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

, an eminent mathematician, was born at Oxford, or, as Anthony Wood expresses it, “turn-; bled out of his mother’s womb in the lap of the Oxonian Muses,” in 1560. Having been instructed in grammarlearning in that city, he became a commoner of St. Maryhall, where he took the degree of B. A. in 1579. He had then so distinguished himself, by his uncommon skill in mathematics, as to be recommended soon after to sir Walter Raleigh as a proper preceptor to him in that science. Accordingly, that noble knight became his first patron, took him into his family, and allowed him a handsome pension. In 1585 he was sent over by sir Walter with his first colony to Virginia; where, being settled, he was employed in discovering and surveying that country, in observing what commodities it produced, together with the manners and customs of its inhabitants. He published an account of it under this title, “A brief and true Report of the Newfoundland of Virginia;” which was reprinted in the third voyage of Hakluyt’s “Voyages.” Upon his return to England, he was introduced by his patron to the acquaintance of Henry earl of Northumberland who, “finding him,” says Wood, “to be a gentleman of an affable and peaceable nature, and well read in the obscure pan of learning,” allowed him a yearly pension of 120l. About the same time, Robert Hues, well known by his ' Treatise upon the Globes,“and Walter Warner, who is said to have communicated to the famous Harvey the first hint concerning the circulation of the blood, being both of them mathematicians, received pensions from him of less value, ^o that in 1606, when the earl was committed to the Tower for life, Harriot, Hues, and Warner, were his constant companions, and were usually called the earl of Northumberland’s Magi. They had a table at the earl’s charge, who did constantly converse with them, to divert the melancholy of his confinement; as did also sir Walter Raleigh, who was then in the Tower. Harriot lived for some time at Sion-college, and died in London, July 2, 1621, of a cancer in his lip. He was universally esteemed on account of his learning. When he was but a young man, he was styled by Mr. Hakluyt” Juvenis in disciplinis mathematicis excellens;“and by Camden,” Mathematicus insignis.“A ms. of his, entitled” Ephemeris Chryrometrica,“is preserved in Sion-college library and his” Artis Analytic* Praxis“was printed after his death, in a thin folio, and dedicated to Henry earl of Northumberland. Des Cartes is said to have been obliged to this book for a great many improvements in algebra, which he published to the world as his own, a fact that has been amply proved, in the astronomical ephemeris for 17vS8, by Dr. Zach, astronomer to the duke of Saxe Gotha, from manuscripts which he found in 1784 at the seat of the earl of Egremont at Petworth, a descendant of the above-mentioned earl of Northumberland. These papers also show that Mr. Harriot was an astronomer as well as an algebraist, As to his religion, Wood says, that,” notwithstanding his great skill in mathematics, he had strange thoughts of the Scripture, always undervalued the old story of the Creation of the World, and could never believe that trite position, * Ex nihilo nihil fit.‘ He made a Philosophical Theology, wherein he cast off the Old Testament, so that consequently the New would have uo foundation. He was a deist; and his doctrine he did impart to the earl, and to sir Walter Raleigh, when he was compiling the ’ History of the World,' and would controvert the matter with eminent divines of those times: who, therefore, having no good opinion of him, did look on the manner of his death, as a judgment upon him for those matters, and for nullify, ing the Scripture.“Wood borrowed all this from Aubrey, without mentioning his authority; and it has been answered, that Harriot assures us himself, that when he was with the first colony settled in Virginia, in every town where he came,” he explained to them the contents of the Bible, &c. And though I told them,“says he,” the book materially and of itself was not of such virtue as I thought they did conceive, but only the doctrine therein contained; yet would many be glad to touch it, to embrace it, to kiss it, to hold it to their breasts and heads, and stroke over all their bodies with it, to shew their hungry desires of that knowledge which was spoken of." To which we may add, that, if Harriot was reputed a deist, it is by no means probable that Dr. Corbet, an orthodox divine* and successively bishop of Oxford and Norwich, sending a poem, dated December 9, 1618, to sir Thomas Aylesbury, when the comet appeared, should speak of

, a young gentleman high in esteem, and (as Swift expresses it) “a little pretty fellow, With a great deal of wit, good sense, and good nature,” was educated at Winchester, and was afterwards of New college, Oxford, of which he became a fellow. He appears to have been employed in private tuition, which was not a very profitable employment. He had no other income than 40l. a year as tutor to one of the duke of Queensbury’s sons. In this employment he fortunately attracted the favour of Dr. Swift, whose generous solicitations with Mr. St. John obtained for him the reputable employment of secretary to lord Raby, ambassador at the Hague, and afterwards earl of Stafford. A letter of his, whilst at Utrecht, dated December 16, 1712, printed inthedean’s works, informs us that his office was attended with much vexation and little advantage. Even in Jan. 13, 1713, when he brought over the barrier treaty, and, as Swift says, was the queen’s minister, entrusted in affairs of the greatest importance, he had not a shilling in his pocket to pay his hackney coach. He died soon after this, Feb. 14,1712-13. See the “Journal to Stella” of that and the following day, where Dr. Swift laments his loss with the most unaffected sincerity. Mr. Tickell has mentioned him with respect, in his “Prospect of Peace;” and Dr. Young, in the beautiful close of an “Epistle to lord Lansdown,” most pathetically bewails his loss. Dr. Birch, who has given a curious note on Mr. Harrison’s “Letter to Swift,” has confounded him with Thomas Harrison, M. A. of Queen’s college. In the “Select Collection,” by Nichols, are some pleasing specimens of his poetry; which, with “Woodstock-Park” in Dodsley’s “Collection,” and an “Ode to the duke of Marlborough, 1707,” in Duncombe’s “Horace,” are all the poetical writings that are known of this excellent young man, who figured both as an humourist and a politician in the fifth volume of the “Tatler,” of which (under the patronage of Bolingbroke, Henley, and Swift) he was professedly the editor. There was another William Harrison, author of “The Pilgrim, or the happy Convert, a pastoral tragedy,” 1709.

At the recommendation of the well-known Paul Whitehead, esq his neighbour in the country, who, conceiving him a fit person for a magistrate, had mentioned him as such to the duke of Newcastle, then lord lieutenant for. Middlesex, his name was, in 1761, inserted in the commission of the peace for that county; and having, besides a due attention to the great work in which he was engaged, by the proper studies, and a sedulous attendance at the sessions, qualified himself for the office, he became an active and useful magistrate in the countyt. Observing, as he had frequent occasion to do in the course of his duty, the bad state of highways, and the great defect in the laws for amending and keeping them in repair, he set himself to revise the former statutes, and drew an act of parliament consolidating ajl the former ones, and adding such other regulations as were necessary. His sentiments on this subject he published in octavo, in 1763, under the title of “Observations on the State of Highways, and on, the Laws for amending and keeping them in Repair,” subjoining to them the draught of the act before mentioned, which bill, being afterwards introduced into parliament, passed into a law, and is that under which all the highways in the kingdom are at this time kept repaired. Of this

In 1763-4-5, Mr. Heathcote preached the Boy lean lectures, twenty-four in number, at St. James’s, Westminster, by the appointment of the trustees, archbishop Seeker and the duke of Devonshire. He published, however, only two of them, in 1763; on the “Being of a God,” which soon passed into a second edition. In 1765, on the death of his father, he succeeded to the vicarage of Sileby, and in 1766 was presented to the rectory of Sawtry-All-Saints, in Huntingdonshire 5 and in 1768 to a prebend in the collegiate church of Southwell. “These,” he says, “in so short a compass, may look pompous; but their clear annual income, when curates were paid, and all expences deducted, did uot amount to more than 150l.” In 1771 he published “The Ireuarch, or Justice of the Peace’s Manna!,” a performance which, witii some singularities of opinion, was accounted both sensible and seasonable. He was now in the commission of the peace. A second edition of this work appeared in 1774, with a long dedication, to lord Mansfield, with a view to oppose the invectives levelled against that illustrious character in a time of political turbulence; and in 1781 he published a third edition, to which he gave his name.

As to his person, though he was tall and well-made, it was not very pleasing, from an unusual hardness of features. But he was the first to joke upon his own ugliness and he once laid a. wager with the earl of Chesterfield,that within a certain given time his lordship woukl not be able to produce so hideous a face in all Londort. After strict search, a woman was found, whose features were at first sight thought stronger than Heidegger’s; but, upon clapping her head-dress upon himself, he was universally allowed to have won the wager. Jolly, a well-known taylor, carrying his bill to a noble duke; his grace, for evasion, said, “1 never will pay you till you bring me an uglier fellow than yourself!” Jolly bowed and retired, wrote a letter, and sent it by a servant to Heidegger, saying, “his grace wished to see him the next morning on particular business.” Heidegger attended, and Jolly was tjiere to meet him; and in consequence, as soon as Heidegger’s visit was over, Jolly received the cash.

