with the mechanical rules of counterpoint. His overture in the “Amorous Goddess,” a happy imitation of Handel’s overture in “Alcina,” particularly the musette and minuet, was very popular in the theatres and public gardens. But his ballads, which were long the delight of natural and inexperienced lovers of music, had the merit of facility; for this honest Englishman preferred the style of his own country to that of any other so mnch, that he never staggered in his belief of its being the best in the world, by listening to foreign artists or their productions, for whom and for which he had an invincible aversion.

He began to flourish about the year 1740, and from that time till Arne’s Vauxhall songs were published under the title of “Lyric Harmony,” they were the most natural and pleasing which our country could boast. After the decease of Michael Christian Festing, Dr. Howard took the lead in managing the affairs of the musical fund; but not with equal address and intelligence. He was a dull, vulgar, and unpleasant man; and by over-rating his own importance, and reigning paramount over his equals, he rendered the monthly meetings disagreeable, and cooled the zeal of many well-wishers to the society. He long laboured under a dropsy, yet walked about with legs of an enormous size, during several years. But it was not this disorder which put an end to his existence at last, but repeated paralytic strokes. He died about the year 1783.

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

, a relation of the preceding, was the younger brother of sir Scroop Howe, of Nottinghamshire. In the convention-parliament, which met at Westminster Jan. 22, 1688-9, he served for Cirencester, and was constantly chosen for that borough, or as a knight of the shire for the county of Gloucester, in the three last parliaments of king William, and in the three first of queen Anne. In 1696 he was a strenuous advocate for sir John Fenwick; and his pleading in behalf of that unfortunate gentleman, shews his extensive knowledge of the laws, and aversion to unconstitutional measures. In 1699, when the army was reduced, it was principally in consideration of Mr. Howe’s remonstrances, that the House of Commons agreed to allow half-pay to the disbanded officers; and when the partition-treaty was afterwards under the consideration of that house, he expressed his sentiments of it in guch terms, that king William declared, that if it were not foi the disparity of their rank, he would demand satisfaction with the sword. At the accession of queen Anne, he was sworn of her privy-council April 21, 1702; and, on June 7 following, constituted vice-admiral of the county of Gloucester. Before the end of that year, Jan. 4, 1702-3, he was constituted paymaster-general of her majesty’s guards and garrisons. Macky says of him, “he seemed to be pleased with and joined in the Revolution, and was made vice-chamberlain to queen Mary; but having asked a grant, which was refused him, and given to lord Portland, he fell from the court, and was all that reign the most violent and open antagonist king William had in the house. A great enemy to foreigners settling in England; most clauses in acts against them being brought in by him. He is indefatigable in whatever he undertakes; witness the old East India company, whose cause he maintained till he> fixed it upon as sure a foot as the new, even when they thought themselves past recovery. He lives up” to what his visible estate can afford; yet purchases, instead of running in debt. He is endued with good natural parts, attended with an unaccountable boldness; daring to say what he pleases, and will be heard out; so that he passeth with some for the shrew of the house. On the queen’s accession to the throne he was made a privy-counsellor, and paymaster of the guards and garrisons. He is a tall, thin, pale-faced man, with a very wild look; brave in his person, bold in expressing himself, a violent enemy, a sure friend, and seems to be always in a hurry. Near fifty years old." Such is the character given of this gentleman in 1703. A new privy council being settled May 10, 1708, according to act of parliament, relating to the union of the two kingdoms, he was, among the other great officers, sworn into it. He continued paymaster of the guards and garrisons till after the accession of George I. who appointed Mr. Walpole to succeed him on Sept. 23, 1714: the privy council being also dissolved, and a new one appointed to meet on Oct. 1 following, he was left out of the list. Retiring to his seat at Stowell in Gloucestershire, he died there in 1721, and was buried in the chancel of the church of Stowell.

Mr. Howe was author of “A panegyric on king William,” and of several songs and little poems; and is introduced in Swift’s celebrated ballad “On the Game of Traffic.” He married Mary, daughter and coheir of Humphrey Baskerville, of Pantryllos. in Herefordshire, esq. widow of sir Edward Morgan, of Laternam in Monmouthshire, bart. b$ whom he was father to the first lord Chedworth.

, a learned non-conformist divine in the seventeenth century, was a minister’s son, and nephew to Mr. Obadiah Howe, vicar of Boston in Lincolnshire. He was born May 17, 1630, at Loughborough in Leicestershire, of which town his father was minister, being settled there by archbishop Laud, though afterwards ejected by that prelate on account of his adherence to the Puritans; upon which he went with his son to Ireland, where they continued till the Irish Rebellion broke out, when they returned to England, and settled in Lancashire, where our author was educated in the first rudiments of learning and the knowledge of the tongues. He was sent pretty early to Christ college in Cambridge, where he continued till he had taken the degree of bachelor of arts, and then removed to Oxford, and became bible-clerk of Brazen-nose college in Michaelmas term 1648, and took the degree of bachelor of arts Jan. 18, 1649. He was made a demy of Magdalen college by the parliament visitors, and afterwards fellow; and July 9, 1652, took the degree of master of arts. Soon after this he became a preacher, and was ordained by Mr. Charles Herle at his church of Winwick in Lancashire, and not long after became minister of Great Torrington in Devonshire. His labours here were characteristic of the times. He informed Dr. Calamy, that on the public fasts it was his common way to begin about nine in the morning with a prayer for about a quarter of an hour, in which he begged a blessing on the work of the day; and afterwards read and expounded a chapter or psalm, in which he spent about three quarters; then prayed for about an hour, preached for another hour, and prayed for about half an hour. After this he retired, and took some little refreshment for about a quarter of an hour or more (the people singing all the while), and then came again into the pulpit, and prayed for another hour, and gave them another sermon of about an hour’s length, and so concluded the service of the day, about four o'clock in the evening, with half an hour or more in prayer.

In March 1654 he married the daughter of Mr. George Hughes, minister of Plymouth. Having occasion to take a journey to London, he went as a hearer to the chapel at Whitehall. Cromwell was present, and, struck with his demeanor and person, sent a messenger to inform him that he wished to speak with him when the service was over. In the course of the interview he desired him to preach before him the following Sunday: he requested to be excused, but Cromwell would not be denied, and even undertook to write to his congregation a sufficient apology for his absence from them longer than he intended. This led to the appointment of Mr. Howe to the office of his domestic chaplain, and he accordingly removed with his family to Whitehall. Dr. Calamy tells us, that while he was in this station, he behaved in such a manner that he was never charged, even by those who have been most forward to inveigh against a number of his contemporaries, with improving his interest in those who then had the management of affairs in their hands, either to the enriching himself, or the doing ill offices to others, though of known differing sentiments. He readily embraced every occasion that offered, of serving the interest of religion and learning, and opposing the errors and designs which at that time threatened both. The notion of a particular faith prevailed much at Cromwell’s court; and it was a common opinion among them, that such as were in a special manner favoured of God, when they offered up prayers and supplications to him for his mercies, either for themselves or others, often had such impressions made upon their minds and spirits by a divine hand, as signified to them, not only in the general that their prayers would be heard and answered, but that the particular mercies which were sought for would be certainly bestowed; nay, and sometimes also intimated to them in what way and manner they would be afforded, and pointed out to them future events beforehand, which in reality is the same with inspiration. Mr. Howe told Dr. Calamy, that not a little pains was taken to cultivate and support this notion at Whitehall and that he once heard a sermon there from a person of note, the avowed design of which was to defend it. He said, that he was so fully convinced of the ill tendency of such a principle, that after hearing this sermon, he thought himself bound in conscience, when it came next to his turn to preach before Cromwell, to set himself industriously to oppose it, and to beat down that spiritual pride and confidence, which such fancied impulses and impressions were apt to produce and cherish. He observed, while he was in the pulpit, that Cromwell heard him with great attention, but would sometimes knit his brows, and discover great uneasiness. When the sermon was over, a person of distinction came to him, and asked him, if he knevy. what he had done? and signified it to him as his apprehension, that Cromwell would be so incensed at that dis’A course, that he would find it very difficult ever to make his peace with him, or secure his favour for the future. Mr. Howe replied, that he had but discharged his conscience, and could leave the event with God. He afterwards observed, that Cromwell was cooler in his carriage to him than before; and sometimes he thought he would have spoken to him of the matter, but never did.

Upon the death of Oliver Cromwell, his son Richard succeeding him as protector, Mr. Howe stood in the same relation to him of chaplain as he had done to the father; and was in his judgment very much averse tp Richard’s parting with his parliament, which he foresaw would prove his ruin. When the army had set Richard aside, Mr. Howe returned to his people at Great Torrington, among whom he continued till the act of uniformity took place August 24, 1662, after which he preached for some time in private houses in Devonshire. In April 1671 he went to Ireland, where he lived as chaplain to the lord Massarene in the parish of Antrim, and had leave from the bishop of the diocese and the metropolitan to preach in the public church of that town every Sunday in the afternoon, without submitting to any terms of conformity. In 1675, upon the death of Dr. Lazarus Seaman, he was chosen minister of his congregation, upon which he returned to England and settled at London, where he was highly respected, not only by his brethren in the ministry among the dissenters, but also by several eminent divines of the church of England, as Dr. Whichcot, Dr. Kidder, Dr. Fowler, Dr. Lucas, and others. In August 1685 he travelled beyond sea with the lord Wharton, and the year following settled at Utrecht, and took his turn in preaching at the English church in that city. In 1687, upon king James’s publishing his “Declaration for liberty of conscience,” Mr. Howe returned to London, where he died April 2, 1705, and was interred in the parish church of Allhallows Bread-street.

Mr. Howe, abating his attachment to the family of the Usurper, was a man of more moderation than most of his brethren, and as a divine laboured zealously to promote the interests of real practical religion, and to diffuse a spirit of candour, charity, and mutual forbearance, among his dissenting brethren. He was a man of distinguished piety and virtue, of eminent intellectual endowments, and of extensive learning. Granger says, “He was one of the most learned and polite writers among the dissenters. His reading in divinity was very extensive: he was a good Orientalist, and understood several of the modern languages.”

, an accomplished scholar of the seventeenth century, was born at Crendon in Buckinghamshire, and elected scholar of Trinity-college in 1632, of which, when B. A. he became fellow in 1637. By Hearne, in his preface to “Robert of Gloucester,” he is called “a very great cavalier and loyalist, and a most ingenious man.” He appears to have been a general scholar, and in polite literature was esteemed one of the ornaments of the university. In 1644 he preached before Charles I. at Christchurch cathedral, Oxford; and the sermon was printed, and in red letters (but only thirty copies), of which perhaps the only one extant is in the Bodleian library. In 1646 he was created bachelor of divinity by decree of the king, among others who were complimented with that degree for having distinguished themselves as preachers before the court at Oxford. He was soon afterwards ejected from his fellowship by the presbyterians, but not in the general expulsion in 1648, according to Walker. Being one of the bursars of the college, and foreseeing its fate, and having resolved at the same time never to acknowledge the authority of Cromwell’s visitors, he retired, in the beginning of 1648, to a college estate in Buckinghamshire, carrying with him many rentals, rolls, papers, and other authentic documents belonging to his office. These he was soon after induced to return on a promise of being allowed to retain his fellowship; but they were no sooner recovered than he was expelled, and not restored until 1660. He lived forty-two years after this, greatly respected, and died fellow of the college, where he constantly resided, Aug. 28, 1701, and was interred in the college chapel. Hearne says, “he lived. so retiredly in the latter part of his life, that he rarely came abroad; so that I could never see him, though I have often much desired to have a sight of him.”

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

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

, a voluminous English writer, the son of Thomas Howell, minister of Abernant in Caermarthenshire, was born about 1594, and, to use his own words, “his ascendant was that hot constellation of cancer about the midst of the dog-days.” He was sent to the freeschool at Hereford -, and entered of Jesus-college, Oxford, in 1610. His elder brother Thomas Howell was already a fellow of that society, afterwards king’s chaplain, and was nominated in 1644 to the see of Bristol. James Howell, having taken the degree of B. A. in 1613, left college, and removed to London; for being, says Wood, “a pure cadet, a true cosmopolite, not born to land, lease, house, or office, he had his fortune to make; and being withal not so much inclined to a sedentary as an active life, this situation pleased him best, as most likely to answer his views.” The first employment he obtained was that of steward to a glass-house in Broad-street, which was procured for him by sir Robert Mansel, who was principally concerned in it. The proprietors of this work, intent upon improving the manufactory, came to a resolution to send an agent abroad, who should procure the best materials and workmen; and they made choice of Howell for this purpose, who, setting off in 1619, visited several of the principal places in Holland, Flanders, France, Spain, and Italy. In Dec. 1621, he returned to London; having executed the purpose of his mission very well, and particularly having acquired a masterly knowledge in the modern languages, which afforded him a singular cause for gratitude. “Thank God,” he says, “I have this fruit of my foreign travels, that I can pray unto him every day of the week in a separate language, and upon Sunday in seven.”

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

He had now no resource except his pen: and applied himself therefore wholly to write and translate books. “Here,” he says, “I purchased a small spot of ground upon Parnassus, which I have in fee of the muses, and I have endeavoured to manure it as well as I could, though I confess it hath yielded me little fruit hitherto.” This spot, however, brought him a comfortable subsistence, during his long stay in prison, where he was confined till some time after the king’s death; and as he got nothing by his discharge but his liberty, he was obliged to continue the same employment afterwards. His numerous productions, written rather out of necessity than choice, shew, however, readiness of wit, and exuberant fancy. Though always a firm royalist, he does not seem to have approved the measures pursued by Buckingham, Laud, and Strafford; and was far from approving the imposition of shipmoney, and the policy of creating and multiplying monopolies. Yet the unbridled insolence and outrages of the republican governors so much disgusted him, that he was not displeased when Oliver assumed the sovereign power under the title of protector; and in this light he addressed him on that occasion in a speech, which shall be mentioned presently. His behaviour under Cromwell’s tyranny was prudential, and was so considered; for Charles II. at his restoration, thought him worthy of his notice and favour: and his former post under the council being otherwise disposed of, a new place was created, by the grant of which he became the first historiographer royal in England. He died Nov. 1666, and was interred in the Temple-church. London, where a monument was erected to his memory, with the following inscription, which was taken down when the church was repaired in 1683, and has not since been replaced: “Jacobus Howell, Cambro-Britannus, Regius Historiographus in Anglia primus, qui post varies peregrinationes tandem naturae cursum peregit, satur annorum & famas domi forisque hue usque erraticus, hie fixus 1666.”

His works were numerous. 1. “Dodona’s Grove, or, The Vocal Forest, 1640.” 2. “The Vote:” a poem, presented to the king on New-year’s day, 1641. 3. “Instructions for Forraine Travell shewing by what course, and in what compass of time, one may take an exact survey of the kingdomes and states of Christendome, and arrive to the practical knowledge of the languages to good purpose, 1642.” Dedicated to prince Charles. Reprinted in 1650, with additions. These works were published before he was thrown into prison. 4. “Casual Discourses and Interlocutions between Patricius and Peregrin, touching the distractions of the times.” Written soon after the battle of Edgehill, and the first book published in vindication of the king. 5. “Mercurius Hibernicus: or, a discourse of the Irish Massacre, 1644.” 6. “Parables reflecting on the Times, 1644.” 7. “England’s Tears for the present Wars, &c. 1644.” 8. “Preheminence and Pedigree of Parliaments, 1644.” 9. “Vindication of some passages reflecting upon him in Mr. Prynne’s book called The Popish Royal Favourite, 1644.” 10. “Epistolae Ho-Elianae: or, Familiar Letters, domestic and foreign, divided into sundry sections, partly historical, partly political, partly philosophical,” 1645. Another collection was published in 1647; and both these, with the addition of a third, came out in 1650. A few additional letters appeared in some subsequent editions of which the eleventh was printed in 1754, 8vo. It is not, indeed, to be wondered at, that these letters have run through so many editions since they not only contain much of the history of his own times, but are also- interspersed with many pleasant stories properly introduced and applied. It cannot be denied, that he has given way frequently to very low witticisms, the most unpardonable instance of which is, his remark upon Charles the First’s death, where he says, “I will attend with patience how England will thrive, now that she is let blood in the Bapilical vein, and cured as they say of the king’s evil:” and it is no great excuse, that he was led into this manner by the humour of the times. Wood relates, it does not appear on what authority, that “many of these letters were never written before the author of them was in. the Fleet, as he pretends they were, but only feigned and purposely published to gain money to relieve his necessities:” be this as it will, he allows that they “give a tolerable history of those times,” which, if true, is sufficient to recommend them*. There are also some of his letters among the Strafford papers.

1664. 41. “Concerning the surrender of Dunkirk, thiit it was done upon good Grounds,” 1664. Besides these original works, he translated several from foreign languages; as, 1. “St. Paul’s late Progress upon Earth about a Divorce betwixt Christ and the Church of Rome, by reason of her dissoluteness and excesses, &c.” 1644. The author of this book published it about 1642, and was forced to fly from Rome on that account. He withdrew in the company, and under the conduct of one, who pretended friendship for him; but who betrayed him at Avignon, where he was first hanged and then burnt. 2. “A Venetian Looking-glass: or, a Letter written very lately from London to Cardinal Barberini at Rome, by a Venetian Clarissimo, touching the present Distempers in England,” 1648. 3. “An exact History of the late Revolutions in Naples, &c.” 1650. 4. “A Letter of Advice from the prime Statesmen- of Florence, how England may come to herself again,” 1659. All these were translated from the Italian. He translated also from the French, “The Nuptials of Peleus and Thetis, &c.” 1654; and fro tn the Spanish, “The Process and Pleadings in the Court of Spain, upon the death of Anthony Ascham, resident for the Parliament of England, &c.” 1651.

Lastly, he published, in 1649, “The late King’s Declaration in Latin, French, and English:” and in 1651, “Cottoni Posthuma, or divers choice Pieces of that renowned antiquary sir Robert Cotton, knight and baronet,” in 8vo. The print of him prefixed to some of his works was taken from a painting which is now at Landeilo house, in Monmouthshire, the seat of Richard Lewis, esq.

, a learned, but somewhat unfortunate divine, was born soon after the restoration, and educated at Jesus college, Cambridge, where he took his degree of B. A. in 1684, and that of M. A. in 1688, after which it is not improbable that he left the university, as he not only scrupled the oaths to the new government, but adhered to the nonjuring party with a degree of firmness, zeal, and rashness, which no considerations of personal loss or suffering could repress. In 1712 he was ordained and instituted into priest’s orders by Dr. Hickes, the celebrated nonjuror, who was titled Suffragan Bishop of Thetford. Before this, in 1708, he published “Synopsis Canonum S. S. Apostolorum, et conciliorum cecumenicorum et provincialium, ab ecclesia Graeca receptorum,” 1710, in folio; “Synopsis canonum ecclesiae Latinae,” folio and in 1715, the third and last volume was announced “as once more finished” by Mr. Howel, the manuscript having been burnt at the fire whicb consumed Mr. Bowyer’s printing-house. Soon after this he printed a pamphlet entitled “The case of Schism in the Church of England truly stated,” which was intended to be dispersed or sold privately, there being no name of any author or printer. Both, however, were soon discovered, andRedmayne, the printer, was sentenced to pay a fine of 500l. to be imprisoned for five years, and to find security for his good behaviour for life. The principles laid down in Howel’s pamphlet are these: 1. “That the subjects of England could not transfer their allegiance from king James II.; and thence it is concluded, that all who resisted king James, or have since complied with such as did, are excommunicated by the second canon: 2. That the catholic bishops cannot be deprived by a lay-power only; and thence it is inferred, that all who have joined with them that were put into the places of the deprived bishops, are schismatics.” As such assertions seemed to aim at the vitals of government, both civil and ecclesiastical, it was thought necessary to visit Mr. Howel’s crime with a more severe punishment than had been inflicted on. the printer. Accordingly he was indicted at the Old Bailey Feb. 18, 1717, fora misdemeanour, in publishing “a seditious libel, wherein are contained expressions denying his majesty’s title to the crown of this realm, and asserting the pretender’s right to the same &c. &c.” and being found guilty, he was ordered to pay a fine of 500l. to be imprisoned for three years, to find four securities of 500l. each, himself bound in 1000l. for his good behaviour during life, and to be twice whipped. On hearing this last part of the sentence, he asked, if they would whip a clergyman? and was answered by the court, that they paid no deference to his cloth, because he was a disgrace to it, and had no right to wear it that they did not look upon him as a clergyman in that he had produced no proof of his ordination, but from Dr. Hickes, under the denomination of the bishop of Thetford, which was illegal, and not according to the constitution of this kingdom, which knows no such bishop. And as he behaved in other respects haughtily, on receiving his sentence, he was ordered to be degraded, and stripped of the gown he had no right to wear, which was accordingly done in court by the executioner, A few days after, however, upon his humble petition to his majesty, the corporal punishment was remitted. He died in Newgate, July 19, 1720. The history of this man may now excite unmixed compassion. He was a man of irreproachable character, and of great learning and acquaintance with ecclesiastical history. One of the ablest attacks on popery was of his writing, entitled “The View of the Pontificate, from its supposed beginning, to the end of the Council of Trent, A. D. 1563, in which the corruptions of the Scripture and sacred antiquity, forgeries in the councils, and encroachments of the court of Rome on the church and state, to support their infallibility, supremacy, and other modern doctrines, are set in a true light.” The first edition of this appeared in 1712, and a second was published while the author was in prison, along with a second edition of his well-known “History of the Bible,” 3 vols. 8vo, with above 150 cuts by Sturt; and a second edition of his “Orthodox Communicant.” From the list of nonjurors at the end of Kettlevvell’s Life, we learn that he was at one time master of the school at Epping, and at another time curate of Estwich in Suffolk.

There is another work, often reprinted, and once a very popular book, which has been attributed to this Mr. Howel, but in 1712 the publisher ascribed it to Dr. William Howell. It is an abridged history of England, under the title “Medulla Historiae Anglicanae,” with many wood-cuts, and we are inclined to think was really the production of Dr. William Howell, an Oxford graduate, but originally of Magdalen college, Cambridge, afterwards chancellor of Lincoln, and admitted a civilian in 1678. He acquired higher reputation by writing a History of the World, from the earliest times to the ruin of the Roman empire in the west, a work praised by Gibbon. It was published in 3 or 4 vols. in 1680, folio. He also published “Elementa Historiae Civilis,” Ox. 1660, of which an enlarged edition was published in English in 1704 by another hand. Dr. Howell died in 1683.

, successively bishop of Oxford and Durham, was born in St. Bride’s parish, London, in 1556, and educated at St. Paul’s school, whence he became student of Christ church, Oxford, in 1577. After taking his degrees in arts, and entering into holy orders, he was vicar of Bampton in Oxfordshire, rector of Brightwell in Berkshire, a fellow of Chelsea college, and canon of Hereford. When vice-chancellor of Oxford he exerted himself against those puritans who opposed the discipline and ceremonies, but was afterwards a more distinguished writer and preacher against popery. He appears to have entered the lists against Bellarmine and his friends with determined resolution, declaring “that he'd loosen the pope from his chair, though he were fastened thereto with a tenpenny nail.” King James commanded his polemical discourses, which are the most considerable of his works, to be printed, in 1622, 4to. They are all in the form of sermons.

He was, first, bishop of Oxford, and Sept. 28, 1628, translated to Durham, which he held only two years, dying Feb. 6, 1631, aged seventy-five, and was interred in St. Paul’s church, London, leaving behind him, as Wood says, (t the character of a very learned man, and one plentifully endowed with all those virtues which were most proper for a bishop.“ Hozier (Peter D'), a man famous in his time, and even celebrated by Boileau, for his skill in genealogies, was born of a good family at Marseilles, in 1592, and bred to military service; but very early applied himself with great zeal to that study for which he became so eminent. By his probity as well as talents, he obtained the confidence of Louis XIII. and XIV. and enjoyed the benefit of their favour in several lucrative and honourable posts. After rising through several appointments, such as judge of arms in 1641, and certifier of titles in 1643, he was admitted in, 1654 to the council of state. He died at Paris in 1660. Hozier was author of a History of Britany, in folio, and of many genealogical tables. His son, Charles, was born Feb. 24, 1640, at Paris. His father had given him some instructions in genealogy, which he made use of to draw up, under the direction of M. de Caumartin,” the Peerage of Champagne,“Chalons, 1673, folio, in form of an Atlas. He received the cross of St. Maurice from the duke of Savoy in 1631, and had also the office of judge of the arms of the French nobility, and was rewarded with a pension of 4000 livres. He died in 1732. This gentleman’s nephew succeeded him in his office, and died in 1767. He compiled the” L'Armorial, ou Registres de la Noblesse de France," 10 vols. folio. Such works, of late years, have been of very little use in France.

, a native of French Navarre, though he is usually supposed to be a Spaniard, lived in the seventeenth century. He gained great fame by a work which he published in Spanish, upon a very curious and interesting subject. The title of it runs thus: “Examen de ingenios para las Sciencias, &c. or, an examination of such geniuses as are fit for acquiring the sciences, and were born such: wherein, by marvellous and useful secrets, drawn from true philosophy both natural and divine, are shewn the gifts and different abilities found in men, and ibr what kind of study the genius of every man is adapted, in such a manner, that whoever shall read this book attentively, will discover the properties of his own genius, and be able to make choice of that science in which he will make the greatest improvement.” This book has been translated into several languages, and gone through several impressions. It was translated into Italian, and published at Venice in 1582; at least the dedication of that translation bears this date. It was translated into French by Gabriel Chappuis in 1580; but there is a better French version than this, by Savinien d'Alquie, printed at Amsterdam in 1672. He has taken in the additions inserted by Huarte in the last edition of his book, which are considerable both in quality and quantity. It has been translated also into Latin, and lastly, into English, by Carew and Bellamy. This very admired author has been highly extolled for acuteness and subtlety, and undoubtedly had a great share of these qualities: Bayle, however, thinks, that “it would not be prudent for any person to rely either on his maxims or authorities for,” says he, “he is not to be trusted on either of these heads, and his hypotheses are frequently chimerical, especially when he pretends to teach the formalities to be observed by those who would beget children of a virtuous turn of mind. There are, in this part of his book, a great many particulars repugnant to modesty (a discovery which we are surprized Bayle should have made): and he deserves censure for publishing, as a genuine and authentic piece, a pretended letter of Lentulus the proconsul from Jerusalem to the Roman senate, wherein a portrait is given of Jesus Christ, a description of his shape and stature, the colour of his hair, the qualities of his beard, &c.” The work, however, has now altogether lost its popularity, and deservedly.

, Hucbald, or Hugbald, a monk of St. Amand, in Flanders, who preceded Guido more than one hundred years, was contemporary with Remi, and author of a treatise on music, which is still subsisting in the king of France’s library, under the title of “Enchiridion Musicae,” No. 7202, transcribed in the eleventh century. In this work there 4s a kind of gammut, or expedient for delineating the several sourrds of the scale, in a way wholly different from his predecessors; but the method of Guido not only superseded this, but by degrees effaced the knowledge and remembrance of every other that had been adopted in the different countries and convents of Europe. However, the awkward attempts at singing in consonance, which appear in this tract, are curious, and clearly prove that Guido neither invented, nor, rude as it was before his time, much contributed to the improvement of this art.

Hubald was not only a musician, but a poet; and an idea may be formed of his patience and perseverance, if not of his genius, from a circumstance related by Sigebert, the author of his life, by which it appears that he vanquished a much greater difficulty in poetry than the lippogrammists of antiquity ever attempted: for they only excommunicated a single letter of the alphabet from a whole poem; but this determined monk composed three hundred verses in praise of baldness, which he addressed to the emperor Charles the Bald, and in which he obliged the letter C to take the lead in every word, as the initial of his patron’s name and infirmity, as thus:

, a celebrated anatomist, was born at Basle, in 1707. He was a pupil of Haller at Berne, in 1730, after which he studied at Strasburgh, and in 1733 took the degree of M. D. at his native place. He visited Paris in 1735, and in the same year was appointed physician to the court of Baden Dourlach. At the request of Haller, he examined the Graubund mountains, in Switzerland, and transmitted to him his collection of plants found in that district, previous to the publication of Haller’s work on the botany of Switzerland. Haller then invited him to Gottingen in 1738, to be dissector, where, having acquired considerable reputation, he was made extraordinary professor of anatomy in that city in 1739; professor in the Caroline college at Cassel, with the rank of court-physician, in 1742; and counsellor of state and body-physician to the prince in 1748. He died in 1778. His principal works are entitled, “Commentatio de Medulla Spinali, speciatim de Nervis ab ea provenientibus,” cum icon. Goett. 1741, 4to. “Commentatio de Vaginas Uteri structura rugosa, necnon *de Hymene,” 1742, 4to. He published a letter in the Philos. Transactions, vol. XLVI, “De cadavere aperto in quo non existit vesica fellea, et de Sterno gibboso.”

, a voluminous female author, was born at Geneva in 1710, and died at Lyons in 1753. Her principal works are, 1. “Le monde fou, prefere au monde sage,” 1731—1744, in 8vo. 2. “Le Systeme des Theologiens anciens et modernes, sur l'etat des Ames separees des corps,” 1731—1739, 12mo. 3. “Suite du meme ouvrage, servant de reponse a M. Ruchat,” 1731—1739, 12mo. 4. “Reduction du Spectateur Anglois.” This was an abridgment of the Spectator, and appeared in 1753, in six parts, duodecimo; but did not succeed. 5. “Lettres sur la Religion essentielle a l'homme,” 1739 1754. Mary Huber was a protestant, and this latter work, in particular, was attacked by the divines of the Romish communion. She had wit and knowledge, but was sometimes obscure, from wanting the talent to develope her own ideas.

, a native of Dockum, in the Dutch territories, famous as a lawyer, an historian, and a philologer, was born in 1635, and became professor at Franeker, and afterwards at Lewarde. He published, 1. in 1662, seven dissertations, “De genuina aetate Assyriorum, et regno Medorum.” Also, 2. A treatise “De Jure civitatis.” 3. “Jurisprudentia Frisiaca.” 4. “Specimen Philosophise civilis.” 5. “Institutiones Historiae civilis;” and several other works. From 1688, he was engaged in violent controversy with Perizonius, on some points of jurisprudence, and on his work last-mentioned, the “Institutiones historic civilis.” He died in 1694. The dispute with Perizonius was carried on with sufficient scurrility on both sides.

, son of the former, was born at Franeker in 1669; and afterwards advanced to the same professorships. He published in 1690, 1. “A dissertation” De vero sensu atque interpretatione, legis IX. D. de lege Pompeia, de Parricidis,“Franeker, 4to. 2. Also, <c Dissertation urn libri tres, quibus explicantur, &c. selecta juris publici, sacri, privatique capita,” Franeker, 1702. He died in 1732.

, a celebrated French preacher, was born in 1640, and was contemporary with Bourdaloue, whom, indeed, he could not rival, but was skilful enough to please; being esteemed by him one of the first preachers of the time. He was a priest of the congregation of the Oratory, and no less remarkable for his gentle piety and profound humility, than for his eloquence. He excelled consequently rather in the touching style of the sacred, than the vivid manner of the temporal orator. He was used to say, that his brother Massillon was fit to preach to the masters, and himself to the servants. He died in. 1717, after displaying his powers in the provinces, in the capital, and at court. Eight years after his death, in 1725, his sermons were published at Paris, in 6 vols. 12mo, and were much approved by all persons of piety and taste. “His manner of reasoning,” says his editor, father Monteuil, “had not that dryness which frequently destroys the effect of a discourse; nor did he employ that studied elocution which frequently enervates the style by an excess of polish.” The best composition in these volumes is the funeral oration on Mary of Austria. As a trait of his humility, it is related, that on being told by a person in a large company, that they had been fellow-students; he replied, “I cannot easily forget it, since you not only lent me books, but gave me clothes.”

, a native of Lusatia, or, according to some authorities, of Torgau, in Saxony, highly celebrated for his skill in history, geography, and genealogy, was born in 1668. His works were chiefly written in the form of question and answer, and so popular in Germany, that his introduction to geography went through a vast number of editions in that country, and has been translated into English, French, and other languages. His works, therefore, are calculated rather for the instruction, of the ignorant, than the satisfaction of the learned; but are well executed in their way. Hubner was professor of geography at Leipsic, and rector of the school at Hamburgh, in which city he died in 1731. His questions on modern and ancient geography were published at Leipsic in 1693, in 8vo, under the title of “Kurtze Fragen aus der newen und alten Geographic.” He published, 2. in 1697, and several subsequent years, in 10 volumes, similar questions on political history, entitled “Kurtze Fragen aus der Politischen Historic, bis zum Ausgang des Siebenzenden saeculi.” 3. His next work was Genealogical Tables, with genealogical questions subjoined, 1708, &c. 4. “Supplements to the preceding works. 5. Lexicons, resembling our Gazetteers, for the aid of common life, entitled fs Staats, Zeitungs, und Conversations-Lexico.” 6. A Genealogical Lexicon. 7. “Bibliotheca Historica Hamburgensis,” Leipsic, 1715. And, 8. “Museum Geographicum.” The two last were more esteemed by the learned than any of his other works.

, was an eminent English navigator, who flourished in high fame in the beginning of the seventeenth century. Where he was born and educated, we have no certain account; nor have we of any private circumstances of his life. The custom of discovering foreign countries for the benefit of trade not dying with queen Elizabeth, in whose reign it had been zealously pursued, Hudson, among others, attempted to find out a passage by the north to Japan and China. His first voyage was in 1607, at the charge of some London merchants; and his first attempt was for the north-east passage to the Indies. He departed therefore on the 1st of May; and after various adventures through icy seas, and regions intensely cold, returned to England, and arrived in the Thames Sept. 15. The year following he undertook a second voyage for discovering the same passage, and accordingly set sail with fifteen persons only, April 22; but not succeeding, returned homewards, and arrived at Gravesend on Aug. 26.

Not disheartened by his former unsuccessful voyages, he undertook again, in 1609, a third voyage to the same parts, for further discoveries; and was fitted out by the Dutch East India company. He sailed from Amsterdam with twenty men English and Dutch, March 25; and on April 25, doubled the North Cape of Finmark, in Norway. He kept along the coasts of Lapland towards Nova Zembla, but found the sea so full of ice that he could not proceed. Then turning about, he went towards America, and arrived at the coast of New France on July 18. He sailed from place to place, without any hopes of succeeding in their grand scheme; and the ship’s crew disagreeing, and being in danger of mutinying, he pursued his way homewards, and arrived Nov. 7, at Dartmouth, in Devonshire; of which he gave advice to his directors in Holland, sending them also a journal of his voyage. In 1610, he was again fitted out by some gentlemen, with a commission to try, if through any of those American inlets which captain Davis saw, but durst not enter, on the western side of Davis’s Streights, any passage might be found to the South Sea. They sailed from St. Catharine’s April 17, and on June 4, came within sight of Greenland. On the 9th they were off Forbisher’s Streights, and on the 15th came in sight of Cape Desolation. Thence they proceeded north-westward, among great quantities of ice, until they came to the mouth of the Streights that bear Hudson’s name. They advanced in those Streights westerly, as the land and ice would permit, till they got into the bay, which has ever since been called by the bold discoverer’s name, “Hudson’s Bay.” He gave names to places as he %vent along; and called the country itself “Nova Britan^­nia,” or New Britain. He sailed above 100 leagues south into this bay, being confident that he had found the desired passage; but perceiving at last that it was only a bay, he resolved to winter in the most southern point of it, with, an intention of pursuing his discoveries the following spring. Upon this he was so intent, that he did not consider how unprovided he was with necessaries to support himself during a severe winter in that desolate place. On Nov. 3, however, they drew their ship into a small creek, where they would all infallibly have, perished, if they had not been unexpectedly and providentially supplied with uncommon flights of wild fowl, which served them for provision. In the spring, when the ice began to waste, Hudson, in order to complete his discovery, made several efforts of various kinds; but notwithstanding all his endeavours, he found it necessary to abandon his enterprise, and to make the best of his way home; and therefore distributed to his men, with tears in his eyes, all the bread be had left, which was only a pound to each: though it is said other provisions were afterwards found in the ship. In his despair and uneasiness, he had let fall some threatening words, of setting some of his men on shore; upon which, a few of the sturdiest, who had before been very mutinous, entered his cabin in the night, tied his arms behind him, and exposed him in his own shallop at the west end of the streights, with his son, John Hudson, and seven of the most sick and infirm of his men. There they turned them adrift, and it is supposed that they all perished, being never heard of more. The crew proceeded with the ship for England; but going on shore near the streight’s mouth, four of them were killed by savages. The rest, after enduring the greatest hardships, and ready to die for want, arrived at Plymouth Sept. 1611.

, a learned English critic, was born at Widehope, near Cockermouth, in Cumberland, 1662; and, after having been educated in grammar and classical learning by Jerome Hechstetter, who lived in that neighbourhood, was entered in 1676 of Queen’s-college, Oxford. Soon after he had taken the degree of M. A. in 1684, he removed to University-college, of which he was unanimously chosen fellow in March 1686, and became a most considerable and esteemed tutor. In April 1701, on the resignation of Dr. Thomas Hyde, he was elected principal keeper of the Bodleian library; and in June following, accumulated the degrees of B. and D. D. With this librarian’s place, which he held till his death, he kept his fellowship till June 1711, when, according to the statutes of the college, he would have been obliged to resign it; but he had just before disqualified himself for holding it any longer, by marrying Margaret, daughter of sir Robert Harrison, knight, an alderman of Oxford, and a mercer. In 1712, he was appointed principal of St. Maryby the chancellor of the university, through the interest of Dr. Radcliffe; and it is said, that to Hudson’s interest with^this physician, the university of Oxford is obliged for the very ample benefactions she afterwards received from him. Hudson’s studious and sedentary way of life, and extreme abstemiousness, brought him at length into a bad habit of body, which turning to a dropsy, kept him about a year in a very languishing condition. He died Nov. 27, 1719, leaving a widow, and one daughter.

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.

, a portrait-painter of some celebrity, born in 1701, was the scholar and son-in-law of Richardson, and enjoyed for many years the chief business of portrait-painting in the capital, after the favourite artists, his master and Jervas, were gone off the stage. Though Vanloo first, and Liotard afterwards, for a few years diverted the torrent of fashion from the established professor, still the country gentlemen were faithful to their compatriot, and were content with his honest similitudes, and with the fair tied wigs, blue velvet coats, and white satin waistcoats, which he bestowed liberally on his customers, and which with complacence they beheld multiplied in Faber’s mezzotintos. The better taste introduced by sir Joshua Reynolds, who had been for some time his pupil, put an end to Hudson’s reign, who had the good sense to resign the throne soon after finishing his capital work, the family piece of Charles duke of Marlboro ugh, about 1756. He retired to a small villa he had built at Twickenham, on a most beautiful point of the river, and where he furnished the best rooms with a well- chosen collection of cabinet-pictures and drawings by great masters having purchased many of the latter from his father-inlaw’s capital collection. Towards the end of his life he married to his second wife, Mrs. Fiennes, a gentlewoman with a good fortune, to whom he bequeathed his villa. He died Jan. 26, 1779.

, one of the earliest Linniean botanists in England, was born in Westmoreland, about the year 1730. He served his apprenticeship to an apothecary in Panton-street, Haymarket, to whose business he succeeded, and with whose widow and daughters he continued to reside. His acquaintance with the amiable and learned Mr. Benjamin Stillingfleet greatly advanced his taste and information in natural history. This gentleman directed his attention to the writings of Linnæus, and gave his mind that correct and scientific turn, which caused him to take the lead as a classical English botanist, and induced him to become the author of the “Flora Anglica,” published in 1762, in one volume octavo. The plan of this book was, taking Kay’s “Synopsis” as a ground-work, to dispose his plants in order, according to the Linnaean system and nomenclature, with such additions of new species, or of new places of growth, as the author or his friends were able to furnish. The particular places of growth of the rarer species were given in Ray’s manner, in English, though the rest of the book was Latin. The elegant preface was written by Mr. Stillingfleet, and probably the concise, but not less elegant, dedication to the late duke of Northumberland, “artium, turn utilium, turn elegant ioruin, judici et patrono”

This publication gave Mr. Hudson a considerable rank as a botanist, not only in his own country, but on the eontinent, and derived no small advantage from a comparison with Dr. Hill’s attempt of the same kind. He had indeed previously, in the course of his medical practice, formed some valuable connexions, which were cemented by botanical taste; and his correspondence with Linnæus, Haller, and others, as well as amongst his countrymen, was frequent, and very useful to him in the course of his studies, which were extended, not only to botany in all its cryptogamic minutiae, but with great ardour also, to insects, shells, and other branches of British zoology. He was elected a fellow of the royal society Nov. 5th, and admitted Nov. 12th, 1761. He took the lead very much in. the affairs of the Apothecaries’ company, and was their botanical demonstrator in the Chelsea-garden for many years.

Mr. Hudson, having never married, continued to reside in Panton-street with the last surviving daughter of his friend and master, an amiable and valuable woman, married to Mr. Hole. His “Flora” being grown very scarce, he published, in 1778, a new edition, in two volumes, with many additions, and various alterations, which, on the whole, was worthy of the advanced state of the science.

Mr. Hudson’s tranquillity received a dreadful shock in the winter of 1783, when his house, and the greater part of his literary treasures, were destroyed by a sudden fire, caused, as it was believed, by the villany of a confidential servant, who knew of a considerable sum in money which his master had received a day or two before; and the insurance having been neglected, although for a short time only, the loss was considerable, in a pecuniary point of view, to a man whose resources were not extensive. He bore the whole like a philosopher and a Christian, giving up his practice, and retiring, with Mr. and Mrs. Hole, to a more economical residence in Jermyn-street, where he died May 23d, 1793, and was buried in St. James’s church.

, a Spanish poet and critic, and a member of the Spanish academy, was born at Zaira in Estremadura, about the year 1730. Among his countrymen he acquired considerable fame by the exercise of his poetical and critical talents, and was at least successful in one of his dramas, “La Raquel,” a tragedy, which, to many stronger recommendations, adds that of being exempt from the anachronisms and irregularities so often objected to the productions of the Spanish stage. He published “A Military library;” and “Poems” in 2 vols. printed at Madrid in 1778: but his principal work is his “Teatro Hespanol,” Madrid, 1785, 17 vols. 4to, a collection of what he reckoned the best Spanish plays, with prefaces, in which he endeavours to vindicate the honour of Spanish literature from the strictures of Voltaire, Linguet, Signorelli, and others of its adversaries; but on the whole, in the opinion of lord Holland, who appears well acquainted with this work, so far from retrieving the lost honours of the Spanish theatre, he has only exposed it to the insults and ridicule of its antagonists. La Huerta died about the close of the last century.

, bishop of Avranches in France, a very eminent scholar, was born of a good family at Caen in Normandy, Feb. 8, 1630. His parents dying when he was scarcely out of his infancy, Huet fell into the hands of guardians, who neglected him: his own invincible love of letters, however, made him amends for all disadvantages; and he finished his studies in the belles lettres before he was thirteen years of age. In the prosecution of his philosophical studies, he met with an excellent professor, father Mambrun, a Jesuit; who, alter Plato’s example, directed him to begin by learning a little geometry, and Huet contracted such a relish for it, that he went through every branch of mathematics, and maintained public theses at Caen, a thing never before done in that city. Having passed through his classes, it was his business to study the law, and to take his degrees in it; but two books then published, seduced him from this pursuit. These were, “The Principles of Des Cartes,” and “Bochart’s Sacred Geography.” He was a great admirer of Des Cartes, and adhered to his philosophy for many years; but afterwards saw reason to abandon it as a visionary fabrick, and wrote against it. Bochart’s geography made a more lasting impression upon him, as well on account of the immense erudition with which it abounds, as by his acquaintance with its author, who was minister of the Protestant church at Caen. This book, being full of Greek and Hebrew learning, inspired Huet with an ardent desire of being versed in those languages, and, to assist his progress in these studies, he contracted a friendship with Bochart, and put himself under his directions.

At the age of twenty years and one day, he was delivered by the custom of Normandy from the tuition of his guardians: and soon after took a journey to Paris, not so much from curiosity to see the place, as for the sake of purchasing books, and making himself acquainted with the learned men of the times. He soon became known to Sirmond, Petavius, Vavassor, Cossart, Rapin, Naude, and, in short, to almost all the scholars in France. With Petavius in particular he passed much of his time: he was a great admirer of the splendour of his diction, and the variety of his erudition; but he confesses, that in weighing the arguments which he offered in support of his dogmas, he perceived in them a degree of weakness and ambiguity, which obliged him to suspend his assent, and inclined him towards scepticism. Naturally excelling rather in genius than judgment, and the vigour of his understanding having been rather repressed than improved by an immense variety of reading, Huet found his mind too feeble to master the difficulties of metaphysical and theological studies, and concluded that his want of success in the search after truth was owing, not to any peculiar infelicity in his own case, but to the general imbecility of the human mind.

With this bias towards scepticism Huet entered upon his travels, and Christina of Sweden having invited Bochart to her court, Huet accompanied him, in April 1652. He saw Salmasius at Leyden, and Isaac Vossius at Amsterdam. He often visited the queen, who would have engaged him. in her service; but Bochart not having been very graciously received, through the intrigues of Bourdel, another physician, who was jealous of him, and the queen’s fickle temper being well known, Huet declined^ all offers, and after a stay of three months returned to France. The chief fruit of his journey was a copy of a manuscript of Origen’s “Commentaries upon St. Matthew,” which he transcribed at Stockholm; and the acquaintance he contracted with the learned men in Sweden and Holland, through which he passed. Upon his return to his own country, Caen, he resumed his studies with more vigour than ever, in order to publish his manuscript of Origen . While he was employed in translating this work, he was led to consider the rules to be observed in translations, as well as the different manners of the most celebrated translators. This gave occasion to his first performance, which came out at Paris in 1661, under this title, “De interpretatione libri duo:” and it is written in the form of a dialogue between Casaubon, Fronto Ducaeus, and Thuanus. M. de Segrais tells us, that tf nothing can be added to this treatise, either with respect to strength of critical judgment, variety of learning, or elegance of style;“” which last,“says abbe Olivet,” is so very extraordinary, that it might have done honour to the age of Augustus.“This book was first printed in a thin 4to, but afterwards in 12mo and 8vo^ In 1688, were published at Rouen, in 2 vo!s. folio, his” Origenis Commentaria, &e. cum Latina interpretatione, notis & observationibus;“to which is prefixed, a large preliminary discourse, in which is collected all that antiquity relates of Origen. The interval of sixteen years, between his return from Sweden and the publication of this work, was spent entirely in study, excepting a month or two every year, when he went to Paris; during which time he gave the public a specimen of his skill in polite literature, in an elegant collection of poems, entitled” Carmina Latina & Grajca;“which were published at Utrecht in 1664, and afterwards enlarged in several successive editions. While he was employed upon his” Commentaries of Origen,“he had the misfortune to quarrel with his friend and master Bochart; who desiring one day a sight qf his manuscript for the sake of consulting some passages about the Encbarist, which had been greatly controverted between Papists and Protestants, discovered an hiatus or defect, which seemed to determine the sense in favour of the Papists, and reproached Huet with being the contriver of it. Huet at first thought that it was a defect in the original ms. but upon consulting another very antient ms. in the king’s libra' Paris, he found that he had omitted some words in the harry of transcribing, as he says, and that the mistake was his own. Bochart, still supposing that this was a kind of pious fraud in Huet, to support the doctrine of the church of Rome in regard to the Eucharist, warned the Protestants against Hoet’s edition of Origen’s” Commentaries," and dissolved the friendship which had so long subsisted between Huet and himself.