The late facetious duke of Montagu (the memorable contriver of the bottle-conjuror at the theatre in the Haymarket) gave an entertainment at the Devfl tavern, Templebar, to several of the nobility and gentry, to whom he imparted his plot. Heidegger was invited, and a few hours after dinner was made drunk, and laid insensible upon a bed. A profound sleep ensued; when the late Mrs. Salmon’s daughter was introduced, who took a mould from his face in plaster of Paris. From this a. mask was made, and a few days before the next masquerade (at which the king promised to be present, with the countess of Yarmouth) the duke made application to Heidegger’s valet de chambre, to know what suit of clothes he was likely to wear; and then procuring a similar dress, and a person of the same staturehe gave him his instructions. On the evening of the masquerade, as soon as his majesty was seated (who was always known by the conductor of the entertainment and the officers of the court, though concealed by his dress from the company), Heidegger, as usual, ordered the music to play “God save the King;” but his back was no sooner turned, than the false Heidegger ordered them to strike up “Charly over the Water.” The whole company were instantly thunderstruck, and all the courtiers not in the plot were thrown into a stupid consternation. Heidegger flew to the music-gallery, stamped and raved, and accused the mumusicians of drunkenness, or of being set on by some secret enemy to ruin him. The king and the countess laughed so immoderately, that they hazarded a discovery. While Heidegger stayed in the gallery, “God save the King” was the tune; but when, after setting matters to rights, he retired to one of the dancing-rooms, to observe if decorum was kept by the company, the counterfeit stepping forward, and placing himself upon the floor of the theatre, just in front of the music gallery, called out in a most audible voice, imitating Heidegger, and asked them if he had not just told them to play “Charly over the Water?” A pause ensued; the musicians, who knew his character, in their turn thought him either drunk or mad; but, as he continued his vociferation, “Charly” was played again. At this repetition of the supposed affront, some of the officers of the guards, who always attended upon these occasions, were for ascending the gallery, and kicking the musicians out; but the late duke of Cumberland, who could hardly contain himself, interposed. The company were thrown into great confusion. “Shame! Shame!” resounded from all parts, and Heidegger once more flew in a violent rage to that part of the theatre facing the gallery. Here the duke of Montagu, artfully addressing himself to him, told him “the king was in a violent passion; that his best way was to go instantly and make an apology, for certainly the musicians were mad, and afterwards to discharge them.” Almost at the same instant hq ordered the false Heidegger to do the same. The scene now became truly comic in the circle before the king. Heidegger had no sooner made a genteel apology for the insolence of his musicians, but the false Heidegger advanced, and in a plaintive tone cried out, “Indeed, Sire, it was not my fault, but that devil’s in my likeness.” Poor Heidegger turned round, stared, staggered, grew pale, and could not utter a word. The duke then humanely whispered in his ear the sum of his plot, and the counterfeit was ordered to take off his mask. Here ended the frolic; but Heidegger swore he would never attend any public amusement, if that witch the wax-work woman did not break the mould, and melt down the mask before his face.

, son of the preceding, and more eminent both in the literary and the political world, was born at Leyden, July 1620, and at first educated under his father’s inspection. In early life he formed an intimacy with his learned contemporaries John Frederick Gronovius, Vincent Fabricius, and Isaac Vossius. The latter accommodated him with the Mss. of Ovid, which were in the library of his grandfather, John Gerard Vossius, and his attention to this author terminated at last in an excellent edition of his works, highly praised by Ernesti and Harles, which he published in 1661, 3 vols. 8vo. In 1641, when he was about twenty-one years of age, he came over to England, and spent three months at Oxford, examining some Mss. of Ovid and Claudian in the Bodleian library. He returned the following year to Leyden, and thence to Spa, on account of his health, but in this tour visited the libraries and the learned of Brabant. About 1647 he went to Paris, where he remained a year and a half, and published his Latin poems. He also employed himself in collating some manuscripts in the library of Messrs. Dupin. From Paris he went to Italy, and both at Florence and Rome examined with great care the literary treasures in the grand duke’s library, and in the Vatican. Happening unfortunately to be at Naples during a civic revolt, he lost part of his papers, and among others his collation of Martial. In 1648 he published at Padua his elegies, in which he celebrates Italy and Rome, but speaks somewhat disrespectfully of his own country, for which he was afterwards blamed. He meant to have visited Swisserland on his return, but his father’s age and infirmities making him. desirous of his company, he returned home. He had refused a professor’s chair at Bologna, because the terms were that he should embrace the Roman catholic religion. In 1649, hearing that Christina, queen of Sweden, had desired to see his poems, he published a new edition dedicated to her, which procured him an invitation to Stockholm, where he was very graciously received by her majesty. In 1651 he made another tour to Italy, and the following year being in Florence, was received a member of the academies of Delia Crusca and the Apathisti. A considerable part of his object in this tour was to purchase manuscripts and medals for queen Christina; but, being now greatly in advance for these purchases, without having received any money from Stockholm, he found it necessary to return and make a personal application. In the mean time Christina had abdicated the throne, and Heinsius, who had spent 3000 florins in her purchases, presented petition after petition to no effect. Promises indeed he had in abundance he was to have a grant of lands in Pomerania, a canonry at Hamburgh, a vicariate at Bremen the title of secretary, and four thousand crowns to defray the expences he had been at; but none of these was fulfilled.

, a celebrated physician, surgeon, anatomist, and botanist, was born at Frankfort on the Maine, in 1683. He was educated in several German universities, and in 1706 spent some time in the study of anatomy and surgery at Amsterdam under Ruysch, then so famous for his dissections and anatomical preparations. In the following year he went to serve as a surgeon in the Dutch camp in Brabant; devoting the subsequent winter to further improvement, under Boerhaave and his eminent colleagues, who at that time attracted students from all parts to the university of Leyden, where Heister took his degree. Returning afterwards to the camp, he was, in 1709, appointed physician -general to the Dutch military hospital. The experience he thus acquired, raised him to a distinguished rank in the theory and practice of surgery, especially as he had a genius for mechanics, and was by that means enabled to bring about great improvements in the instrumental branch of his art. In 1710 he became professor of anatomy and surgery at Altorf, in the little canton of Uri, and rendered himself celebrated by his lectures and writings. Ten years afterwards a more advantageous situation offered itself to him at Helmstad, where he became physician, with the title of Aulic counsellor, as usual, to the duke of Brunswick, as well as professor of medicine, and afterwards of surgery and botany, in that university. Here he continued till his death, which happened in 1758, at the age of seventy-five. The czar Peter invited him to Russia, but he was too comfortably situated in Germany, where the favour of several sovereigns already shone upon him at an early period, to accept the invitation.

, a physician, was born of a noble family in the principality of Atihalt,about 1625. He obtained at an early age a considerable reputation for his knowledge of medicine and chemistry; and having settled in Holland about 1649, he practised at the Hague with so much success, that he was appointed first physician to the States-general, and to the prince of Orange, he died August 20, 1709. His works serve, however, rather to prove his devotion to the absurdities of the alchemists, physiognomists, and such visionaries of his time, than his advancement in true science; and therefore it may be sufficient to refer for their titles to our authorities His son Adrian [Helveticus], who was born in 1656, journeyed to Paris, without any design of fixing there, and only to see that new world, and sell some medicines, but accident detained him very unexpectedly. The dysentery then prevailed in that city-, and all who applied to him are said to have been infallibly cured. His success was celebrated; and Louis XIV. ordered him to publish the remedy which produced such certain and surprising effects. He declared it to be Ipecacuanha, and received 1000 louis-d'ors for the discovery. He settled in Paris, became physician to the duke of Orleans, and was also made inspector-general of the military hospitals. He died in 1721, leaving some works behind him, of little value; the principal of which is, “Traité des Maladies de plus frequentes, & des Remedies specifiques pour les guerir,” 2 vols. 8vo.

, an eminent French writer, and president in parliament, was born at Paris, Feb. 8, 1685. His great grandfather, Remi Henault, used to be of Lewis XIII.' s party at tennis, and that prince called him “The Baron,” because of a fief which he possessed near Triel. He had three sons, officers of horse, who were all killed at the siege of Casal. John Remi, his father, an esquire, and lord of Moussy, counsellor to the king, and secretary to the council, kept up the honour of the family, and becoming farmer-general, made his fortune. He was honoured with the confidence of the count de Pontchartrain; and, being of a poetical turn, had some share in the criticisms which appeared against Racine’s tragedies. He married the daughter of a rich merchant at Calais, and one of her brothers being president of that town, entertained the queen of England on her landing there in 1689. Another brother, counsellor in the parliament of Metz, and secretary to the duke of Berry, was associated with Mr. Crozat in the armaments, and, dying unmarried, left a great fortune to his sister. Young Renault early discovered a sprightly, benevolent disposition, and his penetration and aptness soon distinguished itself by the success of his studies. Claude de Lisle, father of the celebrated geographer, gave him the same lessons in geography and history which he had before given to the duke of Orleans, afterwards regent. These instructions have been printed in seven volumes, under the title of “Abridgment of Universal History.”