In 1659 Huet was invited to Rome by Christina, who bad abdicated her crown, and retired thither; but, remembering the cool reception which Bochart had experienced from her majesty after as warm an invitation, he refused to go. His literary reputation, however, Bossuet was appointed by the king preceptor to the Dauphin, procured him to be chosen for his colleague, with the title of sub-preceptor, which honour had some time been designed him by the duke de Montausier, governor to the Dauphin. He went to court in 1670, and staved there till 1680, when the Dauphin was married. Though his employment must of necessity occupy a considerable part of his time, he found enough to complete his “Demonstratio Evangelica,” which, though a great and laborious work, was begun and ended amidst the embarrassments of a court *. It was published at Paris in 1679, in folio; and has been reprinted since in folio, 4to, and 8vo. Huet owns that this work was better received by foreigners than by his own countrymen; many of whom considered it as a work full of learning indeed, but utterly devoid of that demonstration to which it so formally and pompously pretends. Others, less equitable, borrowed from it, and attacked it at the same time, to cover their plagiarism; which Huet complains of. Father Simon had a design of Baking an abridgment“of this work; bat Haet being informed that his purpose was likewise to alter it as he thought proper, desired him to excuse himself that trouble. Huet was employed on the editions of the classics” in usum Delphini:" for though the first idea of these was started by the duke de Montausier, yet Huet formed the plan, and directed the execution, as far as the capacity of the persons employed in that work would permit. He undertook, he tells us, only to promote and conduct the work, but at last came in for a share of it, in completing Faye’s edition of Manilius. He was also chosen a member of the French academy and his speech pronounced on the occasion before that illustrious body was published at Paris in 1674.

While he was employed in composing his “Demonstratio Evangel. ca,” the sentiments of piety, which he had cherished from his earliest youth, moved him to enter into orders, which he did at the late age of forty-six; and be tells us, that previous to this he gradually laid aside the lay habit and outward appearances. In 1678, he was presented by the king to the abbey of Aunay in Normandy, which was so agreeable to him, tiiat be retired there every summer, after he had left the court. In 1685, he was nominated to the bUho;>ric of Soissons but before the bulls for his institution were expedited, the abbe de Sillery having been nominated to the see of Avranches, they exchanged bishoprics with the consent of the king; though, owing to the differences between the court of France and that of Rome, they could not be consecrated till 1692. In 1689, he published his “Censura Philosophise Cartesians,” and addressed it to the duke de Montausier: it appears that he was greatly piqued at the Cartesians, when he wrote this book; but it may be questioned whether he thoroughly understood the system. In 1690, be published in Caen, in 4to, his “Qusestiones Ainetanse de Concordia Rationis & Fidei” which is written in the form of a dialogue, after the manner of Cicero’s Tusculan Questions. In this he endeavours to fix the respective limits of reason and faith, and maintains, that the dogmas and precepts of each have no alliance, and that there is nothing, however, contradictory to common sense, or to good morals, which has not been received, and which we may not be bound to receive, as a dictate of faith. He honestly confesses that he wrote this work to establish the authority of tradition against the empire of reason.

In 1699, he resigned his bishopric of Avranches, and was presented to the abbey of Fontenay, near the gates of Caen. His love to his native place determined him to fix there, for which purpose he improved the house and gardens belonging to the abbot. But several grievances and law-suits obliged him to remove to Paris, where he lodged among the Jesuits in the Maison Professe“, whom he had made heirs to his library, reserving to himself the use of it while he lived. Here he spent the last twenty years of his life, dividing his time between devotion and study. He did not consider the Bible as the only book to be read, but thought that all other books must be read, before it could be rightly understood. He employed himself chiefly in writing notes on the vulgate translation: for which purpose he read over the Hebrew text twenty-four times; comparing it, as he went along, with the other Oriental texts, and spent every day two or three hours in this work from 1681 to 1712. He was then seized with a very severe distemper, which confined him to his bed for near six months, and brought him so very low, that he was given up by his physicians, and received extreme unction. Recovering, however, by degrees, he applied himself to the writing of his life, which was published at Amsterdam in 1718, in 12mo, underline title of” Pet. Dan. Huetii, Episcopi Abrincensts, Commentarius de rebus ad eum pertinentibus:“where the critics have wondered, that so great a master of Latin as Huetius was, and who has written it, perhaps, as well as any of the moderns, should be guilty of a solecism in the very title of his book; in writing” eum,“when he should have manifestly written” se.“This performance, though drawn up in a very amusing and entertaining manner, and with great elegance of style, is not executed with that order and exactness which appear in his other works: his memory being then decayed, and afterwards declining more and more, so that he was no longer capable of a continued work, but only committed detached thoughts to paper. Olivet in the mean time relates a most remarkable singularity of him, namely, that,” for two or three hours before his death, he recovered all the vigour of his genius and memory." He died January 26, 1721, in his 91st year.

Besides the works -which we have mentioned in the course of this memoir, he published others of a similar nature, viz. “De l'Origine des Romans,” 1670; published in English 1672, 12mo. “De la situation du Paradis Terrestre,” 1691. “Nouveaux Memoires pour servir a l'Histoire du Cartesianisrne,” 1692. “Statuts Synodaux pour le diocese d'Avranches, &c.” 1693 to which were added three supplements in the years 1695, 1696, 1698. “De Navigationibus Salomonis,” Amst. 1698. “Notse in Anthologiam Epigrammatum Grsecorum,” Ultraj. 1700. “Origines de Caen,” Roan, 1702. “Lettres a Mons. Perrault, sur le Parallele des Anciens & des Modernes, du 10 Oct. 1692,” printed without the author’s knowledge in the third part of the “Pieces Fugitives,” Paris, 1704. “Examen du sentiment de Longin sur ce passage de la Genese, Et Dieu dit, que la lumiere soit faite, & la lumiere fut faite,” inserted in tome X of Le Clerc’s “Bibliotheque Choisee,” Amst. 1706. Huet, in his “Demonstratio Evangelica,” had asserted, that there was nothing sublime in this passage, as Longinus had observed, but that it was perfectly simple. Messrs, de Port Royal and Boileau, who gave translations of Longinus, asserted its sublimity on that very account; and this occasioned the “Examen” just mentioned. “Lettre a M. Foucault, conseiller d‘etat, sur l’origine de la Poesie Franchise, du 16 Mar. 1706,” inserted in the “Memoires de Trevoux,” in 1711. “Lettre de M. Morin (that is, of M. Huet,) de Tacademie des inscriptions a M. Huet, tonchant le livre de M. Tolandus Anglois, intitule, Adeisidtemon, & Origines Judaicce,” inserted in the “Memoires de Trevoux” for Sept. 1709, and in the collection which the abbe* Tilladet published of Huet’s works, under the title of “Dissertations sur diverses rnatieres de la Religion & de Philologie,” 1712. “Histoire de Commerce & de la Navigation des Anciens,” 1716. After his death were published, “Traite Philosophique de laFoiblesse de I'esprit huniain,” Amst. 1723; in which the sceptical spirit which followed Huet through every change of situation appears in its full vigour. Of this work, which was originally written in French, the author left behind him a Latin translation. It has also been translated into English. “Huetiana, ou pensees diverses de M. Huet,” 1722. These contain those loose thoughts he committed to paper after his last illness, when, as we have already observed, he was incapable of producing a connected work. “Diana de Castro, ou le faux Yncas,” 1728, a romance, written when he was very young. There are yet in being other Mss. of his, which, as far we know, have not been published; viz. “A Latin translation of Longus’s Loves of Daphnis and Chloe;” “An Answer to Regis, with regard to Des Cartes’s Metaphysics;” “Notes upon the Vulgate translation of the Bible;” and a collection of between 5 and 600 letters in Latin and French written to learned men.

On the whole, though it cannot be questioned that Huet, on account of his great learning and fertile genius, may justly claim to have his name preserved with honour in the republic of letters, several circumstances must prevent us from ranking him among the first philosophers of the seventeenth century. Better qualified to accumulate testimonies than to investigate truth, and more disposed to raise difficulties than to solve them, he was an injudicious advocate for a good cause. If we are not very much mistaken, Huet did not strictly adhere to the scholastic art of reasoning which he had learned in the schools of the Jesuits; otherwise he must have seen that there can be no room for faith, or for, what he artfully conceals under that name, the authority of the church, if every criterion of truth be rejected, and human reason be pronounced a blind and fallacious guide.

. There are several ecclesiastics of this name in French history, few of which perhaps will be thought now very interesting. St. Hugh, bishop of Grenoble in 1080, was a native of Chateau-neuf-sur-PIsere, near Valence in Dauphiny, who received St. Bruno and his companions, and fixed them in the Grande Chartreuse. He was author of a Cartulary, some fragments of which are in Mabillon’s posthumous works, and in Allard’s Memoirs of Dauphiny, 1711 and 1727, 2 vols. fol. He died April 1, 1132. He must be distinguished from the subject of the next article.

, a saint of the Romish calendar, was of a very distinguished family in Burgundy, and was born in 1023. When he was only fifteen, he rejected all worldly views, and entered into the monastic life at Cluni, under the guidance of the abbot Odilon. After some years, he was created prior of the order, and abbot in 1048, at the death of Odilon. In this situation he extended the reform of Cluni to so many monasteries, that, according to an ancient author, he had under his jurisdiction above ten thousand monks. In 1058 he attended pope Stephen when dying, at Florence; and in 1074 he made a religious pilgrimage to Rome. Some epistles written by him are extant in Dacheri Spicilegium. There are also other pieces by him in the “Bibliotheque de Cluni.” He died in 1108 or 9. He is said to have united moderation with his exemplary piety; and was embroiled, at one time, with the bishop of Lyons, for saying the prayer for the emperor Henry IV. when that prince was under excommunication.

, or de St. Marie, a celebrated monk of the abbey of Fleury towards the end of the 11th century, was called Hugh de St. Marie from the name of a village which belonged to his father. He is little known but by his works, which are two books: “De la Puissance Royale, et de la Dignite” Sacerdotale,“dedicated to Henry king of England, in which he establishes with great solidity the rights and bounds of the priestly and royal powers, in opposition to the prejudices which prevailed at that time. This work may be found in torn. IV. of the” Miscellanea“of Beluze. % He wrote also” A Chronicle," or History, from the beginning of the world to 840, and a small Chronicle from 996 to 1109, Minister, 163S, 4to, valuable and scarce. It may also be found in Troher’s collection.

, born in 1065, was a monk of St. Vannes at Verdun, and afterwards abbot of Flavigny in the 12th century, but was dispossessed of that dignity by the bishop of Autun, who caused another abbot to be elected. Hugh, however, supplanted St. Laurentius, abbot of Vannes, who was persecuted by the bishop of Verdun for his attachment to the pope, and kept his place till 1115, after which time it is not known what became of him. He wrote the “Chronicle of Verdun,” which is esteemed, and may be found in P. Labbe’s * Bibl. Manuscript."

, also called Hugh Of Rouen, left Amiens, his native place, and going to England was made first, abbot of Roding, and afterwards bishop of Rouen, 1130, and died 1164. He has the character in his church of being one of the greatest, most pious, and most learned bishops of his age. He wrote three books for the instruction of his clergy, which are in the library of the fathers, and P. d'Achery has printed them at the end of Guibert de Nogent’s works. Some other pieces by Hugh may be found in the collections by Martenne and Durand.

, an eminent divine in the 12th century, originally of Flanders, devoted himself to religion in the abbey of St. Victor at Paris, at that time governed by its first abbot Gilduin in 1115, and taught theology with so much reputation, that he was called a second Augustine. He died in 1142, aged 44, after having been prior to St. Victor, leaving several works, in which he imitates St. Augustine’s style, and follows his doctrine. The principal among these is a large treatise “On the Sacraments.” They have all been printed at Rouen, 1648, 3 vols. fol. and some may also be found in Madeline’s “Thesaurus.”

, a celebrated cardinal of the Dominican order, was so called from the place of his birth, at the gates of Vienne, where there is a church dedicated to St. Cher. He acquired great reputation in the 13th century by his prudence, learning, and genius; was doctor of divinity of the faculty of Paris, appointed provincial of his order, afterwards cardinal by Innocent IV. May 28, 1244, and employed by this pope and his successor Alexander IV. in affairs of the greatest consequence. He died March 19, 1263, at Orvieto. His principal works are a collection of the various readings of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin Mss. of the bible, entitled “Correctorium Bibliae,” which is in the Sorbonne in ms.; a “Concordance of the Bible,” Cologn, 1684, 8vo; the earliest work of this kind. He is said to have been the inventor of concordances. “Commentaries on the Bible” “Speculum Ecclesiae,” Paris, 1480, 4to, &c.

, an English poet, was son of a citizen of London, and born at Marlborough in Wiltshire July 29, 1677. He was educated at a dissenting academy, under the care of Mr. Thomas Rowe, where, at the same time, the afterwards celebrated Dr. Isaac Watts was a student, whose piety and friendship for Mr. Hughes induced him to regret that he employed any part of his talents in writing for the stage. Mr. Hughes had a weak or at least a delicate constitution, which perhaps restrained him from severer studies, and inclined him to pursue the softer arts of poetry, music, and drawing; in each of which he made considerable progress. Hk acquaintance with the Muses and the Graces did not render him averse to business; he had a place in the office of ordnance, and was secretary to several commissions under the great seal for purchasing lands, in order to the better securing of the royal docks and yards at Portsmouth, Chatham, and Harwich. He continued, however, to cultivate his taste for letters, and added to a competent knowledge of the ancient, an intimate acquaintance with the modern languages. The first testimony he gave the public of his poetic vein, was in a poesi “on the peace of Ryswick,” printed in 1697, and received with uncommon approbation. In 1699, “The Court of Neptune” was written by him on king William’s return from Holland; and, the same year, a song on the duke of Gloucester’s birth-day. In the year 1702, he published, on the death of king William, a Pindaric ode, entitled “Of the House of Nassau,” which he dedicated to Charles duke of Somerset and in 1703 his “Ode in Praise of Music” was performed with great applause at Stationers’-hall.

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 man of his amiable character was undoubtedly regretted; and Steele devoted an essay in the paper called “The Theatre,” to the memory of his virtues. In 1735 his poems were collected and published in. 2 vols. 12 mo, under the following title: “Poems on several occasions, with some select Kssays in prose.” Hughes was also the author of other works in prose. “The Advices from Parnassus,” and “The Political Touchstone of Boccalini,” translated by several hands, and printed in folio, 1706, “were revised, corrected, and had a preface prefixed to them, by him. He translated himself” Fontenelle’s Dialogues of the Dead, and Discourse concerning the Ancients and Moderns;“”the Abbé Vertot’s History of the Revolutions in Portugal;“and” Letters of Abelard and Heloisa.“He wrote the preface to the collection of the” History of England“by various hands, Called” The Complete History of England,“printed in 1706, in 3 vols. folio; in which he gives a clear, satisfactory, and impartial account of the historians there collected. Several papers in the” Tatlers,“” Spectators,“and” Guardians,“were written by him. He is supposed to have written the whole, or at least a considerable part, of the” Lay Monastery,“consisting of Essays, Discourses, &c. published singly under the title of the” Lay Monk,“being the sequel of the” Spectators.“The second edition of this was printed in 1714, 12mo. Lastly, he published, in 1715, an accurate edition of the works of Spenser, in 6 vols. 12mo; to which are prefixed the” Life of Spenser,“”An Essay on Allegorical Poetry,“” Remarks on the Fairy Queen, and other writings of Spenser,“and a glossary, explaining old words; all by Mr. Hughes. This was a work for which he was well qualified, as a judge of the beauties of writing, but he wanted an antiquary’s knowledge of the obsolete words. He did not much revive the curiosity of the public, for near thirty years elapsed before his edition was reprinted. The character of his genius is not unfairly given in the correspondence of Swift and Pope.” A month ago,“says Swift,” was sent me over, by a friend of mine, the works of John Hughes, esq. They are in prose and verse. I never heard of the man in my life, yet I find your name as a subscriber. He is too grave a poet for me; and I think among the mediocrists, in prose as well as verse.“To this Pope returns:” To answer your question as to Mr. Hughes; what he wanted in genius, he made up as an honest man; but he was of the class you think him."

, was the younger brother of Mr. John Hughes, and, like him, a votary of the Muses, and an excellent scholar. He was born in 1685. He published, in 1714, in 8vo, a translation of “The Rape of Proserpine,” from Claudian, and “The Story of Sektus and Erictho,” from Lucan’s “Pharsalia,” book vi. These translations, with notes, were reprinted in 1723, 12mo. He also published, in 1717, a translation of Suetonius’ s “Lives of the Twelve Caesars,” and translated several “Novels” from the Spanish of Cervantes, which are inserted in the “Select Collection of Novels and Histories,” printed for Watts, 1729. He died Jan. 17, 1731. A posthumous volume of his “Miscellanies in Verse and Prose” was published in 1737. His widow accompanied the lady of governor Byng to Barbadoes, and died there in 1740.

, of a different family from the former, was born in 1682, and became a fellow of Jesus college, Cambridge. He was called by bishop Atterbury “a learned hand,” and is known to the republic of letters as editor of St Chrysostom’s treatise “On the Priesthood.” Two letters of his to Mr. Bonwicke are printed in “The Gentleman’s Magazine,” in one of which he says, “I have at last been prevailed on to undertake an edition of St. Chrysostom’s tsefi itfaxrvws, and I would beg the favour of you to send me your octavo edition. I want a small volume to lay by me; and the Latin version may be of some service to me, if I cancel the interpretation of Fronto Ducaeus.” A second edition of this treatise was printed at Cambridge in Greek and Latin, with notes, and a preliminary dissertation against the pretended “Rights of the Church,” &c. in 1712. A good English translation of St. Chrysostom “On the Priesthood,” a posthumous work by the Rev. John Bunce, M. A. was published by his son (vicar of St. Stephen’s near Canterbury) in 1760. Mr. Hughes died Nov. 18, 1710, and was buried in the church of St. Nicholas, Deptford, where there is a long Latin inscription to his memory.

, a learned Jesuit, was born at Brussels in 1588; and died of the plague at Rhinberg in 1639. He published his first work in 1617, which was “De prima scribendi origine, et universae rei literarise antiquitate,” Antwerp, 8vo. This book was republished by Trotzius in 1738, with many notes. 2. “Obsidio Bredana, sub Ambrosio Spinola,” Antwerp, 1629, folio. 3. “Militia equestris, antiqua et nova,” Antwerp, 1630, folio. 4. His “Pia JDesideria,” the work by which he is best known, was first published in 1632, 8vo, and reprinted in 32mo, with all the clearness of Elzevir, and adorned with rather fanciful engravings. These “Pia Desideria” are in Latin, and consist of three books, the subjects of which are thus arranged. B. 1. “Gemitus Animae penitentis.” 2. “Vota animae sanctas.” 3. “Suspiria animae amantis.” They consist of long paraphrases in elegiac verse, on various passages of scripture. His versification is usually good, but he wants simplicity and sublimity; yet he is sometimes p oetical, though his muse is not like that of David.

, a voluminous author in Latin and French, whose works, from their subjects, are little known here, was a canon of the Premonstratensian order, a doctor of divinity, abbe of Etival, and titular bishop of Ptolemais. He died at an advanced age, in 1735. His works are, 1. “Annales Praemonstratensium,” a history of his own order, and a very laborious work, in two volumes, folio; illustrated with plans of the monasteries, and other curious particulars; but accused of some remarkable errors. 2. “Vie de St. Norbert Fondateur des Premontres,” 1704, 4to. 3. “Sacrae antiquitatis monumenta historica, dogmatica, diplomatica,” 1725, 2 vols. folio. 4. “Trait historique et critique de la Maison de Lorraine,” 1711, 3vo. This being a work of some boldness, not only the name of the author, but that of the place where it was printed, was concealed: the former being professedly Balcicourt, the latter Berlin, instead of Nanci. Yet the author was traced out, and fell under the censure of the parliament, in 1712. In 1713, he published another work, 5. entitled “Reflexions sur les deux Ouvrages concernant la Maison de Lorraine,” where he defends his former publication.

, a protestant divine, of a considerable family, was born at Zurich in 1683, and was educated partly at home, and partly at Bremen, devoting his chief attention to the study of the Hebrew language and the writings of the Rabbins. From Bremen he went to Holland, where he published at Leyden a very curious book, not in 4to, as Moreri says, but in 8vo, -entitled “Sepher Toledot Jescho,” or the history of Jesus Christ, written by a Jew, full of atrocious calumnies, which Huldrich refutes in his notes. The work is in Hebrew and Latin. On his return to Zurich in 1706, he was made chaplain of the house of orphans, and four years after professor of Christian morals, in the lesser college, to which was afterwards added the professorship of the law of nature. This led him to write a commentary on Puffendorff “on the duties of men and citizens.” His other works are the “Miscellanea Tigurina,” 3 vols. 8vo, and some sermons in German. He died May 25, 1731. Zimmerman, who wrote his life, published also a Sermon of his on the last words of St. Stephen. He was a man of considerable learning, and of great piety, sincerity, and humility.

, a late dramatic and miscellaneous writer, and an actor, was born in the Strand, London, in 1728, where his father was in considerable practice as an apothecary. He was educated at the Charter-house, with a view to the church, but afterwards embraced his father’s profession, which, however, he was obliged to relinquish after an unsuccessful trial. What induced him to go on the stage we know not, as nature had not been very bountiful to him in essential requisites. He performed, however, for some time in the provincial theatres, and in 1759 obtained an engagement at Covent-garden theatre, which he never quitted, unless for summer engagements. In one of these he became acquainted with Shenstone the poet, who, observing his irreproachable moral conduct, so different from that of his brethren on the stage, patronized him as far as he was able, and assisted him in writing his tragedy of “Henry II.” and “Rosamund.” It was indeed Mr. Hull’s moral character which did every thing for him. No man could speak seriously of him as an actor, but all spoke affectionately of his amiable manners and undeviating integrity. He was also a man of some learning, critically skilled in the dramatic art, and the correspondent of some of the more eminent literary men of his time. His poetical talents were often employed, and always in the cause of humanity and virtue, but he seldom soared above the level of easy and correct versification. In prose, perhaps, he is entitled to higher praise, but none of his works have had more than temporary success. He died at his house at Westminster, April 22, 1808. For the stage he altered, or wrote entirely, nineteen pieces, of which a list may be seen in our authority. His other works were, I. “The History of sir William Harrington,” a novel, 1771, 4 vols. 2. “Genuine Letters from a gentleman to a young lady his pupil,” 1772, 2 vols. 3. “Richard Plantagenet,” a legendary tale, 1774, 4to. 4. “Select Letters between the late duchess of Somerset, lady Luxborough, miss Dolman, Mr. Whistler, Mr. Dodsley, Shenstone, and others,” 1778, 2 vols. This is now the most interesting of his publications, and contains many curious particulars of literary history and opinions. The letters were given to him by Shenstone. 5. “Moral Tales in verse,” 1797, 2 vols. 8vo.

, an English physician, was born at Holme Torp in Yorkshire, June 17, 1732, and was taught the rudiments of medical science by his brother, Dr. Joseph Hulme, an eminent physician at Halifax, and afterwards was a pupil at Guy’s hospital. In 1755, he served in the capacity of surgeon in the navy, and being stationed at Leith after the peace of 1763, he embraced the favourable opportunity of prosecuting his medical studies at Edinburgh, where he took his degree of doctor in 1765. His inaugural thesis was entitled “Dissertatio Medica Inauguralis de Scorbuto.” Soon after his graduation, he settled in London as a physician, intending to devote his attention particularly to the practice of midwifery. This, however, he soon relinquished: and, on the establishment of the general dispensary (the first institution of the kind in London), he was appointed its first physician. He was also some time physician to the City of London Lying-in hospital. About 1774, he was, through the influence of lord Sandwich, then first lord of the admiralty, elected physician to the Charter-house His other official situations he resigned many years before his death, and withdrew himself at the same time in a great measure from the active exercise of his profession; but continued in the Charter-house during the remainder of his life. In March 1807, he was bruised by a fall, of which he died on the 28th of that month, and was buried at his own desire in the pensioners’ burial ground, followed by twenty-four physicians and surgeons, who highly respected his character.