, a learned professor of divinity in the university of llinteln, in the country of Hesse, was born in January 1616. He was educated at Zell, Lunenburg, and Helmstad; and after having studied at this last four years, was received doctor in philosophy. Having afterwards read some lectures, and presided in public disputations, he gained the friendship in an especial manner of doctor Calixtus and doctor Horneius, two famous divines. He was appointed professor of metaphysics and of Hebrew, in the university of Rinteln, in 1643; and a year and a half after this, being invited to Bardewik, to be superintendant, he discharged the duties of that employment during five years, with so much care and diligence, that duke Augustus of Brunswick would have appointed him &ole inspector of the diocese of Wolfenbuttel, but he returned to Rinteln in 1651, and was made professor of divinity, had a seat in the ecclesiastical consistory, and was also made inspector of the churches in the earldom of Schauemburg. He was a man of great candor and moderation, and ardently wished that there might be an union between the Lutherans and Calvinists, which occasioned his bein^ suspected bv both parties. He was himself a Lutheran, and a man of great erudition. He died at Rinteln June 27, 1671, leaving the following works: 1. “DisserUitio de Majestate civili,” Rintel. 1653, 4to. 2. “De cultu creaturarum &, imaginufn dissert.” ibid. 1663, 4to. 3. “De libertate Arbitrii, imprimis Je concursu causne secundce cum primis,” ibid. 1645, 4to. 4. “De Officio boni Principis piique Subditi,” ibid. 1661, 12mo. 5. “Dissertatio de Pceniteutia lapsorum,” ibid. 1659, 4to. 6. “DC Gratia & Prxdestinatione Dissertatio,” ibid. 1663, 4to. 7. “Compendium S. Theologian,” ibid. 1657, 1671, 8vo. 8. “De Veritate Religionis Christiana?,” ibid. 1667, 12mo. 9. “Institutiones Theologica,” Brunsvigce, 1665, 4to. 10. “Historiae Ecclesiasticoe & Civilis Pars I.” Rinte). 1669, Pars II. 1670, Pars III. 1674, 4to. 11. “Disputationes de Mysterio S. S. Trinitatis: de Confessione Augustini, de fide & operibus,” &c.

, an eminent nonconformist, was born at Whitehall in 1631: his father, John Henry, was page of the back-stairs to the king’s second son, James duke of York. About twelve years old he was admitted into Westminster-school, under Mr. Thomas Vincent, then usher; a man very diligent in his business, but who grieved so anuch at the dulness of many of his scholars, that he fell into a consumption, and was said to be “killed with false Latin.” In the regular time, he was taken into the upper school under Dr. Busby, with whom he was a great favourite; and was employed by him, xvith some others, in collecting materials for that excellent Greek grammar which he afterwards published. Soon after the civil wars broke out, there was a daily morning lecture set up at the abbey church by the assembly of divines. His pious mother requested Dr. Busby to give her son leave to attend this, and likewise took him with her every Thursday to Mr. Case^s lecture, at St. Martin’s: she took him also to the jnonthly fasts at St. Margaret’s, where the House of commons attended; and where the service was carried on with great strictness and solemnity, from eight in the morning till four in the evening: in these, as he himself has expressed it, he had often “sweet meltings of soul.”

Here he was particularly esteemed by the cardinals Barberini and Grimaldf, and contracted a firm friendship with Lucas Holstenius and Leo Allatius. Upon his return from this journey, in which he did not spend above a year and a half, Fouquet invited him to his house, and settled on him a pension of 1500 livres. The disgrace of this minister, which happened soon after, did not hinder Herbelot from being preferred to the place of interpreter for the eastern languages; because, in reality, there was nobody else so fit for it: for Voltaire says, “he was the first among the French who understood them.” Some years after he took a second journey into Italy, where he acquired so great a reputation, that persons of the highest distinction for their rank and learning solicited his acquaintance. The grand duke of Tuscany, Ferdinand II. whom he had the honour to see first at Leghorn, gave him extraordinary marks of his esteem had frequent conversations with him; and made him promise to visit him at Florence. Herbelot arrived there July 2, 1666, and was received by a secretary of state, who conducted him to a house prepared for him, where he was entertained with great magnificence, and had a chariot kept for his use, at the expence of the grand duke. These were very uncommon honours, but one remained much more grateful to a man of literature; a library being at that time exposed to sale at Florence, the duke desired Herbelot to see it, to examine the Mss. in the Oriental languages, and to select and value the best: and when this was done, the generous prince made him a present of them.

The distinction with which he was received by the duke of Tuscany, taught France to know his merit, which had hitherto been but little regarded; and he was afterwards recalled and encouraged by Colbert, who encouraged every thing that might do honour to his country. The grand tluke was very unwilling to let him go, and even refused to consent, till he had seen the express order of the minister for his return. When he came to France, the king often did him the honour to converse with him, and gave him a pension of 1500 livres. During his stay in Italy, he began his “Bibliotheque Orientale, or Universal Dictionary, containing whatever related to the knowledge of the eastern world;” and finished it in France. This work, equally curious and profound, comprises the substance of a great number of Arabic, Persian, and Turkish books which he had read; and informs us of an infinite number of particulars unknown before in Europe. He wrote it at first in Arabic, and Colbert had a design to print it at the Louvre, with a set of types cast on purpose. But after the death of that minister, this resolution was waved; and Herbelot translated his work into French, in order to render it more universally useful. He committed it to the press, but had not the satisfaction to see the impression finished; for he died Dec. 8, 1695, and it was not published till 1697, folio. What could not be inserted in this work was digested by him under the title of “Anthologie:” but this was never published, nor his Turkish, Persian, Arabian, and Latin dictionary, which, as well as other works, he had completed.

, lord Herbert, of Cherbury in Shropshire, an eminent English writer, was descended from a very ancient family, and born 1581, at Montgomery-­castle in Wales. At the age of fourteen he was entered as a gentleman-commoner at University college, in Oxford, where he laid, says Wood, the foundation of that admirable learning, of which he was afterwards a complete master. In 1600 he came to London, and shortly after the accession of James I. was created knight of the hath. He served the office of high sheriff for the county of Montgomery, and divided his time between the country and the court. In 1608, feeling wearied with the sameness of domestic scenes, he visited the continent, carrying with him some romantic notions on the point of honour, which, in. such an age, were likely to involve him in perpetual quarrels. His advantageous person and manners, and the reputation for courage which he acquired, gained him many friends, among whom was the constable Montmorenci. As a seat of this nobleman he passed several months practising horsemanship, and other manly exercises, in which he became singularly expert. He returned to England in 1609, and in the following, year he quitted it again, in. order that he might have the opportunity of serving with the English forces sent to assist the prince of Orange at the siege of Juliers. Here he signalised himself by his valour, which, in some instances, was carried to the extreme of rashness. After the siege he visited Antwerp and Brussels, and returned to London, where he was looked now upon as one of the most conspicuous characters of the time. An attempt was made to assassinate him, in revenge for some liberties which he took, or was supposed to have taken, with a married lady. In 1614 he went into the Low. Countries to serve under the prince of Orange; after this he engaged with the duke of Savoy, to conduct from France a body of protestants to Piedmont for his service. In 1616 he was sent ambassador to Louis XIII. of France, to mediate for the relief of the protestants of that realm, but was recalled in July 1621, on account of a dispute between him and the constable de Luines. Camden says that he had treated the constable irreverently; but Walton tells us that “he could not subject himself to a compliance with the humours of the duke de Luines, who was then the great and powerful favourite at court: so that, upon a complaint to our king, he was called back into England in some displeasure; but at his return gave such an honourable account of his employment, and so justified his comportment to the duke and all the court, that he was suddenly sent back upon the same embassy.”

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

All this sufficiently shews that his attainments were of no common kind; but unfortunately the praises he received, and the favour into which he was admitted, inspired him with ambition to rise at court. His predecessors in the office of public orator, sir Robert Nanton and sir Francis Nethersole, had both risen to places of distinction in the state; and he being at this time a favourite with the king, and “not meanly valued and loved by the most eminent and most powerful of the court nobility,” began to cherish hopes of similar success. With this view he frequently left Cambridge to attend the king, wheresoever the court was and the king having given him a sinecure worth about 120l. a year, he devoted himself yet more to court-attendance, and seldom visited Cambridge, unless the king was there. But, as Walton says, “God, in whom there is an unseen chain of causes,” terminated his hopes of rising at court, by the deaths of the duke of Richmond and the marquis of Hamilton, his chief patrons, and about the same time, by that of king James.

, a German philosopher of the new school, was born in 1741, in a small town of Prussia, and was originally intended for the profession of a surgeon, but afterwards studied divinity, and was invited to Buckeburg, to officiate as minister, and to be a member of the consistory of the ecclesiastical council, In 1774 he was promoted by the duke of Saxe Weimar, to be first preacher to the court, and ecclesiastical counsellor, to which was afterwards added the dignity of vice-president cjf the consistory of Weimar, which he held until his death, Pec. 18, 1803. Some of his ficst works gained him great^ praise, both as a critic antj philosopher; such as his, 1. “Three fragments on the new German Literature,” Riga, 1776. 2. “On the Writings of Thomas Abbt,” Berlin, 1768; and “On the origin of Language,” ibid. 1772. But he afterwards fell into mysticism, and that obscure mode of reasoning which has too frequently been dignified, with the name of philosophy. The first specimen he gave of this was in his “Oldest Notices of the Origin of Mankind,” Riga, 1774; after which his system, if it may be so called, was more fully developed in his “Outlines of a philosophy of the history of Man,” of which an English translation was published in 1800, 4to, but without attracting much public notice. It was not indeed to be supposed that such extravagant opinions, conveyed in an obscure jargon, made up of new and fanciful terms, and frequently at variance with revealed religion, could be very acceptable to an English public.

, A. M. an English controversial writer, was a native of Suffolk, and admitted pensioner of Corpus Christi college, Cambridge, under the tuition of Mr. Fawcett, Oct. 29, 1711; he was made scholar of the house next year, and proceeded A. B. in 1715. About this time he was recommended to the duchess of Bedford, who took him into her family, for the instruction of her sons, Wrotthesly, the third, and John, the fourth duke of Bedford; and the year following he was made fellow of Merton college, Oxford, where he commenced M. A. in 1718. He was a man of learning, virtue, and spirit, and continued a batcheior and a layman till the time of his death, which happened at Woburn about the year 1722. He published “The False notion of a Christian priesthood, &c.” in answer to Mr. Law, 1717-8 “A Letter to the Prolocutor,” jjo answer to one from him to Dr. Tenison, 1717-8. “A Letter to the Rev. Dr. Tenison concerning Citations out of Arch. Wake’s Preliminary Discourse to the Apostolic Fathers,” Lond. 1718; ' Three Discourses on private Judgment, against the authority of the Magistrate over conscience, and considerations concerning uniting Protestants, translated from Professor Werenfels, with a preface to Dr. Teaison by Philakuthtirus Cantabrigiemis, Lond. 171-8.“Under this name he was one of the writers in the Bangorian controversy, of which he began in some measure the history, by publishing an account of all the considerable pamphlets to which it gave rise, with a continuation and occasional observations, to the end of the year 1719, by the name of Philonagnostes Criticus. He published also, w An account of all the considerable books and pamphlets written in the controversy concerning the Trinity,” from 1712 to the same time, Lond. 1720: also a “Vindication of the Archbishop of Canterbury from being the author of a Letter on the State of Religion in England, printed at Zurich,” Lond. 1719; and “Two letters to Dr. Mangey on his Sermon upon Christ’s Divinity,” published about the same time.

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

After his return home, in May 1675, he took the degree just mentioned, being about that time rector of St. Ebbe’s church in Oxford; and, in Sept. 1676, was made chaplain to the duke of Lauderdale. In May 1677, his grace being appointed high commissioner of Scotland, took his chaplain with him into that kingdom; and, in April 1678, sent him up to court, with Dr. Burnet, archbishop of Glasgow, to lay before the king the proceedings in Scotland. He returned the month following, and was desired by Sharp, archbishop of St. Andrew’s, to accept the degree of D. D. in that university, as a testimony of his and his country’s great esteem for him, which request the duke of Lauderdale approving, Hickes was dignified in a full convocation, although rather against his will, as he seems to have thought that this was putting a slight on his own university. Afterwards, when he returned with his patron into England, the archbishop, in his own name and that of all his brethren, presented him with a copy of Labbe’s “Councils,” in 18 vols. folio, as an acknowledgment of his services to that church.

The principal works of Dr. Hickes are the three following: 1. “Institutiones Grammaticse Anglo-Saxonicae & Maeso-Gothicae. Grammatica Islandica Runolphi Jonas. Catalogus librorum Septentrionalium. Accedit Edwardi Bernardi Etymologicum Britannicum,” Oxon. 1689, 4to. inscribed to archbishop Sancroft. While the dean was writing the preface to this book, there were great disputes in the house of commons, and throughout the kingdom, about the original contract; which occasioned him to insert the ancient coronation oath of our Saxon kings, to shew, what was not very necessary, that there is not the least footstep of any such contract. 2. “Antiquae literature Septentrionalis libri duo: quorum primus G. Hickesu S. T. P. Linguarum Veterum Septentrionalium thesaurum grammatico-criticum & Archaeologicum, ejusdem de antique literatures Septentrionalis militate dissertationem epistolarum, & Andreas Fountaine equitis aurati numismata Saxonica& Dano-Saxonica, complectitur alter contn Humfredi Wanleii librorum Veterum Septentnonaliiim, qui in Ano-liae Bibiiothecis extant, c.ialogum histonco-cr im, necmTn multorum veteruni codicum Septentrionalium alibi extantiuro notitiam, cum totius operis sex mdicibus, Oxon. 1705, 2 or sometimes 3 vols. folio. Foreigners as well as Englishmen, who had any relish for antiquities, have justly admired this splendid and laborious work, which is now scarce and dear. It was originally published at 3l. 3s. the small, and 5l. 5s the large paper. The latter now rarely appears, and the former is worth 15l. The great duke of Tuscany' s envoy sent a copy of it to his master, which his highness looking into, and finding full of strange characters, called a council of the Dotti, and commanded them to peruse and give him an account of. They did so, and reported it to be an excellent work, and that they believed the author to be a man of a particular head; for this was the envoy’s compliment to Hirkes, when he went to him with a present from his master. 3. Two volumes of Sermons, most of which were never before printed, with a preface by Mr. Spinckes, 1713, 8vo. After his death was published another volume of his Sermons, with some pieces relating to schism, separation, &c. 4.” A Letter sent from beyond the seas to one of the chief ministers of the ndnconforming party, &c. 1674“which was afterwards reprinted in 1684, under the title of” The judgment of an anonymous writer concerning these following particulars first, a law for disabling a papist to inherit the crown secondly, the execution of penal laws against protestant dissenters; thirdly, a bill of comprehension all briefly discussed in a letter sent from beyond the seas to a dissenter ten years ago.“This letter was in reality an answer to his elder brother, Mr. John Hickes, a dissenting minister, bred up in Cromwell’s time at the college of Dublin; whom the doctor always endeavoured to convince of his errors, but without success. John persisted in them to his death, and at last suffered for his adherence to the duke of Monrnouth; though, upon the doctor’s unwearied application, the king would have granted him his.life,^ but that he had been falsely informed that this Mr. Hickes was the person who advised the duke of Monmouth to take upon him the title of king. 5.” Ravillac Redivivus, being a narrative of the late trial of Mr. James Mitchel, a conventicle preacher, who was executed Jan. 18, 1677, for an attempt on the person of the archbishop of St. Andrew’s, &c.“6.” The Spirit of Popery speaking out of the mouths of fanatical Protestants; or, the last speeches of Mr. John Kid and Mr. John King, two presbyterian ministers, who were executed for high treason at Edinburgh, 'ten Aug. 14, 1679.“These pieces were published in 1630, and they were occasioned by his attendance on the duke of Lauderdale in quality of chaplain. The spirit of faction made them much read, and did the author considerable service with several great personages, and even with the king. 7.” Jovian; or, an answer to Julian the apostate;“printed twice in 1683, 8vo. This is an ingenious and learned tract in defence of passive obedience and nonresistance, against the celebrated Samuel Johnson, the author of” Julian.“8.” The case of Infant Baptism, 1683;“printed in the second vol. of the” London Cases, 168.5,“4to. 9.” Speculum beatae Virginis, a discourse on Luke i. 28. of the due praise and honour of the Virgin Mary, by a true Catholic of the Church of England, 1686.“10.” An apologetical Vindication of the Church of England, in answer to her adversaries, who reproach her with the English heresies and schisms, 1686,“4to; reprinted, with many additions, a large preface, and an appendix of” Papers relating to the Schisms of the Church of Rome,“1706, 8vo. 11.” The celebrated story of the Thebati Legion no fable: in answer to the objections of Dr. Gilbert Burners Preface to his Translation of Lactantius de mortibus persecutorum, with some remarks on his Discourse of Persecution;“written in 1687, but not published till 1714, for reasons given in the preface. 12.” Reflections upon a Letter out of the country to a member of this present parliament, occasioned by a Letter to a member of the house of commons, concerning the Bishops lately in the Tower, and now under suspension, 1689.“The author of the letter to which these reflections are an answer, was generally presumed to be Dr. Bumet, though that notion was afterwards contradicted, 13.” A Letter to the author of a late paper entitled A Vindication of the Divines of the Church of England, &c. in defence of the history of passive obedience, 16S9.“The author of the” Vindication,“was Dr. Fowler, bishop of Gloucester, though his name was not to it. 14.” A Word to the Wavering, in answer to Dr. Gilbert Burnet’s Inquiry into the present state of aflairs, 1689.“15.” An Apology for the new Separation, in a letter to Dr. Sharp, archbishop of York, &c. 1691.“16.” A Vindication of some among ourselves against the false principles of Dr. Sherlock, &c. 1692.“17.” Some Discourses on Dr. Burnet and Dr.Tillotson, occasioned by the lute funeral sermon of the former upon the latter, 1695.“It is remarkable, that in this piece Hickes has not scrupled to call Tiilotson an atheist. 18.” The Pretences of the Prince of Wales examined and rejected, &c. 1701.“19. A letter in the” Philosophical Transactions,* entitled, “Epistola viri Rev. D G. Hickesii S. T. P ad D. Hans Sloane, M. D. & S. R. Seer, de varia lectione inscriptions, quse in statua Tagis exaratur per quatuor alphabeta Hetrusca” 20. “Several Letters which passed between Dr. G. Hickes and a Popish priest, &c. 1705.” The person on whose account this book was published, was the lady Theophila Nelson, wife of Robert Nelson, esq. 21. “A second collection of controversial Letters relating to the church of England and the church of Rome, as they passed between Dr. G. Hickes and an honourable lady, 1710.” This lady was the lady Gratiana Carew, of Hadcomb in Devonshire. 22. “Two Treatises; one of the Christian Priesthood, the other of the dignity of the episcopal order, against a book entitled, The Rights of the Christian Church.” Trie third edition in 1711, enlarged into two volumes, 8vo. 23. “A seasonable ana 1 modest apology in behalf of the Rev. Dr. Hickes and other nonjurors, in a letter to Thomas Wise, D. D. 1710.” 24. “AVindication of Dr. Hickes, and the author of the seasonable and modest apology, from the reflections of Dr. Wise, &c. 1712.” 25. “Two Letters to Robert Nelson, esq. relating to bishop Bull,” published in Bull’s life. 26. “Some Queries proposed to civil, canon, and common lawyers, 1712;” printed, after several editions, in 1714, with another title, “Seasonable Queries relating to the birth and birthright of a certain person.” Besides the works enumerated here, there are many prefaces and recommendations written by him, at the earnest request of others, either authors or editors.