Dr. Hulme was the author of several dissertations; viz. a republication of his thesis, with additions, 1768. “A treatise on Puerperal Fever,” 1772. An oration “De Re Medica cognostenda et promovenda,” delivered at the anniversary of the medical society in 1777, to which a small tract was annexed, entitled “Via tuta et jucunda Calculum solvendi in vesica urinaria inhaerentem.” An enlarged edition of this tract, in English, appeared in the following year, under the title of “A safe and easy Remedy for the relief of the Stone and Gravel, the Scurvy, Gout, &c. and for the destruction of Worms in the human body illustrated by cases together with an extemporaneous method of impregnating water and other liquids with fixed air, by simple mixture only, &c.” 1778. In 1787 he was presented with a gold medal by the royal society of medicine at Paris, for his treatise on the following prize question, “Rechercher quelles sont les causes de i'endurcissement de tissu cellulaire auquel plusieurs enfans nouveauxnés sont sujets.” In 1800, Dr. Hulme instituted a series of experiments “on the light spontaneously emitted from various bodies,” an account of which was published in the Philosophical Transactions of that and the following year. He had been chosen a fellow of that society in 1794, and of the society of antiquaries in 1795. To the Archaeologia he contributed an account of a brick brought from the site of ancient Babylon. Dr. Hulme was also one of the editors of the “London Practice of Physic.” In 1791, a Mr. Obadiah Hulme died in Charter-house square, author of an “Historical Essay on the English Constitution,” and other tracts, probably a relation of Dr. Hulme.

, 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”

Never, however, according to the avowal of the author himself, was any literary attempt more unsuccessful. “It fell,” he says, “dead born from the press, without reaching such distinction as even to excite a murmur among the zealots.” He adds, however, that “being naturally of a cheerful and sanguine temper, he soon recovered the blow.” But this equanimity, we shall afterwards find was mere affectation, nor was the work quite unnoticed. It was criticised with great ability in the only review of that period, “The Works of the Learned;” and from a perusal of the article, we have no hesitation in ascribing it to Warburton. Whether it be true, that Hume called on Jacob Robinson, the publisher, and demanded satisfaction, we will not affirm. One remark of the Reviewer seems somewhat singular, and it may be thought prophetic. “This work abounds throughout with egotisms. The author would scarcely use that form of speech more frequently, if he had written his own memoirs.”

In 1742, he printed, with more success, the first part of his “Essays.” In 1745, he lived with the marquis of Annandale, the state of that nobleman’s mind and health requiring such an attendant: the emoluments of the situation must have been his motive for undertaking such a charge. He then received an invitation from general St. Clair, to attend him as a secretary to his expedition; which was at first meant against Canada, but ended in an incursion upon the coast of France. Next year, 1747, he attended the general in the same station, in his military embassy to the courts of Vienna and Turin: he then wore the uniform of an officer, and was introduced to these courts as aid-de-camp to the general. These two years were almost the only interruptions which his studies received during the course of his life: his appointments, however, had made him in his own opinion “independent; for he was now master of near 1000l.”

Having always imagined, that his want of success, in publishing the *' Treatise of Human Nature,“proceeded more from the manner than the matter, he cast the first part of that work anew, in the” Inquiry concerning Human Understanding,“which was published while he was at Turin; but with little more success. He perceived, however, some symptoms of a rising reputation: his books grew more and more the subject of conversation; and” I found,“says he,” by Dr. Warburton’s railing, that they were beginning to be esteemed in good company.“In 1752, were published at Edinburgh, where he then lived, his” Political Discourses;“and the same year, at London, his” Inquiry concerning the Principles of Morals.“Of the former he says,” that it was the only work of his which was successful on the first publication, being well received abroad and at home:“and he pronounces the latter to be,” in his own opinion, of all his writings, historical, philosophical, or literary, incomparably the best; although it came unnoticed and unobserved into the world."

In 1754, he published the first volume, in 4to, of “A Portion of English History, from the Accession of James I. to the Revolution.” He strongly promised himself success from this work, thinking himself the first English historian that was free from bias in his principles: but he says, “that he was herein miserably disappointed and that, instead of pleasing all parties, he had made himself obnoxious to all.” He was, as he relates, “so discouraged with this, that, had not the war at that time been breaking out between France and England, he had certainly retired to some provincial town of the former kingdom, changed his name, and never more have returned to his native country.” The “cheerful and sanguine temper” of which he formerly boasted, had now forsaken him, and the philosopher had dwindled to a mere irritable author. He recovered himself, however, so far, as to publish, in 1756, his second volume of the same history and this was better received. “It not only rose itself,” he says, “but helped to buoy up its unfortunate brother.” Between these publications came out, along with some other small pieces, his “Natural History of Religion:” which, though but indifferently received, was in the end the cause of some consolation to him; because, as he expresses himself, “Dr. Hurd wrote a pamphlet against it, with all the illiberal petulance, arrogance, and scurrility, which distinguish the Warburtonian school;” so well aware was he, that, to an author, attack of any kind is much more favourable than neglect. Dr. Hurd, however, was only the ostensible author; he has since declared expressly, that it proceeded from Warburton himself. In 1759, he published his “History of the House of Tudor;” and, in 1761, the more early part of the English History: each in 2 vols. 4to. The clamour against the former of these was almost equal to that against the history of th two first Stuarts; and the latter was attended with but tolerable success: but he was now, he tells us, grown callous against the impressions of public censure. He had, indeed, what he would think good reason to be so; for the copy-money given by the booksellers for his history, exceptionable as it was deemed, had made him not only independent, but opulent.

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.

, a learned English writer, was born at Newport Pagnell in Buckinghamshire, about 1527, and had his school education at Cambridge; after which he became first a demy, then a fellow, of Magdalen-college in Oxford. He took the degree of M. A. in 1552, and about that time was made Greek reader of his college, and entered into orders. In June 1555 he had leave from his college to travel into foreign countries; he went to Zurich, and associated himself with the English there, who had fled from their country on account of their religion. After the death of queen Mary he returned to England, and was restored to his fellowship in Magdalen college, from which he had been expelled because he did not return within the space of a year, which was one condition on which he was permitted to travel; another was, that he should refrain from all heretical company. In 1560 he was appointed the queen’s professor of divinity at Oxford; and the year after elected president of his college. In 1562 he took both the degrees in divinity; and, in 1570, was made dean of Gloucester. In 1580 he was removed to the deanery of Winchester; and had probably been promoted to a bishopric if he had not been disaffected to the church of England. For Wood tells us, that from the city of Zurich, where the preaching of Zuinglius had fashioned people’s notions, and from the correspondence he had at Geneva, he brought back with him so much of the Calvinist both in doctrine and discipline, that the best which could be said of him was, that he was a moderate and conscientious nonconformist. This was at least the opinion of several divines, who used to call him and Dr. Fulke of Cambridge, standard-bearers among the nonconformists; though others thought they grew more conformable in the end. Be this as it will, “sure it is,” says Wood, that “Humphrey was a great and general scholar, an able linguist, a deep divine and for his excellency of style, exactness of method, and substance of matter in his writings, went beyond most of our theologists .” He died in Feb. 1590, N. S. leaving a wife, by whom he had twelve children. His writings are, 1 “Epistola de Graecis literis, et Homeri lectione et imitatione;” printed before a book of Hadrian Junius, entitled “Cornucopias,” at Basil, 1558. 2. “De Religionis conservatione et reformatione, deque primatu regum, Bas. 1559.” 3. “De ratione interpretandi auctores, Bas. 1559.” 4. “Optimates: sive de nobilitate, ejusque autiqua origine, &c.” Bas. 1560. 5. “Joannis Juelli Angli, Episcopi Sarisburiensis, vita et mors, ejusque verae doctrinae defensio, &c. Lond. 1573.” 6. “Two Latin orations spoken before queen Elizabeth; one in 1572, another in 1575.” 7. “Sermons;” and 8. “Some Latin pieces against the Papists, Campian in particular.” Wood quotes Tobias Matthew, an eminent archbishop, who knew him well, as declaring, that “Dr. Humphrey had read more fathers than Campian the Jesuit ever saw; devoured more than he ever tasted; and taught more in the university of Oxford, than he had either learned or heard.”

, an eminent anatomist and physician, was born at Chateau- Briant, in February 1701. His father was a physician, and practised at St. Malo. He studied first at Rennes, and afterwards at Angers and Paris, and received the degree of M. D. at Rheims in 1722. On his return to Paris he studied anatomy and surgery with great assiduity, under the celebrated teachers Winslow and Du Verney, and was admitted into the academy of sciences in 1724. Having been honoured with the appointment of physician to the duke of Richelieu, he accompanied rliat nobleman in his embassy to the court of the emperor Charles VI. at Vienna, and ever afterwards retained his entire confidence, and had apartments in his house. On the death of Du Verney, in 1730, Hunauld was appointed his successor, as professor of anatomy in the king’s garden, where he soon acquired a reputation little short of that of his predecessor, and found the spacious theatre overflowing with pupils. Having been admitted a member of the faculty of medicine of Paris, he practised with great success, and attracted the notice of the court. He took a journey into Holland, where he became acquainted with the celebrated Boerhaave, with whom he ever afterwards maintained a friendly correspondence; and, in 1735, he visited London, where he was elected a member of the royal society, at one of the meetings of which he read some “Reflections on the operation for Fistula Lacrymalis,” which were printed in the Transactions. He was cut off in the vigour of life by a putrid fever, in December 1742, being in his forty-second year. The greater part of his writings consist of papers, which were published in various volumes of the memoirs of the academy of sciences, between 1729 and 1742 inclusive. Osteology was a favourite subject of his enquiry, and some of the most curious of his observations relate to the formation and growth of the bones of the skull. He likewise traced with great accuracy the lymphatics of the lungs to the thoracic duct, and the progress of some of the nerves of the thoracic viscera. He published anonymously, in 1726, a critique, in the form of a letter, on the book of Petit, relative to the diseases of the bones, which occasioned some controversy, and received the formal disapproval of the academy. Hunauld had collected a considerable anatomical museum, which was especially rich in preparations illustrative of osteology and the diseases of the bones, and which came into the possession of the academy after his death.

, waiwode of Transylvania, and general of the armies of Ladislas, king of Hungary, was one of the greatest commanders of his time. He fought against the Turks like a hero, and, in 1442 and 1443, gained important battles against the generals of Arnurath and obliged that prince to retire from Belgrade, after besieging it seven months. In the battle of Varnes, so fatal to the Christian cause, and in which Ladislas fell, Corvinus was not less distinguished than in his more fortunate contests; and, being appointed governor of Hungary, became proverbially formidable to the Turks. In 1448, however, he suffered a defeat from them. He was more fortunate afterwards, and in 1456, obliged Mahomet U. also to relinquish the siege of Belgrade; and died the 10th of September in the same year. Mahomet, though an enemy, had generosity enough to lament the death of so great a man; and pride enough to allege as one cause for his regret, that the world did not now contain a man against whom he could deign to turn his arms, or from whom he could regain the glory he had so lately lost before Belgrade. The pope is said to have shed tears on the news of his death; and Christians in general lamented Huniades as their best defender against the infidels.

, a celebrated Lutheran divine, was born at Winende, a village in the duchy of Wirtemburg, in 1550. He was educated at the schools in that vicinity, and took his degree in arts at Tubingen, in 1567. He then applied himself earnestly to the study of theology, and was so remarkable for his progress in it, that in 1576he was made professor of divinity at Marpurg. About the same period he married. He was particularly zealous against the Calvinists, and not long after this time began to write against them, by which he gained so much reputation, that in 1592 he was sent for into Saxony to reform that electorate, was made divinity-professor at Wittemburg, and a member of the ecclesiastical consistory. In these offices he proved very vigilant in discovering those who had departed from the Lutheran communion; and, from the accounts of the severities practised against those who would not conform to that rule, it appears that nothing less than a strong persecution was carried on by him and his colleagues. In 1595 he was appointed pastor of the church at Wittemburg, and in the same year published his most celebrated polemical work, entitled “Calvin us Judaizans,” in which he charges that reformer with all possible heresies. At the same time he carried on a controversy with Hnberus, about predestination and election. Against Calvin he wrote with the most intemperate acrimony. Hunnius was present at the conference at Ratisbon in 1601, between the Lutherans and Roman catholics. He died of an inflammation brought on by the stone, in April 1603. His works have been collected in five volumes; and contain, funeral orations, a catechism, prayers, colloquies, notes on some of the evangelists, &c. &c. His acrimony in writing went beyond his judgment.

, a dissenting divine, was born in London in 1678, and was the son of Benjamin Hunt, a member of the mercers’ company in London. He was educated under Mr. Thomas Rowe,and after he had finished his course with him, he went first to Edinburgh, and then to Leyden; at the latter place he applied himself most diligently to the study of the Hebrew language and the Jewish antiquities. In Holland he preached to a small English congregation, and upon his return he officiated some time at Tunstead, in Norfolk, from whence he removed to London about 1710, and was appointed pastor of the congregation at Pinners’ hall. In 1729 the university of Edinburgh conferred on him the degree of D. U. He died in 1744. He was author of several single sermons; and likewise of “An Essay towards explaining the History and Revelations of Scripture in their several periods; to which is annexed a dissertation on the Fall of Man.” After his death four volumes of his “Sermons,” with tracts, were published, to which was prefixed Dr. Lardner’s Funeral Sermon for him.

, of Canterbury, the son of Mr. Nicholas Hunt of that city (an intimate and worthy friend of Arch. Tillotson, and to whom, whilst labouring under a cancer, he addressed that most excellent letter of consolation, printed in his life by Birch, p. 135), was admitted a scholar of C. C. C. Cambridge, Jan. 29, 1693. After taking the degree of M. B. in 1699, he practised physic at Canterbury, and became a collector of Roman coins, vessels, and utensils, particularly of those about Reculver and Richborough, after the manner of archdeacon Batteley, in his “Antiquitates Rutupina?;” all which, together with his books and manuscripts, he bequeathed to the library of that cathedral. He was esteemed a learned antiquary. The time of his death is uncertain.

, a learned Hebraist, and Regius professor of Hebrew, Oxford, was horn in 1696, but where or of what parents we have not been able to learn, or indeed to recover any particulars of his early life. He was educated at Hart-hall, Oxford, where he proceeded M. A. in Oct. 26, 1721, and was one of the first four senior fellows or tutors, when the society was made a body corporate and politic under the name of Hertford college; and he took his degree of B. D. in 1743, and that of D. D. in 1744. His first literary publication, which indicates the bent of his studies, was “A Fragment of Hippolytus, taken out of two Arabic Mss. in the Bodleian library,” printed in the fourth volume of “Parker’s Bibliotheca Bibiica,” 1728, 4to. In 1738* he was elected Laudian professor of Arabic, which he retained the whole of his life, and was succeeded by the late Dr. Joseph White. In the following year he delivered in the schools, a Latin speech “De antiquitate, elegantia, utilitate, Linguae Arabicae,” published the same year; and another “De usu Dialectorum Orientalium, ac praecipue Arabicae, in Hebraico codice interpretando,” which was published in 1748. In 1746 he issued proposals for printing “Abdollatiphi Historias Ægypti compendium,” with a full account of that work, which, however, he never published. The subscribers were recompensed by receiving in lieu of it his posthumous “Observations on the Book of Proverbs,” edited by Dr. Kennicott after his death.

In 1747, Dr. Hunt was appointed regius professor of Hebrew, and consequently canon of the sixth stall in Christ church. He had in 1740 been elected a fellow of the royal society, and was also a fellow of that of antiquaries. In 1757, as we have noticed in the life of bishop Hooper, he published the works of that prelate, in the preface to which he represents himself as “one who had received many obligations from his lordship, was acquainted with his family, and had been formerly intrusted by him with the care of publishing one of his learned works,” viz. “De Benedictione patriarchs Jacobi, conjecturae,” Oxon. 1728, 4to, by the preface to which it appears that bishop Hooper was one of his early patrons. Of this only 100 copies were printed as presents to friends, but it is included in the bishop’s works.

Dr. Hunt’s epistolary correspondence both at home and abroad, was considerable. Some of his letters are to be found in “Doddridge’s Letters,” published by Stedman. He frequently mentions his “Ægyptian History,” and his “attendance on Abdollatiph,” as engrossing much of his time. He also highly praises Dr. Doddridge’s “Rise and Progress of Religion,” and his “Life of colonel Gardiner.” In 1759 Dr. Kennicott dedicated his second volume on the “State of the printed Hebrew text of the Old Testament” to his much respected friend Dr. Hunt, to v.hom he stood “indebted for his knowledge of the very elements of the Hebrew language.” Anquetil du Perron, the French orientalist, having made some unhandsome reflections on Dr. Hunt, the celebrated sir William Jones, then a student at Oxford, repelled these by a shrewd pamphlet, published in 1771, entiled “Lettre a monsieur A[nquetil du P(erron) dans laquelle est compris l'examen de sa traduction des livres attribues a Zoroastre.”

Among Dr. Hunt’s intimate friends was Dr. Gregory Sharpe, who sought his acquaintance and highly prized it, and their correspondence was frequent and affectionate. Dr. Hunt not only promoted Dr. Sharpe’s election into the royal society, but was a liberal and able assistant to him in his literary undertakings. When, however, Dr. Sharpe published his edition of Dr. Hyde’s Dissertations in 1767, no notice was taken of these obligations; and the reason assigned is Dr. Hunt’s having declined a very unreasonable request made by Dr. Sharpe, to translate into Latin a long English detail of introductory matter. Such treatment Dr. Hunt is said to have mentioned “to his friends, with as much resentment as his genuine good-nature would permit.” This very learned scholar, who had long been afflicted with the gravel, died Oct. 31, 1774, aged seventyeight, and was buried in the north aile joining to the body of the cathedral of Christ-church, with an inscription expressing only his name, offices, and time of his death. His library was sold the following year by honest Daniel Prince of Oxford. In that same year Dr. Kennicott pub.­lished a valuable posthumous work of his friend, entitled “Observations on several passages in the Book of Proverbs, with two Sermons. By Thomas Hunt,” &c. 4to. A considerable part of this work was printed before his death; and the only reason given why he himself did not finish it, was, that he was remarkably timorous, and distrustful of his own judgment; and that, in his declining years, he grew more and more fearful of the severity of public criticism, for which he certainly had little cause, had this been his only publication. His character, as an Orientalist, had been fully established by his former works; and he justly retained it to the close of his life, leaving the learned world only to regret that he did not engage in some gra-id and critical work, or that he did not complete an edition of Job which he bad long intended.

, an eminent physician and antiquary of Durham, was the son of Thomas Hunter, gent, of Medomsley, in the county of Durham, where he was born in 1675: he was educated at the free-school of Houghton-le-Spring, founded by the celebrated Bernard Gilpin, and was admitted of St. John’s college, Cambridge, where he continued until he had taken his bachelor’s degree in 1698. In 1701 he received a faculty or licence from Dr. John Brookbank, spiritual chancellor at Durham, to piactice physic through the whole diocese of Durham. After some years he removed to the city of Durham; and though he published little, was always ready to assist in any literary undertaking. He is acknowledged by Mr. Horsley and Mr. Gordon to be very exact and masterly in the knowledge of antiquities. Dr. Wilkins mentions him with respect in the preface to the first volume of his “Councils,” to which he furnished some materials; and Mr. Bourne was much indebted to him in compiling his “History of Newcastle” He published a new edition of “The Ancient Rites and Monuments of the church of Durham,” 1733, without his name; and a curious, and now very scarce work, entitled “An Illustration of Mr. Daniel Neale’s History of the Puritans, in the article of Peter Smart, M. A. from original papers, with remarks.” 1736, 8vo. In April 1743, he published proposals for printing by subscription, in 2 vols. 4to. “Antiquitates Parochiales Dioc. Dunelm. hucusque ineditae,” but no further progress appears to have been made. Perhaps this might be owing to an unfortunate accident he met with, in searching the archives of the cathedral, where he spilt a bottle of ink on the celebrated copy of Magna Charta, and was never afterwards permitted to come there. In 1757 be retired from Durham, with his family, to Unthank, an estate belonging to his wife, in Shotley parish, Northumberland, where he died July 13 of that year, and was buried in Shotley church.

, a popular preacher and writer, was born at Culross, in Perthshire, in 1741. He had the best education that the circumstances of his parents would permit, and at the age of thirteen was sent to the university of Edinburgh, where, by his talents and proficiency, he attracted the notice of the professors, and when he left Edinburgh he accepted the office of tutor to lord Dundonald’s sons at Culross abbey. In 1764 he was licensed to preach, having passed the several trials with great applause: and very quickly became much followed on account of his popular talents. He was ordained in 1766, and was appointed minister of South Leith. On a visit to London in 1769, he preached in most of the Scotch meeting-houses with great acceptance, and soon after his return he received an invitation to become pastor of the Scotch church in Swallow-street, which he declined; but in 1771 he removed to London, and undertook the pastoral office in the Scotch church at London-wall. He appeared first as an author in 1783, by the commencement of his “Sacred Biography,” which was at length extended to seven volumes octavo. While this work was in the course of publication, he engaged in the translation of Lavater’s “Essays on Physiognomy,” and in order to render his work as complete as possible, he took a journey into Swisserland, for the purpose of procuring information from Lavater himself. He attained, in some measure, his object, though the author did not receive him with the cordiality which he expected, suspecting that the English version must injure the sale of the French translation. The first number of this work was published in 1789, and it was finished in a style worthy the improved state of the arts. From this period Dr. Hunter spent much of his time in translating different works from the French language. In 1790 he was elected secretary to the corresponding board of the “Society for propagating Christian Knowledge in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland.” He was likewise chaplain to the “Scotch Corporation;” and both these institutions Were much benefited by his zealous exertions in their behalf. In 1795, he published two volumes of Sermons; and in 1798 he gave the world eight “Lectures on the Evidences of Christianity,” being the completion of a plan begun by Mr. Fell. The whole contains a popular and useful elucidation of the proofs in favour of the Christian religion, arising from its internal evidence, its beneficial influence, and the superior value of the information which it conveys with respect to futurity. During the latter years of his life, Dr. Hunter’s constitution suffered the severest shocks from the loss of three children, which, with other causes, contributed to render him unable to withstand the attacks of disease. He died at the Hot-Wells, Bristol, on the 27th of October, 1802, in the 62d year of his age. Dr. Hunter was a man of learning: his writings are eloquent, and shew how well he had studied human nature. In the pulpit his manner was unaffected, solemn, and impressive. He indulged his liberal and friendly heart in the exercise of hospitality, charity, and the pleasures of social intercourse, but the latter frequently beyond the limits which a regard to prudence and economy should have prescribed. He was the translator of “Letters of Euler to a German Princess, on different subjects in Physics and Philosophy” “The Studies of Nature by St. Pierre” “Saurin’s Sermons;” “Sonnini’s Travels.” Miscellaneous pieces and sermons of his own have been published since his death, to which are prefixed memoirs: from these the foregoing particulars have been taken. Dr. Hunter, about 1796 or 7, began “A History of London and its Environs,” which came out in parts, but did little credit to him, as he evidently had no talents or research for a work of this description.

, an eminent anatomist and physician, was born May 23, 1718, at Kilbride in the county of Lanark. He was the seventh of ten children of John and Agnes Hunter, who resided on a small estate in that parish, called Long Calderwood, which had long been in the possession of his family. His great grandfather, by iiis fatner’s side, was a youoger son of Hunter of Hunterston, chief of the family of that name. At the age of fourteen, his father sent him to the college of Glasgow; where he passed five years, and by nis prudent behaviour and diligence acquired the esteem of the professors, and the reputation of being a good scholar. His father had designed him for the church, but the necessity of subscribing to articles of faith was to him a strong objection. In this state of mind he happened to become acquainted with Dr Cullen, who was then just established in practice at Hamilton, under the patronage of the duke of Hamilton. By the conversation of Dr. Cullen, ha was soon determined to devote himself to th^ profession of pbysic. His father’s consent having been previously obtained, he went, in 1737. to reside with Dr. Cullen. In the family of this excellent friend and preceptor he passed nearly three years, and these, as he has been often heard to acknowledge, were the happiest years of his life. It was then agreed, that he should prosecute his medical studies at Edinburgh and London, and afterwards return to settle at Hamilton, in partnership with Dr. Cullen.

Mr. Hunter set out for Edinburgh in Nov. 1740, and continued there till the following spring, attending the lectures of the medical professors, and amongst others those of the late Dr. Alexander Monro. He arrived in London in the summer of 1741, and took up his residence at Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Smellie’s, who was at that time an apothecary in Pall-mall. He brought with him a letter of recommendation to his countryman Dr. James Douglas, from Mr. Foulis, printer at Glasgow, who had been useful to the doctor in collecting for him different editions of Horace. Dr. Douglas was then intent on a great anatomical work on the bones, which he did not live to complete, and was looking out for a young man of abilities and industry whom he might employ as a dissecter. This induced him to pay particular attention to Mr. Hunter; and finding him acute and sensible, he after a short time invited him into his family, to assist in his dissections, and to superintend the education of his son. Mr. Hunter having communicated this offer to his father and Dr. Cullen, the latter readily and heartily gave his concurrence to it; but his father, who was very old and infirm, and expected his return with impatience, consented with reluctance. His father did not long survive, dying Oct. 30 following, aged 78.