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

, an eminent painter, was born in the parish of St. James, Garlickhithe, London, June 13, 1692, being the third son of Mr. Edward Hightnore , a coal-merchant in Thames-street. Having such an early and strong inclination to painting, that he could think of nothing else with pleasure', his father endeavoured to gratify him in a proposal to his uncle, who was serjeant-painter to king William, and with whom Mr. (afterward Sir James) Thorn hi 11 f had served his apprenticeship. But this was afterwards for good reasons declined, and he was articled as clerk to an attorney, July 18, 1707; but so much against his own declared inclination, that in about three years he began to form resolutions of indulging his natural disposition to his favourite art, having continually employed his leisure hours in designing, and in the study of geometry, perspective, architecture, and anatomy, but without any instructors except books. He had afterwards an opportunity of improving himself in anatomy, by attending the lectures of Mr. Cheselden, besides entering himself at the Painters’ Academy in Great Queen -street, where he drew ten years, and had the honour to be particularly noticed by sir Godfrey Kneller, who distinguished him by the name of “the Young Lawyer.” On June 13, 1714, his clerkship expired; and on March 26, 1715, he began painting as a profession, and settled in the city. In the same year Dr. Brook Taylor published his “Linear Perspective: or anew method of representing justly all manner of objects as they appear to the eye, in all situations.” On this complete and universal theory our artist grounded his subsequent practice; and it has been generally allowed, that few, if any, of the profession at that time, were so thoroughly masters of that excellent, but intricate system. In 1716, he married miss Susanna Killer, daughter and heiress of Mr. Anthony Hiller, of Em'ngliam, in Surrey; a young lady in every respect worthy of his choice. For Mr. Cheselden’s “Anatomy of the Human. Body,” published in 1722, he made drawings from the real subjects at the time of dissection, two of which were engraved for that work, and appear, but without his name, in tables xii. and xiii. In the same year, on the exhibition of “The Conscious Lovers,” written by sir Richard Stecle, Mr. Highmore addressed a letter to the author, (puhlished in 1760 in the Gentleman’s Magazine), on the limits of filial obedience, pointing out a material defect in the character of Bevil, with that clearness and precision for which, in conversation and writing, he was always remarkable, as the pencil by no means engrossed his whole attention. His reputation and business increasing, he took a more conspicuous station, by removing to a house in Lincoln’s-innfields, in March 1723-4; and an opportunity soon offered of introducing him advantageously to the nobility, &c. from his being desired, by Mr. Pine the engraver, to make the drawings for his prints of the Knights of the Bath, on the revival of that order in 1725. In consequence of this, several of the knights had their portraits also by the same hand, some of them whole lengths; and the duke of Kichmond, in particular, was attended by l.is three esquiies, with a perspective view of king Henry the Vilth’s chapel. This capital picture is now at Goodwood. The artist was also sent for to St. James’s, by George I. to paint the portrait of William duke of Cumberland, from which Smith scraped a mezzotinto.

In 1728, Mr. Hawkins Browne, then of LincolnVinn, who had always a just sense of Highmore’s talents and abilities, addressed to him a poetical epistle “Ou Design and Beauty;” and, some years after, an elegant Latin ode, both now collected in his poems. In the summer of 1732, Mr. Highmore visited the continent, in company with Dr. Pemberton, Mr. Benj. Robins, and two other friends, chiefly with a view of seeing the gallery of pictures belonging to the elector palatine at Dusseldorp, collected by Rubens, and supposed to be the best in Europe. At Antwerp also he had peculiar pleasure in contemplating the works of his favourite master. In their return they visited the principal towns in Holland. In 1734, he made a like excursion, but alone, to Paris, where he received great civilities from some of his countrymen, particularly the duke of Kingston, Dr, Hickman (his tutor), Robert Knight, esq. (the late cashier), &c. Here he had the satisfaction of being shewn, by cardinal de Polignac, his famous group of antique statues, the court of Lycomedes, then just brought from Rome, and since purchased by the king of Prussia, and destroyed at Charlottenbourg, in 1760, by the Russians. In 1742, he had the honour to paint Frederic prince and the princess of Wales, for the duke of Saxe Gotha; as he did some years after, the queen of Denmark, for that court. The publication of Pamela, ia 1744, gave rise to a set of paintings by Mr. Highmore, which were engraved by two French engravers, and published by subscription, in 1745. In the same year ha painted the only original of the late general Wolfe, then about 18. His Pamela introduced him to the acquaintance and friendship of the excellent author, whose picture he drew, and for whom he painted the only original of Dr. Young. In 1750 he had the great misfortune to lose his excellent wife. On the first institution of the Academy of Painting, Sculpture, &c. in 1753, he was elected one of the professors; an honour, which, on account of his many avocations, he desired to decline. In 1754 he published, “A critical examination of those two Paintings [by Rubens] on the cieling of the Banquetting-house at Whitehall, in which architecture is introduced, so far as relates to perspective together with the discussion of a question which has been the subject of debate among painters” printed in 4to, for Nourse. In the solution of this question he proved that Rubens, and several other great painters, were mistaken in the practice, and Mr. Kirby, and several other authors, in the theory and practice: and in the eighteenth volume of the “Monthly Review,” he animadverted (anonymously) on Mr. Kirby’s unwarrantable treatment of Mr. Ware, and detected and exposed his errors, even where he exults in his own superior science. Of the many portraits which Mr. Highmore painted, in an extensive practice of 46 years, (of which several have been engraved), it is impossible and useless to discuss particulars. His principal historical pictures were “Hin;ar and Ishmael,” a present to the Foundling-hospital “The Good Samaritan,” painted for Mr. Shepherd of Cainpsey Ash “The fin ding of Moses,” purchasedathis sale by gen. Lister: “The Harlowe Family,” as described in “Cianssn,” in the possession of Tiiomas Watkinson Payler, esq. at Heden in Kent: “Clarissa,” the portrait mentioned in that work “The Graces unveiling Nature,” drawn by memory from Rubens “The Clementina of Grandison,” and “the ^iueen-mother of Edward IV. with her younger son, &c. in Westminster-abbey:” the three last in the possession of his son.

His abilities as a painter appear in his works, which will not only be admired by his contemporaries, but by their posterity; as his tints, like those of Rubens and Vandycfc, instead of being impaired, are improved by time, which some of them have now withstood above 60 years. His idea of beauty, when he indulged his fancy, was of the highest kind; and his knowledge of perspective gave him great advantages in family-pieces, of which he painted more than any one of his time. He could take a likeness by memory as well as by a sitting, as appears by his picture of the duke of Lorrain (the late emperor), which Faber engraved and those ol king George II. (in York assemblyroom) queen Caroline, the two miss Gunnings, &c. Like many other great painters, he had “a poet for his friend,” in the late Mr. Browne; to which may be added, a poem addressed to him in 1726, by the Rev. Mr. Bunce, at that time of Trinity-hall, Cambridge, who succeeded Mr. Highmore, and in 1780, was vicar of St. Stephen’s near Canterbury.

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

At Hitchin, the value of which would not admit the expence of a curate, he began that attention to the duties of his function which predominated through his life, and having advanced considerably to repair the vicarage-house, he was obliged to add to his labours by undertaking the education of from four to six select pupils, as boarders. It was his general custom at this time to preach either from memory, or short notes; and at a visitation at Baldock he delivered a discourse to the clergy from memory alone, with very singular and agreeable address. In Oct. 1735, he succeeded to the neighbouring-rectory of Holwell, in the county of Bedford, upon the presentation of Ralph Radcliffe, esq. This living he held about thirty-two years, and during the twenty years of his residence, executed all the duties of his important function with a truly primitive fidelity, not only by frequent public preaching, but by private visiting, exhortation, and catechising, distributing good books, &c. At length his exemplary conduct became known to the duke of Athol, lord and patron of the bishopric of Sodor and Mann, who justly considered him as a proper person to succeed the excellent and venerable bishop Wilson, who died in 1755. He was accordingly consecrated in Whitehall chapel in April of that year, after being created D. D. by archbishop Herring; and on Aug. 6, was installed in the cathedral of St. German on Peel, in the Isle of Mann.

This design was, for some time, carried on with great vigour and advantage, till some of the persons concerned in it thought proper to call off the men and horses from the woods of Abernethy, in order to employ them in their lead mines in the same country, from whence they promised themselves to reap a still more considerable profit. What private emolument Mr. Hill received from this affair, or whether any at all, seems unknown. However, the magistrates of Inverness, Aberdeen, &c. paid him the compliment of the freedom of their towns, and entertained him with much respect. Yet, notwithstanding these ho-> nours, which were publicly paid to cur author, and the distinguished civilities which he met with from the duke and duchess of Gordon, and other persons of rank to whom he became known during his residence in the Highlands, this Northern expedition was near proving of very unhappy consequences to his fortune; for, in his return, his lady being at that time in Yorkshire for the recovery of her health, he made so long a continuance with her in that county, as afforded an opportunity to some persons into whose hands he had confided the management of some important affairs, to be guilty of a breach of trust, that aimed at the destruction of the greatest part of what he was worth. He happily, however, returned in time to frustrate their intentions.

, an English writer, and most extraordinary character, was the son of a Mr. Theophilus Hill, a clergyman of Peterborough or Spalding, and born about the year 1716. He was bred an apothecary, and set up in St. Martin’s-lane, Westminster; but marrying early, and without a fortune on either side, he was obliged to look round for other resources than his profession. Having, therefore, in his apprenticeship, attended the botanical lectures which are periodically given under the patronage of the apothecary’s company, and being possessed of quick natural parts, he soon made himself acquainted with the theoretical as well as practical parts of botany; after which, being recommended to the duke of Richmond and lord Petre, he was by them employed in the inspection and arrangement of their botanic gardens. Assisted by the liberality of these noblemen, he executed a scheme of travelling over several part* of this kingdom, to gather some of the most rare and uncommon plants, accounts of which he afterwards published by subscription. But, after great researches, and the exertion of uncommon industry, which he possessed in a peculiar degree, this undertaking turned out by no means adequate either to his merits or expectations.

, a learned English prelate, was born in Swallow-street, Westminster, in 1731, where his father was in the humble employment of a stable-keeper. He was educated, however, at Westminster-school at the same time with Smith and Vincent, who were afterwards his successors in the headship of that celebrated academy. In 1750 he was elected to Trinity college, Cambridge, where he took his bachelor’s degree in 1754, and about the same time became usher of Westminster-school, then entered into holy orders, and officiated as morning preacher of South Audley street chapel. He continued in these employments (taking his master’s degree in 1757) until 1760, when he travelled into Germany, Italy, and France with Mr. Crewe, afterwards member of parliament for Cheshire, who, when returned from his tour, settled on Dr. Hinchliffe three hundred pounds a year, and made him his domestic chaplain. With this gentleman the doctor lived, with the attention and respect which were justly due to his merit. During his residence in Italy, where he conducted himself in every respect agreeable to his station and character, he was favoured with an introduction to the ]ate duke of Grafton, who had been contemporary with him at Cambridge, and soon after, in 1764, by the interest of his o-race, he was appointed head-master of Westminster schooCon the resignation of Dr. Markham, late archbishop of York, but his ill state of health not being suited to such a laborious employ, he was obliged to resign in a fe‘w months after he had accepted it. He declined several advantageous offers that were made him if he would travel again; and being made very easy in circumstances by the generosity of his friend and pupil, Mr. Crewe, he intended to return and reside at college, when he was solicited by his ’noble patron to undertake for a few years the care of the late duke of Devonshire.

In consequence of this, Dr. Hinchliffe was appointed tutor and domestic chaplain to the duke of Devonshire, with whom he continued at Devonshire-house till his grace went abroad; and, by the joint interest of his two noble patrons he was presented to the vicarage of Greenwich, in 1766. About this time, Miss Elizabeth, the sister of his pupil Mr. Crewe, a young lady about twenty-one years of age, was courted by an officer of the guards, who not being favoured with the approbation of Mr. Crewe, this latter gentleman applied to Dr. Hinchliffe, requesting him to dissuade his sister from encouraging the addresses of her suitor. This he did so effectually, that the lady not only gratified her brother’s wishes, but her own, by giving both her heart and hand to the doctor. Mr. Crewe acquiesced immediately in his sister’s choice, encreasing her fortune from five thousand^ the sum originally bequeathed to her, to fifteen thousand pounds; but at the same time withdrawing the three hundred per annum before mentioned. Dr. Hinchliffe, it is said, was offered the tuition of the prince of Wales, which important trust he declined, from his predilection, as it is supposed, to what were called Whig principles. On the death of Dr. Smith, in 1768, his lordship was elected, through the recommendation of the duke of Grafton, master of Trinity college, Cambridge; and scarce a year had elapsed, when he was raised to the bishopric of Peterborough on the death of Dr. Lamb, in. 1769, by the interest of the duke of Grafton, then prime minister. It is probable his lordship might have obtained other preferment, had he not uniformly joined the party in parliament who opposed the principle and conduct of the American war. The only other change he experienced was that of being appointed dean of Durham, by which he was removed from the mastership of Trinity college. He died at his palace at Peterborough Jan. 11, 1794, after a long illness, which terminated in a paralytic stroke. His lordship, although a man of ^considerable learning, published three sermons, preached on public occasions. He was a graceful orator in parliament, and much admired in the pulpit. Mr. Jones, in his Life of bishop Home, says that “he spake with the accent of a man of sense (such as he really was in a superior degree), but it was remarkable, and, to those who did not know the cause, mysterious, that there was not a corner of the church, in which he could not be heard distinctly.” The reason Mr. Jones assigns, was, that he made it an invariable rule, “to do justice to every consonant, knovxing that the vowels will be sure to speak for themselves. And thus he became the surest and clearest of speakers: his elocution was perfect, and never disappointed his audience.” Two years after his death, a volume of bishop Hinchliffe’s “Sermons” were published, but, probably from a want of judgment in the selection, did not answer the expectations of those who had been accustomed to admire him in the pulpit.

His eminent success in his portraits brought to his gallery all the distinguished characters of the time, who occasionally visited Bath for health or pleasure; among whom, were Mr. Pitt, the Duke of Newcastle, Mr. Legge, Mr. Grenville, Lord Chesterfield, &c. &c. and his acquaintance with them was improved into friendship on their part, by the variety of his learning, the amenity of his manners, the ingenuousness of his mind, and the high respectability of his domestic establishment. To the list of his friends and patrons were soon added the virtuous Allen, and his learned nephew-in-law, Warburton; and Mr. Allen’s house, where he was always a welcome visitor, gave him also an introduction to Pope, and other distinguished inmates of Prior-park.

Among many illustrious persons who upon the shipwreck of the royal cause retired to France for safety, was sir Charles Cavendish, brother to the duke of Newcastle, who, being skilled in every branch of mathematics, proved a constant friend and patron to Hobbes: and Hobbes himself, by embarking, in 1645, in a controversy about the quadrature of the circle, became so celebrated, although certainly undeservedly as a mathematician, that, in 1647, he was recommended to instruct Charles prince of Wales, afterwards Charles II. in that branch of study. His care in the discharge of this office gained him the esteem of that prince in a very great degree: and though he afterwards withdrew his public favour from Hobbes on account of his writings, yet he always retained a sense of the services he had done him, shewed him various marks of his favour after he was restored to his dominions, and, as some say, had his picture hanging in his closet. This year also was printed in Holland, by the care of M. Sorbiere, a second and more complete edition of his book “De Cive,” to which are prefixed two Latin letters to the editor, one by Gassendi, the other by Mersenne, in commendation of it. While Hobbes was thus employed at Paris, he was attacked by a violent fit of illness, which brought him so low that his friends began to despair of his recovery. Among those who visited him in this weak condition was his friend Mersenne, who, taking this for a favourable opportunity, began, after a few general compliments of condolence, to mention the power of the church of Rome to forgive sins; but Hobbes immediately replied, “Father, all these matters I have debated with myself long ago. Such kind of business would be troublesome to me now; and you can entertain me on subjects more agreeable; when did you see Mr. Gassendi?” Mersenne easily understood his meaning, and, without troubling him any farther, suffered the conversation to turn upon general topics. Yet some days afterwards, when Dr. Cosin, afterwards bishop of Durham, came to pray with him, he very readily accepted the proposal, and received the sacrament at his hands, according to the forms appointed by the church of England.