Mr. Hunter, having accepted Dr. Douglas’s invitation, was by his friendly assistance enabled to enter himself as a surgeon’s pupil at St. George’s hospital under Mr. James Wilkie, and as a dissecting pupil under Dr. Frank Nichols, who at that time taught anatomy with considerable reputation. He likewise attended a course of lectures on experimental philosophy by Dr. Desaguliers. Of these means of improvement he did not fail to make a proper use. He soon became expert in dissection, and Dr. Douglas was at the expence of having several of his preparations engraved. But before many months had elapsed, he had the misfortune to lose this excellent friend. Dr. Douglas died April 1, 1742, in his 67th year, leaving a widow and two children. The death of Dr. Douglas, however, made no change in his situation. He continued to reside with the doctor’s family, and to pursue his studies with the same diligence as before. In 1743 he communicated to the royal society “An Essay on the Structure and Diseases of articulating Cartilages.” This ingenious paper, on a subject which till then had not been sufficiently investigated, affords a striking testimony of the rapid progress he had made in his anatomical inquiries. As he had it in contemplation to teach anatomy, his attention was directed principally to this object; and it deserves to be mentioned as an additional mark of his prudence, that he did not precipitately engage in this attempt,but passed several years in acquiring such a degree of knowledge, and such a collection of preparations, as might insure him success. After waiting some time for a favourable opening, he succeeded Mr. Samuel Sharpe as lecturer to a private society of surgeons in Covent-garden, began his lectures in their rooms, and soon extended his plan from surgery to anatomy. This undertaking commenced in the winter of 1746. He is said to have experienced much solicitude when he began to speak in public, but applause soon inspired him with courage; and by degrees he became so fond of teaching, that for many years before his death he was never happier than when employed in delivering a lecture.

The profits of his two first courses were considerable, but by contributing to the wants of different friends, he found himself, at the return of the next season, obliged to defer his lectures for a fortnight, merely because he had not money to defray the necessary expeiice of advertisements. This circumstance taught him to be more reserved in this respect. In 1747 he was admitted a member of the corporation of surgeons, and in the spring of the following year, soon after the close of his lectures, he set out in company with his pupil, Mr. James Douglas, on a tour through Holland to Paris. His lectures suffered no interruption by this journey, as he returned to England soon enough to prepare for his winter course, which began about the usual time. At first he practised both surgery and midwifery, but the former he always disliked; and, being elected one of the surgeon-men-midwives first to the Middlesex, and soon afterwards to the British lying-in hospital, and recommended by several of the most eminent surgeons of that time, his line was thus determined. Over his countryman, Dr. Smellie, notwithstanding his great experience, and the reputation he had justly acquired, he had a great advantage in person and address. The most lucrative part of the practice of midwifery was at that time in the hands of sir Richard Manningham and Dr. Sandys. The former of these died, and the latter retired into the country a few years after Mr. Hunter began to be known in midwifery. Although by these incidents he was established in the practice of midwifery, it is well known that in proportion as his reputation increased, his opinion was eagerly sought in all cases where any light concerning the seat or nature of any disease, could be expected from an intimate knowledge of anatomy. In 1750 he obtained the degree of M. D. from the university of Glasgow, and began to practise as a physician. About this time he quitted the family of Mrs. Douglas, and went to reside in Jermyn-skreet. In the summer of 1751 he revisited his native country, for which he always retained a cordial affection. His mother was still living at Long Calderwood, which was now become his property by the death of his brother James. Dr. Cullen, for whom he always entertained asincere regard, was then established at Glasgow. During this visit, he shewed his attachment to his little paternal inheritance, by giving many instructions for repairing and improving it, and for purchasing any adjoining lands that might be offered for sale. As he and Dr. Cullen were riding one day in a low part of the country, the latter pointing out to him Long Calderwood at a considerable distance, remarked how conspicuous it appeared. “Well,” said he, with some degree of energy, “if I live, I shall make it still more conspicuous.” After his journey to Scotland, to which he devoted only a few weeks, he was never absent from London, unless his professional engagements, as sometimes happened, required his attendance at a distance from the capital.

In 1762 we find him warmly engaged in controversy, supporting his claim to different anatomical discoveries, in, a work entitled “Medical Commentaries,” the style of which is correct and spirited . As an excuse for the tardiness with which he brought forth this work, he observes in his introduction, that it required a good deal of time, and be had little to spare; that the subject was unpleasant, and therefore he was very seldom in the humour to take it up. In 1762, when our present excellent queen became pregnant, Dr. Hunter was consulted; and two years after he had the honour to be appointed physicianextraordinary to her majesty. About this time his avocations were so numerous, that he became desirous of lessening his fatigue, and having noticed the ingenuity and assiduous application of the late Mr. William Hewson, F. R. S. who was then one of his pupils, he engaged him, first as an assistant, and afterwards as a partner in his lectures. This connection continued till 1770, when some disputes happened, which terminated in a separation. [See Hewson]. Mr. Hewson was succeeded in the partnership by Mr. Cruikshank, whose anatomical abilities were deservedly respected.

April 30, 1767, Dr. Hunter was elected F. R. S. and the year following communicated to that learned body “Observations on the Bones commonly supposed to be Elephants’ bones, which have been found near the river Ohio in America.” This was not the only subject of natural history on which Dr. Hunter employed his pen; for in a subsequent volume of the “Philosophical Transactions,” we find him offering his “Remarks on some Bones found in the Rock of Gibraltar,” which he proves to have belonged to some quadruped. In the same work, likewise, he published an account of the Nyl-ghau, an Indian animal not described before, and which, from its strength and swiftness, promised, he thought, to be an useful acquisition to this country.

In 1768, Dr. Hunter became F. S. A. and the sam*' year, at the institution of a royal academy of arts, he was appointed by his majesty to the office of professor of anatomy. This appointment opened a new field for his abilities; and he engaged in it, as he did in every other pursuit of his life, with unabating zeal. He now adapted his anatomical knowledge to the objects of painting and sculpture; and the novelty and justness of his observations proved at once the readiness and the extent of his genius.

In January 1781, he was unanimously elected to succeed the late Dr. John Fothergill as president of the society of physicians of London. “He was one of those,” says Dr. Simmons, “to whom we are indebted for its establishment, and our grateful acknowledgments are due to him for his zealous endeavours to promote the liberal views of this institution, by rendering it a source of mutual improvement, and thus making it ultimately useful to the public.” As his name and talents were known and respected in every part of Europe, so the honours conferred on him were not limited to his own country. In 1780 the royal medical society at Paris elected him one of their foreign associates; and in 1782 he received a similar mark of distinction from the royal academy of sciences in that city. We come now to the most splendid of Dr. Hunter’s medical publications, “The Anatomy of the Human Gravid Uterus.” The appearance of this work, which had been begun so early as 1751 (at which time ten of the thirty-four plates it contains were completed), was retarded till 1775, only by the author’s desire of sending it into the world with fewer imperfections. This great work is dedicated to the king. In his preface to it we find the author very candidly acknowledging, that in most of the dissections he had been assisted by his brother, Mr. John Hunter. This anatomical description of the gravid uterus, was not the only work which Dr. Hunter had in contemplation to give to the public. He had long been employed in collecting and arranging materials for a history of the various concretions that are formed in the human body. He seems to have advanced no further in the execution of this design, than to have nearly completed that part of it which relates to urinary and biliary concretions. Among Dr. Hunter’s papers have likewise been found two introductory lectures, which are written out so fairly, and with such accuracy, that he probably intended no further correction of them, before they should be given to the world. In these lectures Dr. Hunter traces the history of anatomy from the earliest to the present times, along with the general progress of science and the arts. He considers the great utility of anatomy in the practice of physic and surgery; givt-s the ancient divisions of the different substances composing the human body, which for a long time prevailed in anatomy; points out the most advantageous mode of cultivating this branch of natural knowledge; and concludes with explaining the particular plan of his own lectures. Besides these Mss. he has also left behind him a considerable number of cases of dissection. The same year in which the tables of the gravid uterus made their appearance, Dr. Hunter communicated to the royal society “An essay on the Origin of the Venereal Disease.” After this paper had been read to the royal society, Dr. Hunter, in a conversation with the late Dr. Musgrave, was convinced that the testimony on which he placed his chief dependence was of less weight than he had at first imagined; he therefore very properly laid aside his intention of giving his essay to the public.

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.

Of the magnitude and value of his anatomical collection, some idea may be formed, when we consider the great length of years he employed in making anatomical preparations, and in the dissection of morbid bodies; added to the eagerness with which he procured additions, from the collections that were at different times offered for sale in London. His specimens of rare diseases were likewise frequently increased by presents from his medical friends and pupils, who, when any thing of this sort occurred to them, very justly thought they could not dispose of it more properly than by placing it in Dr. Hunter’s museum. Before his removal to Windmill-street, he had confined his collection chiefly to specimens of human and comparative anatomy, and of diseases; but now he extended his views to fossils, and likewise to the branches of polite literature and erudition. In a short space of time he became possessed of “the most magnificent treasure of Greek and Latin books that has been accumulated by any person now living, since the days of Mead.” A cabinet of ancient medals contributed likewise greatly to the richness of his museum. A description of part of the coins in this collection, struck by the Greek free cities, has been published by the doctor’s learned friend Mr. Combe, under the title of “Nummorum veterurn populorum & urbium qui in museo Guliehni Hunter asservantur descriptio figuris illustrata. Opera & studio Caroli Combe, S. R. & S. A. Soc. Londini,” 1783, 4to. In a classical dedication of this elegant volume to the queen, Dr. Hunter acknowledges his obligations to her majesty. In the preface, some account is given of the progress of the collection, which had been brought together since 1770, with singular taste, and at the expence of upwards of 20,000l. In 1781, the museum received a valuable addition of shells, corals, and other curious subjects of natural history, which had been collected by the late Dr. Fothergill, who gave directions by his will, that his collection should be appraised after his death, and that Dr. Hunter should have the refusal of it at 500l. under the valuation. This was accordingly done, and Dr. Hunter purchased it for the sum of 1200l.

Dr. Hunter, at the head of his profession, honoured with the esteem of his sovereign, and in the possession of every thing that his reputation and wealth could confer, seemed now to have attained the summit of his wishes. But these sources of gratification were embittered by a disposition to the gout, which harassed him frequently during the latter part of his life, notwithstanding his very abstemious manner of living. About ten years before his death his health was so much impaired, that, fearing he might soon become unfit for the fatigues of his profession, he began to think of retiring to Scotland. With this view he requested his friends Dr. Cullen and Dr. Baillie, to look out for a pleasant estate for him. A considerable one, and such as they thought would be agreeable to him, was offered for sale about that time in the neighbourhood of Alloa. A description of it was sent to him, and met with his approbation: the price was agreed on, and the bargain supposed to be concluded. But when the title-deeds of the estate came to be examined by Dr. Hunter’s counsel in London, they were found defective, and he was advised not to complete the purchase. After this he found the expences of his museum increase so fast, that he laid aside all thoughts of retiring from practice.

This alteration in his plan did not tend to improve his health. In the course of a few years the returns of his gout became by degrees more frequent, sometimes affecting his limbs, and sometimes his stomach, but seldom remaining many hours in one part. Notwithstanding this valetudinary state, his ardour seemed to be unabated. In the last year of his life he was as eager to acquire new credit, and to secure the advantage of what he had before gained, as he could have been at the most enterprising port of his life. At length, on Saturday, March 15, 1783, after having for several days experienced a return of wandering gout, he complained of great head-ache and nausea. In this state he went to bed, and for several days felt more pain than usual, both in his stomach and limbs. On the Thursday following he found himself so much recovered, that he determined to give the introductory lecture to the operations of surgery. It was to no purpose that his friends urged to him the impropriety of such an attempt. He was determined to make the experiment, and accordingly delivered the lecture; but towards the conclusion, his strength was so exhausted that he fainted away, and was obliged to be carried to bed by two servants. The following night and day his symptoms were such as indicated danger; and on Saturday morning Mr. Combe, who made him an early visit, was alarmed on being told by Dr. Hunter himself, that during the night he had certainly had a paralytic stroke. As neither his speech nor his pulse were affected, and he was able to raise himself in bed, Mr. Combe encouraged him to hope that he was mistaken. But the event proved the doctor’s idea of his complaint to be but too well founded; for from that time till his death, which happened on Sunday March 30, he voided no urine without the assistance of the catheter, which was occasionally introduced by his brother; and purgative medicines were administered repeatedly, without procuring a passage by stool. These circumstances, and the absence of pain, seemed to shew that the intestines and bladder had lost their sensibility and power of contraction; and it was reasonable to presume, that a partial palsy had affected the nerves distributed to those parts. The latter moments of his life exhibited a remarkable instance of calmness and fortitude. Turning to his friend Mr. Combe, “If I had strength enough to hold a pen,” said he, “I would write how easy and pleasant a thing it is to die.”

By his will, the use of his museum, under the direction of trustees, devolved to his nephew Matthew. Baillie, and in case of his death, to Mr. Cruikshank, for the term of thirty years, at the end of which period the whole collection was bequeathed to the university of Glasgow, but Dr. Baillie removed it to its destination some years before the completion of that term. The, sum of 8000l. sterling was left as a fund for the support and augmentation of the collection. The trustees were, Dr. George For.lyne, Dr. David Pitcairne, and Mr. Charles (since Dr.) Combe, to each of whom Dr. Hunter bequeathed an annuity of 20l. for thirty years, that is, during the period in which they would oe executing the purposes of the will. Dr. Hunter likewise bequeathed an annuity of 100l. to his sister Mrs. Baillie, during her life, and the sum of 2000l. to each of her two daughters. The residue of his estate and effects went to his nephew. On Saturday April 5, his remains were interred in the rector’s vault of St. James’s church, Westminster.

Of the person of Dr. Hunter it may be observed that he was regularly shaped, but of a slender make, and rather below a middle stature. There are several good portraits of him extant. One of these is an unfinished painting by Zoffany, who has represented him in the attitude of giving a lecture on the muscles at the royal academy, surrounded by a groupe of academicians. His manner of living was extremely simple and frugal, and the quantity of his food was small as well as plain. He was an early riser, and when business was over, was constantly engaged in his anatomical pursuits, or in his museum. There was something very engaging in his manner and address, and he had such an appearance of attention to his patients when he was making his inquiries, as could hardly fail to conciliate their confidence and esteem. In consultation with his medical brethren^ he delivered his opinions with diffidence and candour. In familiar conversation he was chearful and unassuming. All who knew him allowed that he possessed an excellent understanding, great readiness of perception, a good memory, and a sound judgment. To these intellectual powers he united uncommon assiduity and precision, so that he was admirably fitted for anatomical investigation. As a teacher of anatomy, he was long and deservedly celebrated. He was a good orator, and having a clear and accurate conception of what he taught, he knew how to place in distinct and intelligible points of view the most abstruse subjects of anatomy and physiology. How much he contributed to the improvement of medical science in general, may be collected from the concise view we have taken of his writings. The munificence he displayed in the cause of science has likewise a claim to our applause. Dr. Hunter sacrificed no part of his time or his fortune to voluptuousness, to idle pomp, or to any of the common objects of vanity that influence the pursuits of mankind in general. He seems to have been animated with a desire of distinguishing himself in those things which are in their nature laudable; and being a bachelor, and without views of establishing a family, he was at liberty to indulge his inclination. Let us, therefore, not withhold the praise that is due to him; and undoubtedly his temperance, his prudence, his persevering and eager pursuit of knowledge, constitute an example which we may, with advantage to ourselves and to society, endeavour to imitate.

, younger brother of Dr. Hunter, one of the most profound anatomists, sagacious and expert surgeons, and acute observers of nature, that any age has produced, was born at Long Calderwood, before-mentioned, July 14, 1728. At the age of ten years he lost his father, and being the youngest of ten children, was suffered to employ himself in amusement rather than study, though sent occasionally to a grammar-school. He had reached the age of twenty before he felt a wish for more active employment; and hearing of the reputation his brother William had acquired in London as a teacher of anatomy, made a proposal to go up to him as an assistant. His proposal was kindly accepted, and in September 1748 he arrived in London. It was not long before his disposition to excel in anatomical pursuits was fully evinced, and his determination to proceed in that line confirmed and approved. In the summer of 1749 he attended Mr. Cheselden at Chelsea-hospital, and there acquired the rudiments of surgery. In the subsequent winter he was so far advanced in the knowledge of anatomy, as to instruct his brother’s pupils in dissection; and from the constant occupation of the doctor in business, this task in future devolved almost totally upon him. In the summer of 1756 he again attended at Chelsea, and in 1751 became a pupil at St. Bartholomew’s, where he constantly attended when any extraordinary operation was to be performed. After having paid a visit to Scotland, he entered as a gentleman commoner in Oxford, at St. Mary-hall, though with what particular view does not appear. His professional studies, however, were not interrupted, for in 1754 he became a pupil at St. George’s hospital, where in 1756 he was appointed house-surgeon. In the winter of 1755, Dr. Hunter admitted him to a partnership in his lectures.

The management of anatomical preparations was at this time a new art, and very little known; every preparation, therefore, that was skilfully made, became an object of admiration; many were wanting for the use of the lectures, and Dr. Hunter having himself an enthusiasm for the art, his brother had every advantage in the prosecution of that pursuit towards which his own disposition pointed so strongly; and of which he left so noble a monument in his Museum of Comparative Anatomy. Mr. Hunter pursued the stud^bf anatomy with an ardour and perseverance of which few examples can be found. By this clo^e application for ten years, he made himself master of all that was already known, and struck out some additions to that knowledge. He traced the ramifications of the olfactory nerves upon the membranes of the nose, and discovered the course of some of the branches of the fifth pair of nerves. In the gravid uterus, he traced the arteries of the uterus to their termination in the placenta. He also discovered the existence of the lymphatic vessels in birds. In comparative anatomy, which he cultivated with indefatigable industry, his grand object was, by examining various organizations formed for similar functions, under different circumstances, to trace out the general principles of animal life. With this object in view, the commonest animals were often of considerable importance to him; but he also took every opportunity of purchasing those that were rare, or encouraged their owners to sell the bodies to him when they happened to die.

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

On the 5th of February, 1767, Mr. Hunter was elected a fellow of the royal society; and in order to make that situation as productive of knowledge as possible, he prevailed on Dr. George Fordyce, and Mr. Gumming (the celebrated watch-maker) to form a kind of subsequent meeting at a coffee-house, for the purpose of philosophical discussion, and inquiry into discoveries and improvements. To this meeting some of the first philosophers of the age very speedily acceded, among whom none can be more conspicuous than sir Joseph Banks, Dr. Solander, Dr. Maskelyne, sir Geo. Shuckburgh, sir Harry Englefieid, sir Charles Blagden, Dr. Noothe, Mr. Ramsden, and Mr. Watt of Birmingham. About the same time, the accident of breaking his tendo Achillis, led him to some very successful researches into the mode in which tendons are reunited so completely does a true philosopher turn every accident to the advantage of science. In 176M, Dr. Hunter having finished his house in Windmill-street, gave up to his brother that which he had occupied in Jermyn-street; and in the same year, by the interest of the doctor, Mr. Hunter was elected one of the surgeons to St. George’s hospital. In 1771 he married Miss Home, the eldest daughter of Mr. Home, surgeon to Burgoyne’s regiment of light-horse, by whom he had two sons and two daughters. In 1772 he undertook the professional education of his brother-in-law Mr. Everard Home, then leaving Westminster-school, who has assiduously pursued his steps, ably recorded his merits, and successfully emulates his reputation.

As the family of Mr. Hunter increased, his practice and character also advanced; but the expence of his collection absorbed a very considerable part of his profits. The best % rooms in his house were filled with his preparations; and his mornings, from sun-rise to eight o'clock, were constantly employed in anatomical and philosophical pursuits. The knowledge which he thus obtained, he applied most successfully to the improvement of the art of surgery; was particularly studious to examine morbid bodies, and to investigate the cause of failure when operations had not been productive of their due effect. It was thus that he perfected the mode of operation for the hydrocele, and made several other improvements of different kinds. At the same time the volumes of the Philosophical Transactions bear testimony to his success in comparative anatomy, which was his favourite, and may be called almost his principal pursuit. When he met with natural appearances which could not be preserved in actual preparations, he employed able draughtsmen to represent them on paper; and for several years he even kept one in his family expressly for this purpose. In Jan. 1776, Mr. Hunter was appointed surgeon -extraordinary to his majesty. In the autumn of the same year, he had an illness of so severe a nature, as to turn his mind to the care of a provision for his family in case of his decease; when, considering that the chief part of his property was vested in his collection, he determined immediately to put it into such a state of arrangement as might make it capable of being disposed of to advantage at his death. In this he happily lived to succeed in a great measure, and finally left his museum so classed as to be fit for a public situation.

Mr. Hunter in 1781 was elected into the royal society of sciences and belles lettres at Gottenburg; and in 1783, into the royal society of medicine, and the royal academy of surgery at Paris. In the same year he removed from Jermyn-street to a larger house in Leicester-square, and, with more spirit than consideration, expended a very great sum in buildings adapted to the objects of his pursuits. He was in 1785 at the height of his career as a surgeon, and performec 1 some operations with complete success, which were thought by the profession to be beyond the reach of any skill. His faculties were now in their fullest vigour, and his body sufficiently so to keep pace with the activity of his mind. He was engaged in a very extensive practice, he was surgeon to St. George’s hospital, he gave a very long course of lectures in the winter, had a school of practical anatomy in his house, was continually engaged in experiments concerning the animal osconomy, and was from time to time producing very important publications. At the same time he instituted a medical society called “Lyceum Medicum Londinense,” which met at his lecture-rooms, and soon rose to considerable reputation. On the death of Mr. Middleton, surgeon-general, in 1786, Mr. Hunter obtained the appointment of deputy surgeon-general to the army; but in the spring of the year he had a violent attack of illness, which left him for the rest of his life subject to peculiar and violent spasmodic affections of the heart. In July 1787, he was chosen a member of the American philosophical society. In 1790, finding that his lectures occupied too much of his time, he relinquished them to his brother-in-law Mr. Home; and in this year, on the death of Mr. Adair, he was appointed inspector-general of hospitals, and surgeon-general of the army. He was also elected a member of the royal college of surgeons in Ireland.

The death of Mr. Hunter was perfectly sudden, and the consequence of one of those spasmodic seizures in the heart to which he had now for several years been subject. It happened on the 16th of October, 1793. Irritation of mind had long been found to bring on this complaint; and on that day, meeting with some vexatious circumstances at St. George’s hospital, he put a degree of constraint upon himself to suppress his sentiments, and in that state went into another room; where, in turning round to a physician who was present, befell, and instantly expired without a groan. Of the disorder which produced this effect, Mr. Home has given a clear and circumstantial account, of a very interesting nature to professional readers. Mr. Hunter was short in stature, but uncommonly strong, active, and capable of great bodily exertion. The prints of him by Sharp, from a picture by sir Joshua Reynolds, give a forcible and accurate idea of his countenance. His temper was warm and impatient; but his disposition was candid and free from reserve, even to a fault. He was superior to every kind of artifice, detested it in others, and in order to avoid it, expressed his exact sentiments, sometimes too openly and too abruptly. His mind was uncommonly active; it was naturally formed for investigation, and so attached to truth and fact, that he despised all unfounded speculation, and proceeded always with caution upon the solid ground of experiment. At the same time his acuteness in observing the result of those experiments, his ingenuity in contriving, and his adroitness in conducting them, enabled him to deduce from them advantages which others would not have derived. It has been supposed, very falsely, that he was fond of hypothesis; on the contrary, if he was defective in any talent, it was in that of imagination; he pursued truth on all occasions with mathematical precision, but he made no fanciful excursions. Conversation in a mixed company, where no subject could be connectedly pursued, fatigued instead of amusing him; particularly towards the latter part of his life. He slept little; seldom more than four hours in the night, and about an hour after dinner. But his occupations, laborious as they would have been to others, were far from being fatiguing to him, being so perfectly congenial to his mind. He spoke freely and sometimes harshly of his contemporaries; but he considered surgery as in its infancy, and, being very anxious for its advancement, thought meanly of those professors whose exertions to promote it were unequal to his own. Money he valued no otherwise than as it enabled him to pursue his researches; and in his zeal to benefit mankind, he attended too little to the interests of his own family. Altogether he was a man such as few ages produce, and by his great contributions to the stores of knowledge, will ever deserve the gratitude and veneration of posterity.

The contributions of Mr. Hunter to the Transactions of the Royal Society cannot easily be enumerated: his other works appeared in the following order. 1. A treatise on “the Natural History of the Human Teeth,” 1771, 4to; a second part to which was added in 1778. 2. “A treatise on the Venereal Disease,” 1786, 4io. 3. “Observations on certain Parts of the Animal QEconomy,” 1786, 4to, 4. “A treatise on the Blood, Inflammation, and Gunshot Wounds,” 4to. This was a posthumous work, not appearing till the year 1794; but it had been sent to tho press in the preceding year, before his death. There are also some papers by Mr. Hunter in the “Transactions of the Society for the Improvement of Medical and Chirurgical Knowledge,” which were published in 1793. The collection of comparative anatomy which Mr. Hunter left behind him, must be considered as a proof of talents, assiduity, and labour, which cannot be contemplated without surprize and admiration. His attempt in this collection has been to exhibit the gradations of nature, from the most simple state in which life is found to exist, up to the most perfect and complex of the animal creation, to mau himself. By his art and care, he has been able so to expose and preserve in a dried state, or in spirits, the corresponding parts of animal bodies, that the various links in the chain of peifectness may be readily followed and clearly understood. They are classed in the following order: first, the parts constructed for motion; secondly, the parts essential to animals as respecting their own internal economy; thirdly, parts superadded for purposes concerned with external objects; fourthly, parts designed for the propagation of the species, and the maintenance and preservation of the young. To go further into these particulars, would lead us to a detail inconsistent with the nature of this work; but they are of the most curious kind, and may be found described in a manner at once clear and instructive, in the “Life of John Hunter,” from which we have taken this account. By his will, Mr. Hunter directed that this museum should be offered to the purchase of government; and, after some negociation, it was bought for the public use for the sum of 15,000l. and given to the College of Surgeons, on condition of exposing it to public view on certain days in the week, and giving a set of annual lectures explanatory of its contents. A large building for its reception has been completed in Portugalstreet, connected with the College of Surgeons, in Lincoln’s-inn fields; and in the spring of the year 1810 the first course of lectures was delivered by Mr. Home and sir William Blizard.

, 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.

, an ancient English historian, was the son of one Nicholas, a married priest, and was born about the beginning of the twelfth century, or end of the eleventh, for he informs us that he was made an archdeacon by Robert Bloet, bishop of Lincoln, who died in 1123. He was educated by Albinus of Anjou, a learned canon of the chqrch of Lincoln, and in his youth discovered a great taste for poetry, by writing eight books of epigrams, as many of love verses, with three long didactic poems, one of herbs, another of spices, and a third of precious stones. In his more advanced years he applied to the study of history; and at the request of Alexander bishop of Lincoln, who was his great friend and patron, he composed a general History of England, from the earliest accounts to the death of king Stephen, 1154, in eight books, published by sir Henry Savile. In the dedication of this work to bishop Alexander, he tells us, that in the ancient part of his history he had followed the venerable Bede, adding a few things from some other writers: that he had compiled the sequel from several chronicles he had found in different libraries, and from what he had heard and seen. Towards the conclusion be very honestly acknowledges that it was only an abridgment, and that to compose a complete history of England, many more books were necessary than he could procure. Mr. Wharton has published a long letter of this author to his friend Walter, abbot of Ramsay, on-the contempt of the world, which contains many curious anecdotes of the kings, nobles, prelates, and other great men who were his contemporaries. In the Bodleian library is a ms Latin poem by Henry, on the death of king Stephen, and the arrival of Henry II. in England, which is by no means contemptible, and in Trinity college library, Oxford, is a fine ms. of his book “De imagine mundi.” When he died is uncertain.

, a learned English divine, was born at Deorhyrst in Gloucestershire, where his father was minister, in 1636. Having been educated in school learning at Bristol, he was sent to Merton-college, Oxford, of which in due time he was chosen fellow. He went through the usual course of arts and sciences with great applause, and then applied himself most diligently to divinity and the Oriental languages. The latter became afterwards of infinite service to him, for he was chosen, chaplain to the English factory at Aleppo, and sailed from England in Sept. 1670. During his eleven years’ residence in this place, he applied himself particularly to search out and procure manuscripts; and for this purpose maintained a correspondence with the learned and eminent of every profession and degree, which his knowledge in the Eastern, languages, and especially the Arabic, enabled him to do. He travelled also for his diversion and improvement, not only into the adjacent, but even into distant places; and after having carefully visited almost all Galilee and Samaria, he went to Jerusalem. In 1677 he went into Cyprus; and the year after undertook a journey of 150 miles, for the sake of beholding the venerable ruins of the once noble and glorious city of Palmyra; but, instead of having an opportunity of viewing the place, he and they that were with him were very near being destroyed by two Arabian princes, who had taken possession of those parts. He had better success in a journey to Egypt in 1680, where he met with several curiosities and manuscripts, and had the pleasure of conversing with John Lascaris, archbishop of mount Sinai.

In 1682 he embarked, and landed in Italy; and having visited Rome, Naples, and other places, taking Paris in his way, where he stayed a few weeks, he arrived, after many dangers and difficulties, safe in his own country. He retired immediately to his fellowship at Merton college; and in 1683 took the degrees in divinity. About the same time, through the recommendation of bishop Fell, he was appointed master of Trinity college in Dublin, and went over thither, though against his will; but the troubles that happened in Ireland at the Revolution forced him back for a time into England; and though he returned after the reduction of that kingdom, yet he resigned his mastership in 1691, and came home, with an intention to quit it no more. In the mean time he sold for 700l. his fine collection of Mss. to the curators of the Bodleian library having before made a present of thirty- five. In 1692 he was presented by sir Edward Tumor to the rectory of Great Hallingbury in Essex, and the same year he married. He was offered about that time the bishopric of Kilmore in Ireland, but refused it; in 1701, however, he accepted that of Raphoe, and was consecrated in Christ-church, Dublin, Aug. 20. He survived his consecration but twelve days, for he died Sept. 2, in his 66th year, and was buried in Trinity college chapel.

All that he published himself was, “An Account of the Porphyry Pillars in Egypt,” in the “Philosophical Transactions, No. 161.” Some of his “Observations” are printed in "A Collection of curious Travels and Voyages,' in two vols. 8vo, by Mr. J. Ray; and thirty-nine of his letters, chiefly written while he was abroad, were published by Dr. T. Smith, at the end of his life.

, an eminent and accomplished prelate, was born at Congreve, in the parish of Penkrich, in Staffordshire, Jan. 13, 1720. He was the second of three children, all sons, of John and Hannah Hurd, whom he describes as “plain, honest, and good people, farmers, but of a turn of mind that might have honoured any rank and any education;” and they appear to have been solicitous to give this son the best and most liberal education. They rented a considerable farm at Congreve, but soon after removed to a larger at Penford, about half-way between Brewood and Wolverhampton in the same county. There being a good grammar-school at Brewood, Mr. Hurd was educated there under the rev. Mr. Hitman, and upon his death under his successor the rev. Mr. Budvvorth, whose memory our author affectionately honoured in a dedication, in 1757, to sir Edward Littleton, who had also been educated at Brewood school. He continued under this master’s care until 1733, when he was admitted of Emanuel college, Cambridge, but did not go to reside there till a year or twa afterwards.

In this college he had the happiness of being encouraged by, and hearing the lectures of, that excellent tutor, Mr. Henry Hubbard, although he had been admitted under another person. He took the degree of B. A. in 1739, proceeded M. A. and was elected fellow in 1742. In June of that year he was ordained deacon in St. Paul’s cathedral, London, by Dr. Joseph Butler, bishop of Bristol and dean of St. Paul’s, on letters diruissory from Dr. Gooch, bishop of Norwich; and was ordained priest May 20, 1744, in the chapel of Gonvile ar.d Caius college, Cambridge, by the same Dr. Gooch.

Mr. Kurd’s first literary performance, as far as can be ascertained, was “Remarks on a late book entitled ‘An Enquiry into the rejection of the Christian miracles by the Heathens, by William Weston, B. D.’” 1746. On the peace of Aix-la-Chapelle, in 1748, he contributed some verses to the university collection of 1749. In the same year he took the degree of B. D. and published his “Commentary on Horace’s Ars Poetica,” in the preface to which he took occasion to compliment Mr. Warburton in a manner which procured him the acquaintance of that author, who soon after returned the eulogium, in his edition of Pope’s works, in which he speaks of Mr. Kurd’s Commentary in terms of the highest approbation. Hence arose an intimacy which remained unbroken during the whole of their lives, and is supposed to have had a considerable effect on the opinions of Mr. Hurd, who was long considered as the first scholar in what has been called the Warburtonian school. His Commentary was reprinted in 1757, with the addition of two Dissertations, one on the Province of the Drama, the other on Poetical Imitation, and a letter to Mr. Mason, on the “Marks of Imitation.” A fourth edition, corrected and enlarged, was published in 3 vols. 8vo. in 1765, with the addition of another Dissertation on the idea of universal Poetry; and the whole were again reprinted in 1776. It is needless to add that they fully established Mr. Kurd’s character as an elegant, acute, and judicious critic.

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.

In 1751, he published the “Commentary on the Epistle to Augustus;” and a new edition of both Comments, with a dedication to Mr. Warburton, in 1753. In 1752 and 1753, he published two occasional sermons, the one at the assizes at Norwich, on “The Mischiefs of Enthusiasm and Bigotry,” and the other, for the charity schools at Cambridge, neither of which has been retained in his works. The friendship which had already taken place between Warburton and Mr. Kurd had from its commencement continued to increase by the aid of mutual good offices; and in 1755 an opportunity offered for the latter to shew the warmth of his attachment, which he did perhaps with too close an imitation of his friend’s manner. Dr. Jortin having, in his “Dissertations,” spoken of Warburton with less deference and submission than the claims of an overbearing and confident superiority seemed to demand, Mr. Hurd wrote a keen satire, entitled “The Delicacy of Friendship, a seventh dissertation; addressed to the author of the sixth,” 1755, 8vo. It has been said, that upon reflection, he was so little satisfied with the warmth of zeal he had displayed on this occasion, that he took great pains to suppress this pamphlet. If so, it is difficult to account for the eagerness with which it was brought forward again in a new edition in 1788, by an eminent living scholar, in a volume entitled “Tracts by Warburton and a Warburtonian.” It was this obtrusion, however, for which it would not be easy to assign the most liberal motives, that probably induced the author in his latter days, not only to acknowledge the tract, but to include it among those which he wished to form his collected works.

Although Mr. Kurd’s reputation as a polite scholar and critic had been now fully established, his merit had not attracted the notice of the great. He still continued to reside at Cambridge, in learned and unostentatious retirement, till, in Dec. 1756, he became, on the death of Dr. Arnald, entitled to the rectory of Thurcaston, as senior fellow of Emanuel college, and was instituted Feb. 16, 1757. At this place he accordingly entered into residence, and, perfectly satisfied with his situation, continued his studies, which were still principally employed on subjects of polite literature. It was in this year that he published “A Letter to Mr. Mason on the Marks of Imitation,” one of his most agreeable pieces of this class, which was afterwards added to the third edition of the “Epistles of Horace.” This obtained for him the return of an elegy inscribed to him by the poet, in 1759, in which Mason terms him “the friend of his youth,” and speaks of him as seated in “low Thurcaston’s sequester' d bower, distant from promotion’s view.” The same year appeared Mr. Kurd’s “Remarks on Hume’s Essay on the Natural History of Religion.” Warburton appears to have been so much concerned in this tract, that we find it republished by Hurd in the quarto edition of that prelate’s works, and enumerated by him in his list of his own works. It appears to have given Hume some uneasiness, and he notices it in his account of his life with much acrimony. In 1759, he published a volume of “Dialogues on sincerity, retirement, the golden age of Elizabeth, and the constitution of the English government,” in 8vo, without his name. In this work he was thought to rank among those writers who, in party language, are called constitutional; but it is said that he made considerable alterations in the subsequent editions. This was followed by his very entertaining “Letters on Chivalry and Romance,” which with his yet more useful “Dialogues on foreign Travel” were republished in 1765, with the author’s name, and an excellent preface on the manner of writing dialogue, under the general title of“Dialogues moral and political.” In the year preceding, he wrote another of those zealous tracts in vindication of Warburton, which, with the highest respect for Mr. Kurd’s talents, we may be permitted to say, have added least to his fame, as a liberal and courteous polemic. This was entitled “A Letter to the Rev. Dr. Thomas Leland, in which his late ‘ Dissertation on the principles of Human Eloquence’ is criticized, and the bishop of Gloucester’s idea of the nature and character of an inspired language, as delivered in his lordship’s Doctrine of Grace, is vindicated from all the objections of the learned author of the dissertation.” This, with Mr. Kurd’s other controversial tracts, is republished in vol. VIII. of the late authorized edition of his works, with the following lines, by way of advertisement, written not long before his death "The controversial tracts, which make up this volume, were written and published by the author at different times, as opportunity invited, or occasion required. Some sharpness of style may be objected to them; in regard to which he apologizes for himself in the words of the poet:

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 1769, Dr. Hurd published “The Select Works of Mr. Abraham Cowley,” with a preface and notes, in 2 vols. 8vo. This has not been thought the most judicious of Dr. Kurd’s attempts, yet it was too fastidiously objected to, as interfering with the totality of Cowley’s works. Dr. Hurd had no intention to sink the old editions; he only selected what he thought most valuable.

In 1775, by the recommendation of lord Mansfield, who had for some time cultivated his acquaintance, and had a high esteem for his talents, he was promoted to the bishopric of Lichneld and Coventry, and consecrated Feb. 12, of that year. On this occasion he received an elegant and affectionate letter of congratulation from the members of Emanuel college, to which he returned an equally elegant and respectful letter of thanks. In this year he edited ft republication of bishop Jeremy Taylor’s “Moral Demonstration of the Truth of the Christian Religion,” 8vo; and early in 1776, published a volume of “Sermons preached at Lincoln’s-inn,” which was followed afterwards by a second and third. These added very greatly to the reputation he had derived from his sermons on prophecy, and are equally distinguished by elegant simplicity of style, perspicuity of method, and acuteness of elucidation. On June 5th of this year, he was appointed preceptor to their royal highnesses the prince of Wales, and prince Frederick, now duke of York. Very soon after entering into the episcopal office, appeared an excellent “Charge delivered to the clergy of the diocese of Lichneld and Coventry, at the bishop’s primary visitation in 1775 and 1776,” and soon after, his “Fast Sermon” for the “American rebellion,” preached before the House of Lords. In 1781 he* was elected a member of the royal society of Gottingen. It is somewhat remarkable that he did not belong to that of London.

On the death of the bishop of Winchester, Dr. Thomas, in May 1781, bishop Hurd received a gracious message from his majesty, with the offer of the see of Worcester (vacant by the promotion of bishop North to Winchester), and of the clerkship of the closet, in the room of Dr. Thomas, both which he accepted. On his arrival at Hartlebury castle, one of the episcopal seats of Worcester, he resolved to put the castle into complete order, and to build a library, which was much wanted. The library was accordingly finished in 1782, and furnished with a collection of books, the property of his lately deceased friend bishop Warburton, which he purchased. To these he afterwards made several considerable additions, and bequeathed the whole of his own collection. On the death of Dr. Cornwallis, archbishop of Canterbury, in 1783, bishop Hurd had the offer of the archbishopric from his majesty, with many gracious expressions, and vvas pressed to accept it: but he humbly begged leave to decline it, “as a charge not suited to his temper and talents, and much too heavy for him to sustain, especially in these times,” alluding to the political distractions arising from a violent conflict between Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox, and their respective supporters. The king was pleased not to take offence at this freedom, and then to enter with Dr. Hurd into some confidential conversation on the subject. “I took the liberty,” said the good bishop to Mr. Nichols, when relating this affair, “of telling his majesty, that several much greater men than myself had been contented to die bishops of Worcester; and that I wished for no higher preferment.”

In the end of February 1788, was published in 7 vols. 4to, a complete edition of the Works of bishop Warburton, prepared by our prelate, but who did not publish the “Life” until 1795. In March 1788, a fine gold medal was given to him by his majesty at the queen’s house; the king’s head on one side; the reverse was taken from the bishop’s seal (a cross with the initials on a label, 1. N. R. I. a glory above, and the motto below sx irurleus), which his majesty chanced to see and approved. The die was cut by Mr. Burch, and the medal designed for the annual prize-dissertation on theological subjects, in the university of Gottingen. In the summer of the same year he was honoured with a visit from their majesties at Hartlebury castle.

In 1795 the life of bishop Warburton appeared under the title of “A Discourse, by way of general preface to the quarto edition of bishop Warburton’s works; containing some account of the life, writings, and character of the author.” Of this work, which excited no common portion of curiosity/ the style is peculiarly elegant and pure, but the whole is too uniform in panegyric not to render the author liable to the suspicion of long-confirmed prejudices. Even the admirers both of Warburton and Hurd would have been content with less effort to magnify the former at the expence of all his contemporaries; and conscious that imperfection is the lot of all, expected that age and reflection would have abated, if not wholly extinguished, the unscholarlike animosities of former times. But in this all were disappointed; and it was with regret they saw the worst characteristics of Warburton, his inveterate dislikes, his strong contempt, and sneering rancour, still employed to perpetuate his personal antipathies; and employed, too, against such men as Lowth and Seeker. If these were the feelings of the friends who venerated Warburton, and who loved Hurd, others who never had much attachment to Warburton, or his school, found little difficulty in accumulating charges of gross partiality, and illiberal language, against his biographer. This much may be sufficient in noticing this life as the production of Dr. Hurd. It will come hereafter to be more particularly noticed as regarding Warburton. The remainder of bishop Kurd’s life appears to have been spent in the discharge of his episcopal duties, as far as his increasing infirmities would permit; in studious retirement; and often in lamenting the loss of old and tried friends. So late as the first Sunday in February before his death, though then declining in health and strength, he was able to attend his parish church, and to receive the sacrament. Free from any painful or acute disorder, he gradually became weaker, but his faculties continued perfect. After a few days’ confinement to his bed, he expired in his sleep, on Saturday morning, May 28, 1808, having completed four months beyond his eighty-eighth year. He was buried in Hartlebury church-yard, according to his own directions. As a writer, Dr. Hurd’s taste, learning, and genius, have been universally acknowledged, and although a full acquiescence has not been given in all his opinions, he must be allowed to be every where shrewd, ingenious, and original. Even in his sermons and charges, while he is sound in the doctrines of the church, his arguments and elucidations have many features of novelty, and are conveyed in that simple, yet elegant style, which renders them easily intelligible to common capacities. Dr. Hurd’s private character was in all respects amiable. With his friends and connexions he obtained the best eulogium, their constant and warm attachment; and with the world in general, a kind of veneration, which could neither be acquired nor preserved, but by the exercise of great virtues. One of his last employments was to draw up a series of the dates of his progress through life. It is to be lamented he did not fill up this sketch. Few men were more deeply acquainted with the literary history of his time, or could have furnished a more interesting narrative. Much of him, however, may be seen in his Life of Warburton, and perhaps more in the collection of Warburton’s “Letters” to himself, which he ordered to be published after his death, for the benefit of the Worcester Infirmary. Of this only 250 copies were printed, to correspond with the 4to edition of Warburton’s works, but it has since been reprinted in 8vo.

Dr. Hurd was early an admirer of Addison, and although afterwards seduced into the love of a style more flighty and energetic, maturer judgment led him back to the favourite of his youth. “His taste is so pure,” Dr. Hurd says in a letter to Mason, “and his Virgiliau prose (as Dr. Young styles it) so exquisite, that I have but now found out, at the close of a critical life, the full value of his writings.” This letter is dated 1770; and the author, whose life was then far from its close, employed his leisure hours in preparing an edition of Addison’s works, which he left quite ready for the press! It was published accordingly in six handsome volumes, 8vo, with philological notes. These are accounted for in a very short address prefixed in these words: “Mr. Addison is generally allowed to be the most correct and elegant of all our writers; yet some inaccuracies of style have escaped him, which it is the chief design, of the following notes to point out. A work of this sort, well executed, wouldbe of use to foreigners who study our language and even to such of our countrymen as wish to write it in perfect purity.” This is followed by an elegant Latin inscription to Addison, written in 1805, by which we learn that he intended this edition as a monument to Addison “Hoc monumentum sacrum esto.” In the same year, 1810, a new edition of the works of bishop Warburton appeared, according to Dr. Kurd’s directions; and, for the first time, an edition of his own works, in 8 vols. 8vo, consisting of his critical works, moral and political dialogues, his sermons, and controversial tracts.

, an ingenious poet, and very amiable man, the son of James Hurdis, gent, was born at Bishopstone in Sussex in 1763. His father dying, and leaving his mother in no affluent circumstances, with seven children, seems to have laid the foundation of that extreme tenderness and liberality of brotherly affection which formed the most striking feature in the character of Mr. Hurdis. He was educated at Chichester school, where being of a delicate constitution, he seldom partook in the juvenile sports of his school companions, but generally employed his hours of leisure in reading. His inclination to poetry soon appeared in various juvenile compositions, and he contracted at the same time a fondness for the sister art, music, which ended in his being a very considerable performer on several instruments^ Before he left school, he nearly completed the building of an organ, an instrument he preferred to all others.

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.

In 1792, he published his “Cursory Remarks upon the arrangement of the plays of Shakspeare, occasioned by reading Mr. Malone’s Essay on the chronological order of those celebrated pieces;” which showed that he had bestowed much attention on this curious subject In April 1793, he went to Oxford, and with two of his sisters, resided in a small house at Temple Cowley. In November of the same year, he was elected professor of poetry in that university, and in the year following took the degree of B. D. On being elected professor, he published a specimen of some intended lectures on English poetry, and meant to have published the lectures themselves, a few of which he printed at a private press, but the scheme was dropped for want of encouragement. In 1797 he took his degree of D. D. and in 1799, married Harriet, daughter of Hughes Minet, esq. of Fulham, Middlesex. In 1800 he published his “Favourite Village,” and the same year his “Twelve Dissertations on the Nature and Occasion of Psalm and Prophecy,” 8vo, in which he displays much ingenuity and acumen, as in all his publications, but has in some instances yielded too much to the hypotheses which arise from a fertile imagination, and are repugnant to the genius of the Hebrew criticism, and the rules of Hebrew grammar. Dr. Hurdis’s fame seems indeed more solidly established on his poetical than his critical works.

Dr. Hurdis died Dec. 23, 1801, after a very short illness, in his thirty-eighth year, leaving a widow and two sons, and a posthumous daughter. He was buried, by his own desire, at Bishopstone. As few men bore so excellent a character in every station and duty of life, few have been more generally lamented. In 1808, a correct and elegant edition of his “Poems,” in 3 vols. was printed at the university-press, Oxford, encouraged by a very large list of subscribers. They have since been partly reprinted, and are likely to retain their popularity-

, a French divine of some eminence, was born at Champigny-sur-Youne, in 1639, the son of a labourer. He made it his object to know every thing that could throw any light upon theology; and with this view he studied the oriental languages. He was a member of the learned society of Port- Royal, where he imbibed at once his zeal for religion and for letters. He was afterwards professor of the learned languages in the university of Paris, and principal of the college of Boncourt. He died in 1717. There are extant by him, 1. A Dictionary of.the Bible, 2.vols. folio, less full, and less complete, than that of Calmet, published in 1715. 2. An edition of the Latin Testament, with notes, which are much esteemed, 2 vols. 12mo. 3. “A French translation of the former, with the notes from the Latin augmented, 1702, 4 vols. 12mo. 4.” A Sacred Grammar," with rules for understanding the literal sense of the Scripture. He was considered as a Jansenist; and by some said to be only Quesnel a little moderated.