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

1661, 4to; Amsterdam, 1668, 4to. 17. “Problemata Physica, una cum magnitudine circuli,” Lond. 1662, 4to; Amsterdam, 1688, 4to. 18. “De principiis et ratiocinatione Geometrarum, contra fastuosum professorem,” Lond. 1666, 4toj Amsterdam, 1668, 4to. 19. “Quadratura Circuli, cubatio sphaerse, duplicatio cubi; una cum responsione ad objectiones geometriae professoris Saviliani Oxoniae editas anno 1669.” Lond. 1669, 4to. 20. “Rosetutn Geometricum, sive propositiones aliquoc frustra antehac tentatae, cum censura brevi doctrinae Wallisiamede motn,” London, 1671, 4to, of which an account is given in the Philosophical Transactions, No. 72, for the year 1671. 21. Three Papers presented to the royal society against Dr. Wallis, with considerations on Dr. Wallis’s Answer to them,“Loud. 1671, 4to. 22.” Lux Mathematica, &c. censura doctrinae Wallisianse de Libra: Rosetum Hobbesii,“Lond. 1672, 4io. 23.” Principia et Problemata, aliquot G&ometrica ante desperata, nunc breviter explicata et demonstrata,“London, 1674, 4to. 24.” Epistola ad Dom. Anton, a Wood, Authorem Historiae et Antiquitat. Universit. Oxon.:“dated April the 20th, 1674, printed in half a sheet on one side.” It was written to Mr. Wood,“says Wood himself,” upon his complaint made to Mr. Hobbes of several deletions and additions made in and to his life and character (which be had written of him in that book) by the publisher (Dr. Jo. Fell) of the said Hist, and Antiq, to the great dishonour and disparagement of the said Mr. Hobbes. Whereupon, when that history was finished, came out a scurrilous answer to the said epistle, written by Dr. Fell, which is at “the end of the said history.” In this Answer Dr. Fell styles Mr. Hobbes, “irritabile illud et vanissimum Malmsburiense animal-,” and tells us, that one Mr. J. A. had sent a magnificent eulogium of Mr. Hobbes drawn up by him, or more probably by Hobbes himself, in order to be inserted in the Hist, et Antiq. Univers. Oxon; but the editor finding in this eulogium a great many things foreign to the design of that work, and far from truth, he suppressed what he thought proper. 25. “A Letter to William duke of Newcastle, concerning the Controversy had with Dr. Laney, bishop of Ely, about Liberty and Necessity,” Lond. 1670, 12mo. 26. “Decameron Physiologicum; or ten dialogues of natural philosophy, &c.” London, 1678, 8vo. To this is added “The Proportion of a strait line to hold the Arch of a Quadrant.” 27. “His last words and dying Legacy:” printed on one side of a sheet of paper in December 1679, and published by Charles Blunt, esq. from the “Leviathan,” in order to expose Mr. Hobbes’s doctrine. 28. His “Memorable Sayings in his books and at the table;” printed on one side of a broad sheet of paper, with his picture before them. 29. “Behemoth: The History of the Civil Wars of England from 1640 to 1660,” Lond. 1679, 8vo. 30. “Vita Thomae Hobbes,” a Latin poem written by himself, and printed at London in 4to, in the latter end of December 1679; and a fortnight after that, viz. about the 10th of January, it'was published in English verse by another hand, at London 1680, in five sheets in folio. The Latin copy was reprinted and subjoined to “Vitae Hobbianae Auctarium.” 31. “Historical narration of Heresy, and the punishment thereof,” London, 1680, in four sheets and an half in folio; and in 1682 in 8vo. This is chiefly extracted out of the second chapter De Hseresi of his Appendix to fche Leviathan. 32. “Vita Thomse Hobbes,” written by himself in prose, and printed at Caropolis, i.e. London, and prefixed to “Vitae Hobbianae Auctarium,” 1681, 8vo, and 1682, 4to. 33. “A Brief of the art of Rhetoric, containing in substance all that Aristotle hath written in his three books of that subject,” 12mo, without a date. It was afterwards published in two books, London, 1681, in 8vo, the first bearing the title of “The Art of Rhetoric,” and the other of “The Art of Rhetoric plainly set forth; with pertinent examples for the more ready understanding and practice of the same.” To which is added, 34. “A Dialogue between a philosopher and a student of the Common Laws of England.” Mr. Barrington in his Observations on the Statute of Treasons, says it appears by this dialogue, that Hobbes had considered most of the fundamental principles of the English law with great care and attention. 35. “An Answer to archhishop Bramhall’s Book called The catching of the Leviathan,” London, 1682, 8vo. 36. “Seven philosophical Problems, and two Propositions of Geometry,” London, 1682, 8vo, dedicated to the king in 1662. 37. (< An Apology for himself and his Writings.“38.” Historia Ecclesiastica carmine elegiaco concinnata.“Aug. Trinob. i. e. London, 1688, 8vo. 39.” Tractatus Opticus,“inserted in Mersennus’s” Cojitata' PhysieoMathematica,“Paris, 1644, 4to. 40.” Observationes in Cartesii de prima Philosophia Meditationes.“These objections are published in all the editions of Des Cartes’s” Meditations.“41.” The Voyage of Ulysses; or Homer’s Odysses,“book 9, 10, 11, 12. London, 1674, in 8vo And 42.” Homer’s Iliads and Odysses," London, 1675 and 1677, 12mo.

, an ancient English poet, who scarcely, however, deserves the name, was born probably about 1370, and has been styled Chaucer’s disciple. He studied law at Chester’s Inn, in the Strand, and was a writer to the privy seal for above twenty years. When he quitted this office, or what means of subsistence he afterwards had, cannot be easily determined. Pits seems wrong in asserting that he was provided for by Humphrey duke of Gloucester. Nor is Bale more correct in saying that he had imbibed the religious tenets of Wickliff. From his poems the following scanty particulars of his history have been communicated by a learned friend: " He dwelt in the office of the privy seal, a writer * unto the seal twenty-four years come Easter, and that is nigh.‘ The king granted him an annuity of twenty marks in the exchequer, which it appears he had much difficulty in getting paid. He expresses much doubt of obtaining it from * yere to yere:’ fears it may not be continued when he is no longer able to ‘ serve’ (i. e. as a writer in the privy seal office). Besides this annuity he has but six marks coming in yearly * in noo tide.‘ Speaks of dwelling at home in his ’ pore coote,' and that more than two parts of his life are spent he is ignorant of husbandry;

The duke of Leeds has an original scene in the Beggars Opera, painted by Hogarth. It is that in which Lucy and Polly are on their knees before their respective fathers, to intercede for the life of* the hero of the piece. All the figures are either known or supposed to be portraits. If we are not misinformed, the late sir Thomas Robinson (better known perhaps by the name of long sir Thomas) is standing in one of the side-boxes. Macheath, unlike his spruce representative on our present stage, is a slouching bully; and Polly appears happily disencumbered of such a hoop as the daughter of Peachum within the reach of younger memories has worn. The duke gave 35l. for this picture at Mr. Rich’s auction. Another copy of the same scene was bought by the late Sir William Saunderson, and is now in the possession of sir Harry Gough. Mr. Walpoie has a picture of a scene in the same piece, where Macheath is going to execution. In this also the likenesses or' Walker and Miss Fenton, afterwards duchess of Bolton (the original Macheath and Polly) are preserved.

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

It is observed by most authors, that Holbein always painted with his left hand; though Walpole objects against that tradition, (what he considers as a proof), that in a portrait of Holbein painted by himself, which was in the Arundelian collection, he is represented holding the pencil in the right hand. But that evidence cannot be sufficient to set aside so general a testimony of the most authentic writers on this subject; because, although habit and practice might enable him to handle the pencil familiarly with his left hand, yet, as it is so unusual, it must have had but an unseemly and awkward appearance in a picture; which probably might have been his real inducement for representing himself without such a particularity. Besides, the writer of Holbein’s life, at the end of the treatise by De Piles, mentions a print by Hollar, still extant, which describes Holbein drawing with his left hand. Nor is it so extraordinary or incredible a circumstance; for other artists, mentioned in this volume, are remarked for the very same habit; particularly Mozzo of Antwerp, who worked with the left; and Amico Aspertino, as well as Ludovico Cangiagio, who worked equally well with both hands. This great artist died of the plague at London in 1554; some think at his lodgings in Whitehall, where he had lived from the time that the king became his patron,' but Vertue rather thought at the duke of Norfolk’s house, in. the priory of Christ church near Aldgate, then called Uuke’s-place. Strype says that he was buried in St. Catherine Cree church; but this seems doubtful.

, an English historian, and famous for the Chronicles that go under his name, was descended from a family which lived at Bosely, in Cheshire: but neither the place nor time of his birth, nor scarcely any other circumstances of his life, are known. Some say he had an university education, and was a clergyman; while others, denying this, affirm that he was steward to Thomas Burdett, of Bromcote in the county of Warwick, esq. Be this as it will, he appears to have been a man of considerable learning, and to have had a particular turn for history. His “Chronicles” were first published in 1577, in 2 vols. folio; and then in 1587, in three, the two first of which are commonly bound together. In this second edition several sheets were castrated in the second and third volumes, because there were passages in them disagreeable to queen Elizabeth and her ministry: but the castrations were reprinted apart in 1723. Holinshed was not the sole author or compiler of this work, but was assisted in it by several other writers. The first volume opens with “An historical Description of the Island of Britaine, in three books,” by William Harrison; and then, “The Hislorie of England, from the time that it was first inhabited, until the time that it was last conquered,” by R. Holinshed. The second volume contains, “The description, conquest, inhabitation, and troublesome estate of Ireland; particularly the description of that kingdom:” by Richard Stanihurst. “The Conquest of Ireland, translated from the Latin of Giraldus Cambrensis,” by John Hooker, alias Vowell, of Exeter, gent. “The Chronicles of Ireland, beginning where Giraldus did end, continued untill the year 1509, from Philip Flatsburie, Henrie of Marleborow, Edmund Campian,” &c. by R. Holinshed; and from thence to 1586, by R. Stanihurst and J. Hooker. “The Description of Scotland, translated from the Latin of Hector Boethius,” by R. H. or W. H. “The Historie of Scotland, conteining the beginning, increase, proceedings, continuance, acts and government of the Scottish nation, from the original thereof unto the yeere 1571,” gathered by Raphael Holinshed, and continued from 1571 to 1586, by Francis Boteville, alias Thin, and others. The third volume begins at “Duke William the Norman, commonly called the Conqueror; and descends by degrees of yeeres to all the kings and queenes of England.” First compiled by R. Holinshed, and by him extended to 1577; augmented and continued to 1586, by John Stow, Fr. Thin, Abraham Fleming, and others. The time of this historian’s death is unknown; but it appears from his will, which Hearne prefixed to his edition of Camden’s “Annals,” that it happened between 1578 and 1582.