, a celebrated divine and martyr, was born at a town in Bohemia, called Hussenitz, about 1376, and liberally educated in the university of Prague. Here he took the degree of B. A. in 1393, and that of master in 1395; and we find him, in 1400, in orders, and a minister of a church in that city. About this time the writings of our countryman Wickliffe had spread themselves among the Bohemians, which was owing to the following circumstance: Queen Anne, the wife of Richard II. of England, was daughter to the emperor Charles IV. and sister to Wenceslaus king of Bohemia, and Sigismund emperor of Germany. She was a princess of great piety, virtue, and knowledge, nor could she endure the implicit service and devotion of the Romish church. Her death happened in 1394, and her funeral was attended by all the nobility of England. She had patronized Wickliffe, and after her death, several of Wickliffe’s books were carried by her attendants into Bohemia, and were the means of promoting the reformation there. They had also been carried into the same country by Peter Payne, an Englishman, one of his disciples, and principal of Edmund-hall. Fox mentions another person, a young nobleman of Bohemia, who had studied some time at Oxford, and carried home with him several of Wickliffe’s tracts. They were particularly read by the students at Prague, among the chief of whom was Huss; who, being much taken with Wickliffe’s notions, began to preach and write with great zeal against the superstitions and errors of the church of Rome. He succeeded so far, that the sale of indulgences gradually decreased among the Bohemians; and the pope’s party declared, that there would soon be an end of religion, if measures were not taken to oppose the restless endeavours of the Hussites. With a view, therefore, of preventing this danger, Subinco, the archbishop of Prague, issued forth two mandates in 1408; one, addressed to the members of the university, by which they were ordered to bring together all Wickliffe’s writings, that such as were found no contain any thing erroneous or heretical might be burnt; the other, to all curates and ministers, commanding them to teach the people, that, after the consecration of the elements in the holy Sacrament, there remained nothing but the real body and blood of Christ, under the appearance of bread and wine. Hjiss, whose credit and authority in the university were very great, as well for his piety and learning, as on account of considerable services he had done, found no difficulty in persuading many of its members of the unreasonableness and absurdity of these mandates: the first being, as he said, a plain encroachment upon the liberties and privileges of the university, whose members had an indisputable right to possess, and to read all sorts of books; the second, inculcating a most abominable error. Upon this foundation they appealed to Gregory XII. and the archbishop Subinco was summoned to Rome. But, on acquainting the pope that the heretical notions of WicklifTe were gaining ground apace in Bohemia, through the zeal of some preachers who had read his books, a bull was granted him for the suppression of all such notions in his province. By virtue of this bull, Subinco condemned the writings of Wickliffe, and proceeded against four doctors, who bad not complied with his mandate in bringing in their copies. Huss and others, who were involved in this sentence, protested against this projcedure of the archbishop, and appealed from him a second time, in June 1410. The matter was then brought before John XXIII. who ordered Huss, accused of many errors and heresies, to appear in person at the court of Rome, and gave a special commission to cardinal Colonna to cite him. Huss, however, under the protection and countenance of Wenceslaus king of Bohemia, did riot appear, but sent three deputies to excuse his absence, and to answe'r all which should be alledged against him. Colonna paid no regard to the deputies, nor to any defence they could make; but. declared Huss guilty of contumacy to the court of Rome, and excommunicated him for it. Upon this the deputies appealed from the cardinal to the pope, who commissioned four other cardinals to examine into the affair. These commissaries not only confirmed all that Colonna had done, but extended the excommunication, which was limited to Huss, to his friends and followers: they also declared him an Heresiarch, and pronounced an interdict against him.

All this time, utterly regardless of what was doing at Rome, Huss continued to preach and write with great zeal against the errors and superstitions of that church, and in defence of Wickliffe and his doctrines. His discourses were pointed directly against the pope, the cardinals, and the clergy of that party; and at the same time he published writings, to shew the lawfulness of exposing the vices of ecclesiastics. In 1413, the religious tumults and seditions were become so violent, that Subinco applied to Wenceslaus to appease them. Wenceslaus banished Huss from Prague; but still the disorders continued. Then the archbishop had recourse to the emperor Sigismond, who promised him to come into Bohemia, and assist in settling the affairs of the church; but, before Sigismond could be prepared for the journey, Subinco died in Hungary. About this time bulls were published by John XXIil. at Prague against Ladislaus king of Naples; in which a crusade was proclaimed against that prince, and indulgences promised to all who would go to the war. This furnished Huss, who had returned to Prague upon the death of Subinco, with a favourable occasion of preaching against indulgences and crusades, and of refuting these bulls: and the people were so affected and inflamed with his preaching, that they declared pope John to be Antichrist. Upon this, some of the ringleaders among the Hussites were seized and imprisoned; which, however, was not consented to" by the people, who were prepared to resist, till the magistrate had promised that no harm should happen to the prisoners; but the Hussites discovering that these persons had been executed in prison, took up arms, rescued their bodies, and interred them honourably, as martyrs, in the church of Bethlehem, which was Huss’s church. Huss, says Mr. Gilpin, discovered on this occasion a true Christian spirit The late riot had given him great concern; and he had now so much weight with the people as to restrain them from attempting any farther violence, whereas, at the sound of a bell, he could have been surrounded with thousands, who might have laughed at the police of the city.

Matters were in this state at Prague and in Bohemia, till the council of Constance was called where it was agreed between the pope and the emperor, that Huss should appear and give an account of himself and his doctrine. The emperor promised him security against any danger, and that nothing should be attempted against his person; upon which he set out, after declaring publicly, that he was going to the council of Constance, to answer the accusations that were formed against him and challenging all people who had any thing to except to his life and convey sation, to do it without delay. He made the same declaration in all the towns through which he passed, and arrived at Constance, Nov. 3, 1414. Here he was accused in form, and a list of his heretical tenets laid before the pope and the prelates of the council. He was summoned to appear the twenty-sixth day after his arrival; and declared himself ready to be examined, and to be corrected by them, if he should be found to have taught any doctrine worthy of censure. The cardinals soon after withdrew to deliberate upon the most proper method of proceeding against Huss; and the result of their deliberations was, that he should be imprisoned. This accordingly was done, notwithstanding the emperor’s parole for his security; nor were all his prince’s endeavours afterwards sufficient to release him, though he exerted himself to the utmost. Huss was removed from prison to prison for six; months, suffering great hardships from those who had the care of him; and at last was condemned of heresy by the council in his absence, and without a hearing, for maintaining that the Eucharist ought to be administered to the people in both kinds. The emperor, in the mean time, complained heavily of the contempt that was shewn to himself, and of the usage that w is employed towards Huss; insisting, that Huss ought to be allowed a fair and public hearing. In pretended compliance with this, he was on the 5th and 7th of June 1415, brought before the council, and permitted to say what he could in behalf of himself and his doctrines; but every thing was carried on with noise and tumult, and Huss soon given to understand that they were not disposed to hear any thing from him but a recantation of his errors; which, however, he absolutely refused, and was ordered back to prison. On July 6, he was brought again before the council, where he was condemned of heresy, and ordered to be burnt. The ceremony of his execution was this he was first stripped of hi& iacerdotal vestments by bishops nominated for that purpose; next he was formally deprived of his university-degrees; then he had a paper-crown put upon his head, painted round with devils, and the word heresiarch inscribed in great letters; then he was delivered over to the magistrate, who burnt him alive, after having first burnt his books at the door of the church. He died with great firmness and resolution; and his ashes were afterwards gathered up and thrown into the Rhine. His writings, which are very numerous and learned, were collected into a body and published, 1558, in two volumes folio, under this title, “Joannis Hussi Opera, quse extant.” To preserve his memory, it is said that the 7th of July was, for many years, held sacred among the Bohemians. In some places large fires were lighted in the evening of that day upon the mountains, to preserve the memory of his sufferings; round which the country people would assemble and sing hymns. Huss, although a martyr for the opinions of Wickliffe, did not imbibe the whole of them. He was in most points a strenuous Calvinist, if we may anticipate the epithet, but neither he nor Jerora of Prague denied the real presence in the eucharist, and transubstantiation. It is said that at his execution he asked the excutioner, “Are you going to burn a goose?” (the meaning of Huss in the Bohemian language) “In one century you will have a swan you can neither roast nor boil.” This was afterwards interpreted to mean Luther, who had a swan for his arms. Much of Huss’s writings are in Fox, Gilpin, and other ecclesiastical writers.

, a distinguished artist, was the sixth, but only surviving son and heir of John Hussey of Marnhull, esq. descended from a very ancient family, and was born at Marnhull (in Dorsetshire), Feb. 10, 1710. At seven years of age he was sent by his father, who was a Roman catholic, to Doway for his education, where he continued two years. He then was removed to St. Osier’s, where he pursued his studies for three years more. His father, though willing to afford him some education, yet designed him for trade; to which, perhaps, he was the more inclined, as a near relation, in the commercial world, offered to take him under his protection and care. Thought from a sense of parental authority, and filial obedience, Mr. Hussey did not at first openly oppose this design, yet it was so repugnant to his natural turn and bent, that he found his mind greatly embarrassed and perplexed; but after some opposition, his father very wisely yielded to his son’s request, to be permitted to follow the direction of his genius; and for that end he placed him under the care and tuition of Mr. Richardson, the painter; with whom he continued scarcely a month; revolting at the idea and proposal of being kept in the bondage of apprenticeship for seven years. He then commenced pupil at large under one Damini, a Venetian artist, esteemed one of the best painters at that time in England, with whom he continued nearly four years. During this time he was principally employed in copying pictures, and finishing those of his master, whom he assisted in painting the ornaments of the cathedral of Lincoln. During their work, on a scaffold nearly twenty feet high, as Mr. Hussey was drawing back to see the effects of his pencil, he would have fallen, had not his master saved him as ingeniously as affectionately, and at some risque to himself. Mr. Hussey entertained such a sense of his master’s humanity and kindness, that he could not bear the thought of being separated from him, and therefore requested permission of his father for Damini to attend him whilst pursuing his studies in Italy. This he obtained; and under the care and direction of the Venetian, our young and inexperienced pupil set out for the seat of science and genius; bending first his course for Bologna. But, soon after their arrival, the poor unsuspecting pupil found that one act of friendship is by no means a sure pledge of another; Damini having in a few days decamped, taking with him all his pupil’s money and the best of his apparel. Mr. Hussey was, however, kindly relieved from this state of distress by signor Gislonzoni, who had been ambassador from the States of Venice to the court of London, and now became his friend and protector.

Mr. Hussey prosecuted his studies at Bologna for three years and a half, and then removed to Rome, where he was received with the most obliging courtesy by a celebrated artist, Hercule Lelli, who, refusing any compensation, imparted to him in the most friendly manner all that he knew of the art. This did not entirely satisfy Mr. Hussey, who seems to have aimed at establishing some fixed and unerring principles: hence he was led into a search after theory, which ended, although he knew nothing of music, in his adopting the ancient hypothesis of musical or harmonic proportions, as being the governing principle of beauty, in all forms produced by art, and evea by nature. Delighted with this discovery, as he thought it, he continued his studies at Rome with increasing pleasure and reputation. At length, in 1737, he returned to his friends in England, with whom he resided till 1742, when he went to London, where he submitted to the drudgery (as he used to call it) of painting portraits for his subsistence.

Whilst thus employed, our artist met with great opposition and very illiberal treatment from those to whom, in the simplicity of his heart, he communicated his principles, as well as from those whose professional pride was piqued, and envy excited, by those masterly, elegant, and graceful performances which were the result of these principles. The meek spirit of Hussey, as well as his pride of conscious superiority, could ill bear the treatment both himself and his performances met with from the envy of those who depreciated their merit. This, as he often complained, affected him deeply; and so depressed his spirits, and repressed his ardour, as to give him a disgust to the world, and almost a dislike to his profession, and his temper, though not rendered sour and morose, was certainly exasperated. After conflicting with this and other difficulties and misfortunes, Mr. Hussey left London in the month of October 1768, and retired for three years into the country, to recover his health and spirits; and having at length, by the death of his elder brother, Mr. Hussey, in 1773, succeeded to possession of his paternal estate at Marnhull, he resided there in affluence, ease, and content, and pursued his favourite studies, and amusements of gardening, till the autumn of 1787; when, from motives purely of a religious nature (after having transferred and resigned all his worldly possessions to a near relation) he retired to Beaston, near Ashburton, in Devonshire; at which place, in the month of June 1788, as he was working in the garden in a very sultry day, he suddenly fell, and expired.

The great merit of Mr. Hussey’s pencil drawings from life was, that he has preserved the best characteristic likenesses of any artist whatever. And, with respect to those of mere fancy, no man ever equalled him in accuracy, elegance, simplicity, and beauty. The academical drawings he left at Bologna, notwithstanding the school has been often purged, as it is called, by removing old drawings to make room for those of superior merit, are still shewn on account of their superior merit.

Mr. Barry, that ingenious and liberal artist, whose great work in the paintings which adorn the large room at the Society of Arts in the Adelphi, together with his description of these paintings, do no less honour to himself than to his country, has, among other illustrious characters, thought Mr. Hussey entitled to an eminent place in his Elysium, and thus notices him: " Behind Phidias, I have introdced<Giles Hussey, a name that never occurs to me without fresh grief, shame, and horror, at the mean, wretched cabal of mechanics, for they deserve not the name of artists; and their still meaner runners, and assistants, that could have co-operated to cheat such an artist out of the exercise of abilities, that were so admirably calculated to have raised this country to an immortal reputation, and for the highest, species of excellence. Why will the great, who can have no interest but in the glory of their country, why will they suffer any dirty, whispering medium to interfere between them and siicji characters as Mr. Russey, who appears to have been no less amiable as a man, than he was admirable as an artist?

“My attention was first turned to this great character by a conversation I had, very early in life, with Mr. Stuart, better known by the name of Athenian Stuart, an epithet richly merited by the essential advantages Mr. Stuart had rendered the public, by his establishing just ideas, and a true taste for the Grecian arts. The discourses of this truly intelligent and very candid artist, and what I saw of the works of Hussey, had altogether made such an impression on my mind, as may be conceived, hut cannot be expressed. With fervour I went abroad, eager to retrace all Hussey’s steps, through the Greeks, through Rafaelle, through dissected nature, and to add to what he had been cruelly torn away from, by a laborious, intense study and investigation of the Venetian school. In the hours of relaxation, I naturally endeavoured to recommend myself to the acquaintance of such of Mr. Hussey’s intimates as were still living: they always spoke of him with delight. And from the whole of what I could learn abroad, added to the information I received from my very amiable and venerable friend Mr. Moser since my return, Mr. Hussey must have been one of the most amiable, friendly, and companionable men, and the farthest removed from all spirit of strife and contention.”

Mr. Edwards and Mr. Fuseli have spoken less respectfully of Hussey. The latter says, that “disdaining portraiture, discountenanced in history, Hussey was reduced to the solitary patronage of the then duke of Northumberland, who, says Edwards, * offered to receive him into his family, and to give him a handsome pension, with the attendance of a servant, upon condition that he should employ his talents chiefly,‘ though not exclusively, ’ for the duke. This offer he rejected, because the duke did not comply with the further request of keeping a priest for him in the house.' Hussey, a bigot in religion, was attached to the creed of Rome; but had he not been so, commis. sions and patronage, almost confined to drawing copies, ven from the antique, was certainly sufficiently provoking for a man of an original turn, to be rejected.” It is not strictly true, however, that the duke of Northumberland was his only patron. Mr. Duane was another, who possessed many of his works. Mr. West bought some penciled heads at Mr. Duane’s sale, and said of one of them, that “he would venture to show it against any head, ancient or modern; that it was never exceeded, if ever equalled; and that no man had ever imbibed the true Grecian character Vid art deeper than Giles Hussey.”

, a philosopher of the Shaftesbury school, was the son of a dissenting; minister in Ireland, and was born Aug. 8, 1694. He, discovered early a superior capacity, and ardent thirst after knowledge; and when he had gone through his school-education, was sent to an academy to begin his course of philosophy. In 1710 he removed from the academy, and entered a student in the university of Glasgow in Scotland. Here he renewed his study of the Latin and Greek languages, and applied himself to all parts of literature, in which he made a progress suitable to his uncommon abilities. Afterwards h.e turned his thoughts to divinity, which he proposed to make the peculiar study and profession of his life, and for the prosecution of this he continued several years longer at Glasgow.

He then returned to Ireland; and, entering into the ministry, was just about to be settled in a small congregation of dissenters in the north of Ireland, when some gentlemen about Dublin, who knew his great abilities and virtues, invited him to set up a private academy in that city, with which he complied, and met with much success. He had been fixed but a short time in Dublin, when his singular merits and accomplishments made him generally known; and his acquaintance was sought by men of all ranks, who had any taste for literature, or any regard for learned men. Lord Molesworth is said to have taken great pleasure in his conversation, and to have assisted him with his criticisms and observations upon his “Enquiry intp the Ideas of Beauty and Virtue,” before it came abroad. He received the same favour from Dr. Synge, bishop of Elphin, with whom he also lived in great friendship. The first edition of this performance came abroad without the author’s name, but the merit of it would npt suffer him to be Long concealed. Such was the reputation of the work, and the ideas it had raised of the author, that lord Granville, who was then lord-lieutenant of Ireland, sent his private secretary to inquire at the bookseller’s for the author; and when he could not learn his name, he left a letter to be cpnveyed to him: in consequence of which Mr. Hutcheson soon became acquainted with his excellency, and was treated by him, all the time he continued in his government, with distinguished marks of familiarity and esteem.

From this time he began to be still more courted by men of distinction, either for rank or literature, in, Ireland. Abp. King held him in great esteem; and the friendship of that prelate was of great use to him in screening him from two attempts made to prosecute him, for taking upon him the education of youth, without having qualified himself by subscribing the ecclesiastical canons, and obtaining a license from the bishop. He had also a large share in the esteem of the primate Boulter, who, through his influence, made a donation to the university of Glasgow of a yearly fund for an exhibitioner, to be bred to any of the learned professions. A few years after his Inquiry into the Ideas of Beauty and Virtue, his “Treatise on the Passions” was published: these works have been often reprinted, and always admired both for the sentiment and language, even by those who have not assented to the philosophy of them, nor allowed it to have any foundation in nature. About this time he wrote some philosophical papers, accounting for laughter in a different way from Hobbes, and more honourable to human nature, which were published in the collection called “Hibernicus’s Letters.” Some letters in the “London Journal,” 1728, subscribed Philaretus, containing objections to some parts of the doctrine in “The Enquiry,” &c. occasioned his giving answers to them in those public papers. Both the letters and answers were afterwards published in a separate pamphlet.

After he had taught in a private academy at Dublin for seven or eight years with great reputation and success, he was called in 1729 to Scotland, to be professor of philosophy at Glasgow. Several young gentlemen came along with him from the academy, and his high reputation drew many more thither both from England and Ireland. After his settlement in the college, the profession of moral philosophy was the province assigned to him; so that now -he had full leisure to turn all his attention to his favourite study, human nature. Here he spent the remainder of his life in a manner highly honourable to himself, and ornamental to the university of which he was a member. His whole time was divided between his studies and the duties of his office; except what he allotted to friendship and society. A firm constitution, and a pretty uniform state of good health, except some few slight attacks of the gout, seemed to promise a longer life; yet he did not exceed his 53d year, dying in 1747. He was married soon after his settlement in Dublin, to Mrs. Mary Wilson, a gentleman’s daughter in the county of Longford; by whom he left behind him one son, Francis Hutcheson, M. D. By this gentleman was published, from the original ms. of his father, “A System of Moral Philosophy,” in three books, Glasgow, 1755, 2 vols. 4to. To which is prefixed, “Some account of the Life, Writings, and Character of the Author,” by Dr. Leechman, professor of divinity in the same university. Dr. Hutcheson’s system of morals is, in its foundation, very nearly the same with that of lord Shaftesbury. He agrees with the noble author in asserting a distinct class of the human affections, which, while they have no relation to our own interest, propose for their end the welfare of others; but he makes out his position rather more clearly than Shaftesbury, who cannot exclude somewhat of the selfish as the spring of our benevolent emotions. Hutcheson maintains, that the pleasure arising from the performance of a benevolent action, is not the ruling principle in prompting to such actions; but that, independently of the selfish enjoyment, which is allowed in part to exist, there is in the human mind a calm desire of the happiness of all rational beings, which is not only consistent with, but of superior influence in regulating our conduct, to the desire of our own happiness; insomuch that, whenever these principles come into opposition, the moral sense decides in favour of the former against the latter. Dr. Hutcheson deduced all moral ideas from what he calls a moral sense t implanted in our natures, or an instinct like that of self-preservation, which, independently of any arguments taken from the reasonableness and advantages of any action, leads us to perform it ourselves, or to approve it when performed by others; and this moral sense he maintained to be the very foundation of virtue. His hypothesis was new, but whether much better than other theories of the same kind, may be questioned. His fame, in the opinion of an eminfent author, rests now chiefly on the traditionary history of his academical lectures, which appear to have contributed very powerfully to diffuse, in Scotland, that taste for analytical discussion, and that spirit of liberal inquiry, to which the world is indebted for some of the most valuable productions of the eighteenth century."

, a topographical historian, the son of the rev. Richard Hutchins, was born in the parish of Bradford Peverel, Sept. 21, 1698. His father was rector of All Saints in Dorchester, and curate of Bradford Peverel. His income was small, and his son’s education was suited to the frugality of the station in which he was born. He appears to have been sent early to the grammar-school at Dorchester, where his master was the rev. Mr. Thornton, rector of West Stafford, whom he afterwards mentioned with gratitude, as behaving to him with the kindest attention, and as a second parent. He was afterwards sent to Oxford, where his residence was not long; for he took his master of arts degree at Cambridge, a proof that he had not kept a statutable residence for that degree in his own university, by applying to another in which none is required; and it is also a proof that he determined in Oxford; for, unless that exercise be performed, a certificate of a bachelor of arts degree is never granted. He was matriculated in Easter term, 1718, from Hart-hair, now Hertford college; but was afterwards removed by a bene discessit to Baliol college; and, as it appears by their books, he was admitted a member of that society in Easter term, April 10, 1719, and was regularly admitted to the degree of bachelor of arts in Lent term, Jan. 18, 1721-2. He was a determining bachelor in the same term; so that his whole residence in the university did not exceed four years; yet the friendships he contracted in both societies of which he was a member, continued with life; of which Mr. Charles Godwyn, fellow of Baliol college, was an instance in one; and his tutor, Mr. Davis, vice-principal of Harthall, in the other; and in what esteem he held both the one and the other, different passages in his “History” evince.

He was soon after admitted into holy orders, and became curate and usher to the rev. George Marsh, rector of Burleston, vicar of Milton Abbas, and master of the free grammar school of Milton Abbas. This engagement at Milton procured him the acquaintance of Jacob Bancks, sq. then the possessor of that estate, by whose interest he obtained in 1729 the rectory of Swyre, and in 1733 the rectory of Melcombe Horsey. About this time he began first to engage in the study of antiquities, and having a competent income, was enabled to pursue it with the less interruption, as an incurable deafness prevented his enjoying the pleasures of society. In 1744 he was presented to the living of Wareham, which was attended with a considerable increase in his clerical duties; yet without ever relaxing in his attention to these, he continued to accumulate materials for the history of his native county, and eutered into an extensive correspondence with gentlemen most likely to assist his researches. He had many difficulties, however, to encounter. He was himself rather a man of diligence than of extraordinary genius; his collections were many years making, and a great part of them fell into his hands on the death of a prior collector. The book, however, which he did not live to see published, was most liberally conducted through the press, by a very handsome subscription of the gentlemen of the county, and the kind patronage of Dr. Cuming and Mr. Gough, for the benefit of the author’s widow and daughter. Several articles were added, relative to the antiquities and natural history; and such a number of beautiful plates were contributed by the gentlemen of the county, that (only 600 copies having been printed, a number not quite sufficient for the subscribers) the value of the book increased, immediately after publication, to twice the original price, which was only a guinea a volume. The title of it is, “The History and Antiquities of the County of Dorset, compiled from the best and most ancient historians, Inquisitiones post mortem, and other valuable Records and Mss. in the public offices, libraries, and private hands; with a Copy of Domesday-book and the Inquisitio Gheldi for the county: interspersed with some remarkable particulars of Natural History, and adorned with a correct map of the county, and views of antiquities, seats of the nobility and gentry,” Lond. 1774, 2 vols, folio.

In the decline of life, when he had a reasonable prospect of seeing his “History” through the press, he was seized with a paralytic stroke, which greatly debilitated him, and hastened his dissolution, which took place June 21, 1773, He was buried in St. Mary’s church at Wareham, in the ancient chapel under the south aile of the church. He married Anne, daughter of the rev. Thomas Stephens, for-: merly rector of Pimperne, by whom he had issue one daughter, who was married to the late John Bellasis, esq. major-general of artillery in the service of the East-India company, who died at Bombay in 1808. The profit arising from his “History,” was the chief provision Mr. Hutchins made for his family. A second edition was brought forwards, of which vol. I. was published in 1796, and vol. II. in 1803, under the auspices of gen. Bellasis, who expended a large sum to promote the undertaking, and with the assistance of Mr. Gough and Mr. Nichols. The improvements in this edition were so many as to extend the work to four volumes, the third of which was nearly ready for publication at the time when the unfortunate fire in Mr. Nichols’s printing-office and warehouses destroyed that and a vast mass of other valuable literary property. Mr. Nichols has since printed the third and fourth volumes, so essential to the completion of the work, and we may add so indispensable to every public library and private topographical collection.

, 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.”

While he travelled from place to place, he employed himself in collecting fossils; and we are told, that the large and noble collection, which Woodward bequeathed to the university of Cambridge, was actually formed by him. Whether Woodward had no notion of Hntchinson’s abilities in any other way than that of steward and minera­)ogist, or whether he did not suspect him at that time as likely to commence author, is not certain: Hutchinson, however, complains in one of his books, that “he was bereft, in a manner not to be mentioned, of those observations and those collections; nay, even of the credit of being the collector.” He is said to have put his collections into Woodward’s hands, with observations on them, which Woodward was to digest and publish, with further observations of his own: but his putting him off with excuses, when from time to time he solicited him about this work, first suggested to Hutchinson unfavourable notions of his intention. On this Hutehinson resolved to wait no longer, but to trust to his own pen; and that be might be more at leisure to prosecme his studies, he begged leave of the duke of Somerset to quit his service. The request at first piqued 'the pride of that nobleman; but when he was made to understand by Hutchinson, that he did not intend to serve any other master, and was told what were the real motives of his request, the duke not only granted" his suit, but made him his riding purveyor, being at that time master of the horse to George I. As there is a good house in the Mews belonging to the office of purveyor, a fixed salary of 200l. per ann. and the phice a kind of sinecure,. Hutchinson’s situation and circumstances were quite agreeable to his mind; and he gave himself up to a studious and sedentary life. The duke also gave him the next presentation of the living of Sutton in Sussex, which Hutchinson bestowed on the rev. Julius Bate, a great favourite with htm, and a zealous promoter of his doctrines.

In 1724 he published the first part of his “Moses’s Principia;” in which he ridiculed Woodward’s “Natural History of the Earth,” and his account of the settlement of the several strata, shells, and noduies, by the laws of gravity; which, he tells him, every dirty impertinent collier could contradict and disprove by ocular demonstration. This work, in which gravitation is exploded, is evidently opposed to Newton’s“Principia,” where that doctrine is established. H utchinson also threw out some hints concerning what had passed between Woodward and himself, and the doctor’s design of robbing him of his collection of fossils. From this time to his death, he continued to publish a volume every year, or every other year; which, with the Mss. he left behind him, were collected in 1743, amounting to 12 vols. 8vo. An abstract of them was also published in 1723, in 12mo. Hutchinson' s followers look upon the breach between Woodward and him, as a very happy event; because, say they, had the doctor fulfilled his engagements, Hutchinson might have stopped there, and not have extended his researches so far as he has done; in which case the world would have been deprived of writings deemed by them invaluable. Others are as violent opposers and censurers of his writings and opinions; and the dispute has been carried on at various times with no small degree of warmth.

In 1727, Hutchinson published the second part of “Moses’s Principia” which contains the sum and substance, or the principles of the Scripture- philosophy. As sir Isaac Newton made a vacuum and gravity the principles of his philosophy, this author on the contrary asserts, that a plenum and the air are the principles of the Scripture-philosophy. In the introduction to this second part, he hinted, that the idea of the Trinity was to be taken from the three grand agents in the system of nature, fire, light, and spirit; these three conditions of one and the same substance, namely, air, answering wonderfully in a typical or symbolical manner to the three Persons of one and the same essence. This, we are told, so forcibly struck the celebrated Dr. Samuel Clarke,- that he sent a gentleman to Mr. Hutchinson with compliments upon the performance, and desired a conference with him on that proposition in particular: which, however, it is added, after repeated solicitations, Hutchinson thought fit to refuse. This doctrine a certain admirer of Hutchinson, particularly in his opinions on natural philosophy, has lately attempted to revive and illustrate, in a pamphlet entitled, “A short Way to Truth, or the Christian doctrine of a Trinity in Unity, illustrated and confirmed from an Analogy in the Natural Creation.” It was published in 1793.

Some time in 1712, Hutchinson is said to have completed a machine of the watch -kind, for the discovery of the longitude at sea, which was approved by sir Isaac Newton; and Whiston, in his “Longitude and Latitude,” &c. has given a testimony in favour of his mechanical abilities. “I have also,” says he, “very lately been shewn by Mr. Hutchinson, a very curious and inquisitive person, a copy of a ms map of the world, made about eighty years ago, taken by himself from the original: wherein the variation is reduced to a theory, much like that which Dr. Halley has since proposed, and in general exactly agreeing to his observations. But with this advantage, that therein the northern pole of the internal loadstone is much better stated than it is by Dr. Halley its place then being, according to this unknown very curious and sagacious author, about the meridian, &c. which ancient and authentic determination of its place, I desire my reader particularly to observe.”

Hutchinson had been accustomed to make an excursion for a month or so into the country for his health: but to neglecting this in pursuit of his studies, he is supposed have brought himself into a bad habit of body, which prepared the way for his death. The immediate cause is said to have been an overflowing of the gall, occssioned by the irregular sallies of an high-kept unruly horse, and the sudden jerks given to his body by them. On the Monday before his death, Dr. Mead was with him, and urged him to be bled; saying at the same time in a pleasant way, “I will soon send you to Moses.” Dr. Mead meant to his studies, two of his books being entitled “Moses’s Principia:” but Hutchinson, taking it in the other sense, answered in a muttering tone, “I believe, doctor, you will;” and was so displeased with Mead, that he afterwards dismissed him for another physician. He died August 28, 1737, aged 63. He seems to have been in many respects a singular man. He certainly jjad eminent abilities, with much knowledge and learning; but many people have thought it very questionable, whether he did not want judgment to apply them properly, and many more have inveighed against his principles without previously making themselves acquainted with them. They were, however, in some measure, adopted by many pious and learned divines of the last century, by Home, Parkhurst, Homaine, and the late Rev. William Jones, who, of all others, has exhibited the ablest analysis and defence of Mr. Hutchinson’s sentiments, or what is called Hutchinsonianism, in the “Preface to the second edition” of his life of bishop Home.

, a gentleman of Franconia, of uncommon parts and learning, was born in 1488 at Steckenburg, the seat of his family; was sent to the abbey of Fulde at eleven years of age; and took the degree of M. A. in 1506 at Francfort on the Oder, being the first promotion made in that newly-opened university. In 1509, he was at the siege of Padua, in the emperor Maximilian’s army; and he owned that it was want of money, which forced him to make that campaign. His father, not having the least taste or esteem for polite literature, thought it unworthy to be pursued by persons of exalted birth; and therefore would not afford his son the necessary supplies for a life of study. He wished him to apply himself to the civil law, which might raise him in the world; but Hutten had no inclination for that kind of study. Finding, however, that there was no other way of being upon good terms with his father, he went to Pavia in 1511, where he stayed but a little time; that city being besieged and plundered by the Swiss, and himself taken prisoner. He returned afterwards to Germany, and there, contrary to his father’s inclinations, began to apply himself again to literature. Having a genius for poetry, he began his career as an author in that line, and published several compositions, which were much admired, and gained him credit. He travelled to various places, among the rest to Bohemia and Moravia; and waiting on the bishop of Olmutz in a very poor condition, that prelate, who was a great Maecenas, received him graciously, presented him with a horse, and gave him money to pursue his journey. The correspondence also he held with Erasmus was of great advantage to him, and procured him respect from all the literati in Italy, and especially at Venice.

At his return to Germany in 1516, he was recommended in such strong terms to the emperor, that be received from him the poetical crown; and from that time Hutten had himself drawn in armour, with a crown of laurel on his head, and took great delight in being so represented. He was of a very military, disposition, and had given many proofs of courage, as well in the wars as in private rencounters. Being once at Viterbo, where an ambassador of France stopped, a general quarrel arose, in which Hutten, forsaken by his comrades, was attacked by five Frenchmen at once, and put them all to flight, after receiving some small wounds. He wrote au epigram on that occasion, “in quinque Gallbs a se profligates,” which mky be seen in Melchior Adam. He had a cousin John de Hutten, who was court-marshal to Ulric duke of Wirtemberg, and was murdered by that duke in 15 15, for the sake of his wife, whom the duke kept afterwards as a mistress. The military poet, as soon as he heard of it, breathed nothing but resentment; and because he had no opportunity of shewing it with his sword, took up his pen, and wrote several pieces in the form of dialogues, orations, poems, and letters. A collection of these was printed io the castle of Steckelberg, 1519, 4to.

He was in France in 1518-, whence he went to Mentz, and engaged in the service of the elector Albert; and attended him a little after to the diet of Augsburg, where the elector was honoured with a cardinal’s hat. At this diet, articles were exhibited against the duke of Wirtemberg, on which occasion the murder of John de Hutten, marshal of his court, was not forgotten: and a league was after formed against him. Ulric Hutten served in this war with great pleasure; yet was soon disgusted with a military life, and longed earnestly for his studies and retirement. This we find by a letter of his to Frederic Piscator, dated May 21, 1519: in which he discovers an inclination for matrimony, and expresses himself somewhat loosely on that subject.

Believing Luther’s cause a very good one, he joined in it with great warmth; and published Leo the Xth’s bull against Luther in 1520, with interlineary and marginal glosses, in which that pope was made an object of the strongest ridicule. The freedom with which he wrote against the irregularities and disorders of the court of Rome, exasperated Leo in the highest degree; and induced him to command the elector of Mentz to send him to Rome bound hand and foot, but the elector suffered him, to depart in peace. Hutten then withdrew to Brabant, and was at the court of the emperor Charles V. but did not stay long there, being told that his life would be in danger. He then retired to Ebernberg, where he was protected by Francis de Sickingen, Luther’s great friend and guardian, to whom the castle of Ebernberg belonged. There he wrote in 1520 his complaint to the emperor, to the electors of Mentz and Saxony, and to all the states of Germany, against the attempts which the pope’s emissaries made against him. From the same place also he wrote to Luther in May 1521, and published several pieces’ in favour of the Reformation. He did not declare openly for Luther, till after he had left the elector of Mentz’s court; but he had written to him before from Mentz, and his first letter is dated June 1520. While he was upon his journey to Ebernberg, he met with Hochstratus-, and, drawing his sword, run up to him, and swore he would kill him, for what he had done against Reuchlin and Luther: but Hochstratus, throwing himself at his feet, conjured him so earnestly to spare his life, that Hutten let him go, after striking him several times with the flat sword. Such was his turbulent zeal, so disgraceful to the cause he espoused, that Luther himself, warm as he was, blamed it. During his stay at Ebernberg, however, he performed a very generous action in regard to his family. Being the eldest son, and succeeding to the whole estate, he gave it all up to his brothers; and even, to prevent their being involved in the misfortunes and disgraces which he expected, by the suspicions that might be entertained against him, he enjoined them not to remit him any money, nor to hold the least correspondence with him.

It was now that he devoted himself wholly to the Lutheran party, to advance which he laboured incessantly both by his writings and actions. We do not know the exact time when he quitted the castle of Ebernberg; but it appears, that in January 1523, he left Basil, where he had flattered himself with the hopes of finding an asylum, and had only been exposed to great daggers. Erasmus, though his old acquaintance and friend, had here refused a visit from him, for fear, as he pretended, of heightening the suspicions which were entertained against him but his true reason, as he aftersvards declared, in a letter to Melancthon, was, “that he should then have been under a necessity of taking into his house that proud boaster, oppressed with poverty and disease, who only sought for a nest to lay himself in, and to borrow money of every one he met.” This refusal of P>asmus provoked Hutten to attack him severely, and accordingly he published an “Expostulatio” in 1523, which Erasmus answered the same year, in _a very lively piece, entitled, “Spongia Erasmi adversus adspergines Ilutteni.” Hutten probably intended to reply, had he not been snatched away by death; but he died in an island of the lake Zurich, where he had liimself for security, August 1523. tie was a man of little stature; of a weak and sickly Constitution; extremely brave, but passionate: for he was mot satisfied with attacking the Roman Catholics with his pen, he attacked them also with his sword. He acquainted Luther with the double war which he carried on against the clergy. “I received a letter from Hutten,” says Luther, “filled with rage against the Roman pontiff, declaring he would attack the tyranny of the clergy both with his pen and sword: he being exasperated against the pope for threatening him with daggers and poison, and commanding the bishop of Mentz to send him bound to Rome.” Camerarius says, that Hutten was impatient, that his aif and discourse shewed him to be of a cruel disposition and applied to him what was said o Demosthenes, namely, that “he would have turned the world upside down, had his power been equal to his will.” His works are numerous, though he died young. A collection of his “Latin Poems” was published at Francfort in 1538, 12mo; all which, except two poemsj were reprinted in the third part of the “Deliciae Poetarum Germanorum.” He was the author of a great many works, chiefly satirical, in the way of dialogue; and Thuanus has not scrupled to compare him to Lucian. Of this cast were his Latin Dialogues on Lutheranism, published in 4to, in 1520, and now very scarce. He had also a considerable share in the celebrated work called “Epistolae virorum obscurorum,” which Meiners, in his “Liv$s of Illustrious Men,” says, was the joint work of Ulrick and Crotus Rubianus, alias John Jaeger, of Dornheim,in Thuringia. The produc“­tions of each, according to Meiners, may easily be distinguished. Wherever we are struck with the” peculiar levity, rapidity, and force of the style with a certain sol- ­dier-like boldness and unclerical humour, in obscene jests and pictures, and comical representations of saints, reliques, &c. with no small degree of keenness in the relation of laughable anecdotes, with a knowledge of Italy, to be obtained only by experience, with a pleasant explanation and derivation of words in the style of the monkish schools; 'in all these places, the hand of Ulrick Hutten may be traced.“That these letters were the work of different hands, says an acute critic, is not improbable; but we are not certain that Crotus Rubianus had any share in them; nor can we tell from what authority it is sq affirmed. Goethe, who wrote his” Tribute to the memory of Ulrick of Hutten," translated into English by Antony Aufrtre, esq. 1789, and who wrote that some years before the appearance of Meiners’ Biography, seems to have led the latter into this opinion. With much more probability might Reuchlin have been mentioned, who, indeed, by some has been supposed the sole author. Upon the whole, however, there is most reason to think them Hutten' s.

, a Silesian of the sixteenth century, was the founder of the sect called the Bohemian or Moravian brethren, a sect of Anabaptists. Hutten purchased a territory of some extent in Moravia, and there established his society. They are considered as descended from the better sort of Hussites, and were distinguished by several religious institutions of a singular nature, but well adapted to guard their community against the reigning vices of the times. When they heard of Luther’s attempts to reform the church, they sent a deputation to him, and he, examining their tenets, though he could not in every particular approve, looked upon them as worthy of toleration and indulgence. Hutten brought persecution upon himself and his brethren by violent declamations against the magistrates, and the attempt to introduce a perfect equality among men. It has been said that he was burnt as a heretic at Inspruck, but this is by no means certain. By degrees these sectaries, banished from their own country, entered into communion with the Swiss church; though, for some time, with separate institutions. But in the synods held at Astrog in 162O and 1627, all dissensions were removed, and the two congregations were formed into one, under the title of the Church of the United Brethren. The sect of Herrenhutters or Moravians, formed by count JZinzendorff in the beginning of the present century, pretend to be descended from these brethren, ad take the same title of unitas Jratrum but Mosheina observes that “they may with more propriety be said to imitate the example of that famous community, than to descend from, those who composed it, since it is well known that there are very few Bohemians and Moravians in the fraternity of the Herrenhutters; and it is extremely doubtful whether vcn this smaJl number are to be considered as the posterity of the ancient Bohemian brethren, who distinguished themselves so early by their zeal for the reformation,”

, a Protestant divine, was born at Ulm, in 1553, and died at Nuremberg after 1602. He was deeply versed in languages, oriental and occidental; particularly Hebrew, which he seems to have taught at Leipsic. He published, 1. “A Hebrew Bible,” remarkable for being printed with the radical letters in black, the servile in hollow types, and the quiescent or deficient letters in smaller characters above the line. At the end is the 117th Psalm in thirty different languages. 2. “Two Polyglotts,” one in four languages, printed at Hamburg in 1596; the other in six languages, at Nuremberg, in 1599; both in folio.

, was also a native of Ulm, and born in 1563. He studied at Strasbourg, and early applied himself with great diligence to theology; he was afterwards at Leipsic, Heidelberg, Jena, and Wirtemburg, and in the latter place was appointed one of the public professors of theology. He married a lady of illustrious birth in 1599; and died of a fever in 1616, being then, for the fourth time rector of the university. The opinion held of his principles may be judged by five anagrams of his names Leonardus Hutterus, four of them implying that he was another Luther. They are formed, says the author who gives them, “per literarum haud vanam transposijtionem;” thus, “Redonatus Lutherus;” “Leonhartus Hutterus;” “Ah tu noster Lutherus-,” “Notus arte Lutherus;” “Tantus ero Lutherus.” His works are very numerous; a great part of them controversial, directed against the church of Rome. Besides these, 1. “Compendium Theologiae, cum Notis D. Gotofredi Cundisii.” 2. “Explicatio Libri Concordiae Christiante,” 8vo. 3. “Loci Communes Theologici,” folio. 4. “formulae concionandi,” 8vo. 5. “Disputationes de verbo Dei scripto, ac traditionihus non scriptis,” in 4to, 6. “Collegium Theologicum, sive XI disputationes de articulis confessionis Augustanse,” 8vo. 7. “Libri Christianae Concordisc,” 8vo; and several pieces in defence of the Formula: Concordiae, which in his time were highly esteemed; besides many other tracts in Latin, and in German, all of which are enumerated by Freher, but seem too uninteresting at the present day to be transcribed.

, an ingenious philosopher of the sceptical class, was the son of Mr. William Hutton, merchant in Edinburgh, and born in that city on the 3d of June, 1726. He entered the university as a student of humanity, in Nov. 1740. He studied afterwards under the celebrated Maclaurin, but did not prosecute the mathematical sciences to any great extent. The origin of his attachment to the study of chemistry is traced to the accidental mention of a chemical fact by professor Stevenson, in his prelections on logic. The fact was, that aqua regia is the only solvent of gold which requires the united action of two acids, each of which singly is capable of dissolving any of the baser metals. This important phenomenon drew him, as if by a kind of electric attraction, to the study of chemistry, with a force that could never afterwards be overcome. His philosophical career was however interrupted by his engaging, at the request of his friends, as an apprentice to a writer to the signet. But instead of copying writs and deeds, or studying th,e forms of legal proceedings, it was found that his favourite object of pursuit was the experiments of the crucible and retort. He was accordingly released from his engagement as an apprentice, and permitted to direct his attention to studies more congenial to his inclinations. He applied himself to the study of medicine as being the most closely connected with chemistry, and after attending the lectures in the university for some years, repaired, as was then customary, to the continent, to finish his course of study. He took the degree of M. D. at Leyden, in 1749.

Dr. Hutton’s first publication was given to the world in 1777, entitled “Considerations on the nature, quality, and distinctions of Coal and Culm.” It proves that culm is the small or refuse of the infusible or stone-coal, but very different in its properties from the small of the fusible coal. A sketch of his great work, his “Theory of the Earth,” the formation of which had been the object of many years of previous study, was communicated to the royal society of Edinburgh soon after its original institution. Another paper, a “Theory of Kain,” appeared also in the first volume of the Edinburgh Transactions. This theory, as is well known, met with a most vigorous and determined opposition from M. de Luc, and became a subject of controversy, which was conducted with perhaps too much warmth. After the period of these two publications, Dr. Hutton made severalexcursions into different parts of Scotland, wkh a view of comparing certain results of his theory with actual observation; and in these he seems to have been very successful. In 1792 he published “Dissertations on different subjects in Natural Philosophy,” in which his theory for explaining the phenomena of the material world, seems to coincide very closely with that of Boscovich, though there is no reason to suppose that the former was suggested by the latter. But Dr. Hutton did not confine himself merely to physical speculations; he directed his attention also to the study of metaphysics, the result of which was the publication of a work entitled “An Investigation of the Principles of Knowledge, and of the Progress of Reason from Sense to Science and Philosophy,” 3 vols. 4to. The metaphysical opinions advanced in this work coincide for the most part with those of Dr. Berkeley, and abound in sceptical boldness and philosophical infidelity. In 1794 appeared his “Dissertation upon the Philosophy of Light, Heat, and Fire,” 8vo, which may be considered as a kind of supplement to the two preceding works. In 1796 his “Theory of the Earth” was republished in 2 vols. 8vo, from the Edinburgh Philosophical Transactions, with large additions, and a new mineralogical system. Many of his opinions here have been ably combated by Kirwan and others.

In 1792 Dr. Hutton’s health began to decline, and in the summer of 1793 he was seized with a severe illness, which after some intervals of convalescence, terminated at last in his death, March 26, 1797.

, was a physician of considerable reputation, who practised his profession at Plymouth, where he died in 1768. It is remarkable that no biographical memoirs of this able and learned practitioner are extant. Mr. Polwhele informs us only that he was the sou of a butcher at Halberton. Yet he possessed an innate genius and a strong propensity for medical acquisitions. By these he was led to the university of Leyden, where he pursued his studies with indefatigable application, and took his doctor’s degree in medicine. At length, settling at Plymouth, by a successful course of practice he acquired a considerable fortune, and by several admirable publications gained universal fame. His “Treatise on Fevers” Mr. Polwhele notices, as the most eminent, and as it leads to the subsequent anecdote. “The queen of Portugal being ill of a fever, and being reduced to the last extremity, notwithstanding the efforts of the physicians of the country; his majesty, hearing of the eminence of a physician of the English factory at Lisbon, sent for him, and giving him the particulars of the queen’s disorder, inquired whether it was in his power to administer any assistance. The physician replied that he was not without hope, but that hecould do nothing unless her majesty was left to his sole care and direction. This being granted, the disorder soon took a turn, and in a short time the queen was restored to perfect health. The doctor being complimented by the king on his abilities and success, said he had ne claim but to the application; for that the merit was due to Dr. Huxham, an eminent physician at Plymouth, whose tract on the management of fevers he had implicitly followed. Upon which, the king immediately procured the treatise, had it translated into the Portuguese language, printed it in handsome 4to, and sent it richly bound to Dr. Huxham, as an acknowledgment of the sense he entertained of his abilities, and of his debt of gratitude on the recovery of the queen.”

Dr. Huxham' s writings display a most intimate acquaintance with the writings of the ancients, and a great veneration for those of Hippocrates in particular; and he quotes the ancient languages, and writes the Latin, with great fluency and familiarity. He appears to have spent his life ;at Plymouth in the active exercise of his profession for he kept a register of the state of health and reigning diseases at that place, together with an account of the variety of the seasons, for nearly thirty years, (namely, from 1724 to 1752 inclusive); which were published in Latin, under the title of“Gbservationes de Acre et Morbis Epidemicis,” tc. in 3 vols. 8vo. The first of these volumes commences with an account of the year 1728 but in the dedication to sir Hans Sloane, he refers to an account of the constitution and diseases of the seasons from 1724 to 1727, already published. The third volume was edited in 1770, after the death of the author, by his son J. Cor. Huxham, A. M. F. R. S.; who, it is to be regretted, did not insert any memoirs of his father’s life.