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

He remained at Antwerp several years, copying from his patron’s collection, and working for printsellers, booksellers, and, publishers; but seems to have cultivated no interest among men of fortune and curiosity in the art, to dispose of them by subscription, or otherwise most to his advantage. In 1647, and 1648, he etched eight or ten of the painters’ heads with his own, with various other curious pieces, as the picture of Charles I. soon after his death, and of several of the royalists; and in the three following years, many portraits and landscapes after BreughUl, Ei sheimer, and Teniers, with the Triumphs of Death. He etched also Charles II. standing, with emblems; and also published a print of James duke of York, aetat. 18, aun. It>51, from a picture drawn of him when he was in Flanders, by Teniers. He was more punctual in his dates than roost other engravers, which have afforded very agreeable lights and directions, both as to his own personal history and performances, and to those of many others. At last, either not meeting with encouragement enough to keep him longer abroad, or invited by several magnificent and costly works proposed or preparing in England, in which his ornamental hand might be employed more to his advantage, he returned hither in 1652. Here he afterwards executed some of the most considerable of his publications: but though he was an artist superior to almost most others in genius as well as assiduity, yet he had the peculiar fate to work here, as he had done abroad, still in a state of subordination, and more to the profit of other people than himself. Notwithstanding his penurious pay, he is said to have contracted a voluntary affection to his extraordinary labour; so far, that he spent almost two-thirds of his time at it, and would not suffer himself to be drawn or disengaged from it, till his hour-glass had run to the last moment proposed. Thus he went on in full business, till the restoration of Charles II. brought home many of his friends, and him into fresh views of employment. It was but two years after that memorable epocha, that Evelyn published his “Sculptura, or the History and Art of Chalcography and engraving in copper:” in which he gave the following very honourable account of Hollar: “Winceslaus Hollar,” says he, “a gentleman of Bohemia, comes in the next place: not that he is not before most of the rest for his choice and great industry, for we rank them very promiscuously both as to time and pre-eminence, but to bring up the rear of the Germans with a deserving person, whose indefatigable works in aqua fortis do infinitely recommend themselves by the excellent choice which he fyath made of the rare things furnished out of the Arundelian collection, and from most of the best hands and designs: for such were those of L. da Vinci, Fr. Parmensis, Titian, Julio Komano, A. Mantegna, Corregio, Perino del Vaga, Raphael Urbin, Seb. del Piombo, Palma, Albert Durer, Hans Holbein, Vandyck, Rubens, Breughel, Bassan, Elheimer, Brower, Artois, and divers other masters of prime note, whose drawings and paintings he hath faithfully copied; besides several books of landscapes, towns, solemnities, histories, heads, beasts, fowls, insects, vessels, and other signal pieces, not omitting what he hath etched after I>e Cleyn, Mr. Streter, and Dankerty, for sir Robert Stapleton’s * Juvenal,‘ Mr. Ross’s * Silius Italicus,’ ‘ Polyglotta Biblia,’ * The Monasticon,‘ first and second part, Mr. Dugdale’s ’ St. Paul’s,‘ and ’ Survey of Warwickshire,' with other innumerable frontispieces, and things by him published, and done after the life; and to be on that account more valued and esteemed, than where there has been more curiosity about chimeras, and things which are not in nature: so that of Mr. Hollar’s works we may justly pronounce, there is not a more useful and instructive collection to be made.”

His first publication was a sermon preached before the university of Oxford, entitled “The Resurrection of the body deduced from the Resurrection of Christ,” 1777, 4to, a very ingenious discourse, in which the subject is illustrated in a manner somewhat new. In the same year he published “Alfred, an Ode, with six Sonnets,” 4to, in which Gray’s style is attempted with considerable success. In 1782 he was chosen the third Bampton lecturer, and in 1783 published his eight lectures “on the prophecies and testimony of John the Baptist, and the parallel prophecies of Jesus Christ,” in which he displayed great abilities and judgment. These were followed, in 1788, by a very able defence of some of the essential doctrines of the church, respecting the nature and person, death and sufferings of Christ, in “Four Tracts; on the principle of religion, as a test of divine authority; on the principle of redemption; on the angelical message to the Virgin Mary, and on the resurrection of the body; with a discourse on humility,” 8vo, the whole illustrated by notes and authorities. He published also one or two other single sermons, and an ode for the enccenia at the installation of the duke of Portland in 1793; but what confers the highest honour on his abilities, critical talents, and industry, was his collation of the Mss. of the Septuagint version, which he appears to have begun about 1786. Induced to think that the means of determining the genuine tenor of the Scriptural text would be much enlarged if the Mss. of the Septuagint version were carefully collated, as those of the Hebrew had been, and the collations published in one view, he laid down his plan, the essential parts of which were: that all Mss. known or discoverable at home or abroad, if prior to the invention of printing, should be carefully collated with one printed text; and all particularities in which they differed from it distinctly noted; that printed editions and versions made from all or parts of that by the seventy, and citations from it by ecclesiastical writers (with a distinction of those who wrote before the time of Aquila or after it), should also be collated with the same printed text, and all their variations from it respectively ascertained; and that these materials, when collected, should all be reduced to one plain view, and printed under the text with which the several collations have been made, as by Dr. Kennicott or without the text, as by De Rossi. Upon these general principles, Dr. Holmes embarked on his enterprize, having in the first instance been patronized by the delegates of the Clarendon press, and by liberal subscriptions from other universities, and the public aflarge. The delegates of the press agreed to allow him 40l. a year for three years, “on his exhibiting to them his collations annually, to be deposited in the Bodleian library, and when the whole was finished, to be printed at the university press, at his expen -;e, airj for his benefit, or of his assigns, if he should live to complete his collations; or if they were left imperfect, they were to be at the discretion of the delegates, they undertaking to promote the finishing of them to the best of their power, and to publish them when finished, allowing to his assigns a just proportion of the profits.”

, a learned English gentleman, well known in the history of British India, was the son of Zephaniah Holwell, timber-merchant and citizen of London, and grandson of John Holwell, a mathematical writer of much fame in the seventeenth century. The father and grandfather of this John Holwell both fell in support of the royal cause during the usurpation, and the family estate of Holwell-hall, in Devonshire, was lost to their descendants for ever; for although Mr. Holwell applied to king Charles at the restoration, the only recompense he obtained was to be appointed royal astronomer and surveyor of the crown lands, and the advancement of his wife to a place of some honour, but of little emolument, about the person of the queen. Some years after he was appointed mathematical preceptor to the duke of Monmouth, for whom he conceived a warm attachment, and, believing him to be the legitimate sou of the king, was induced to take a very active and imprudent part against the succession of the duke of York, which in the end proved his ruin. Having published in 1683 a small Latin tract called “Catastrophe Mundi,” which was soon after translated, and is a severe attack on the popish party, he was marked for destruction as soon as the duke of York came to the throne. Accordingly, in 1685, it was contrived that, in quality of surveyor to the crown, he should be sent to America, to survey and lay down a chart of the town of New York; and at the same time secret orders were sent to the government agents there, to take some effectual means to prevent his return. In consequence of this, it is said, that he had no sooner executed his commission, than he died suddenly, and his death was attributed, at the time and on the spot, to the application of poison administered to him in a dish of coffee. His son was father to the subject of the present article.

Being now duly qualified, and having lost his father in 1729, who left a very slender provision for his widow and: son, he quitted the hospital, and engaged himself as surgeon’s mate on board the Duke of Cumberland Indiaman, which sailed from Gravesend Feb. 2, 1732, and proceeded to Bengal, where he was appointed surgeon of a frigate belonging to the company, bound for the gulph of Persia. In the course of this voyage he acquired some knowledge of the Arabic tongue, and on his return to Calcutta employed his leisure hours in studying the Moorish and common Hinduee languages, and the Lingua Franca of the Portuguese. In January 1734 he made another voyage, as aurgeon of the ship Prince of Wales, to Surat, &c. and soon after his return to Bengal, he was appointed surgeonmajor to the Patna party, usually consisting of about 400 European infantry, which annually left the presidency in the latter end of September, with the company’s trade for their factory at Patna. His next voyage was in the ship Prince of Orange, to Mocha and Judda in the Arabian gulph. During nis stay there he added to his knowledge of the Arabic tongue, and on his return to Calcutta was able to speak it with tolerable fluency. After another visit, however, to Patna, as surgeon -major, he was anxious to quit this rambling life, and by the interest of his friends was appointed surgeon to the company’s factory at Decca; and here, besides farther improving himself in the Moorish and Hinduee tongues, he commenced his researches into the Hindu theology.

, a celebrated chemist, was born at Batavia in the island of Java, Jan. 3, 1652, the son of John Homberg, a Saxon gentleman, governor of the arsenal of that place. His father at first put him into the army, but soon after quitting the service of the Dutch, and a military life, brought him to Amsterdam, where he settled. He was now educated, by paternal indulgence, at Jena and Leipsic, for the law, and was received as an advocate in 1674 at Magdebourg, but the sciences seduced him from the law: in his walks he became a botanist, and in his nocturnal rambles an astronomer. An intimacy with Otto de Guericke, who lived at Magdebourg, completed his conversion, and he resolved to abandon his first profession. Otto, though fond of mystery, consented to communicate his knowledge to so promising a pupil; but as his friends continued to press him to be constant to the law, he soon quitted Magdebourg, and went into Italy. At Padua and Bologna he pursued his favourite studies, particularly medicine, anatomy, botany, and chemistry. One of his first efforts in the latter science was the complete discovery of the properties of the Bologna stone, and its phosphoric appearance after calcination, which Casciarolo had first observed. The efforts of Hombergr in several scientific inquiries, were pursued at Rome, in France, in England with the great Boyle, and afterward in Holland and Germany. With Baldwin and Kunckel he here pursued the subject of phosphorus. Not yet satisfied with travelling in search of knowledge, he visited the mines of Saxony, Hungary, Bohemia, and Sweden. Having materially improved himself, and at the same time assisted the progress of chemistry at Stockholm, he returned to Holland, and thence revisited France, where he was quickly noticed by Colbert. By his interposition, he was prevailed upon to quit his intention of returning to Holland to marry, according to the desire of his father, and fixed himself in France. This step also alienated him from his religion. He renounced the Protestant communion in 1682, and thus losing all connexion with his family, became dependent on Louis XIV. and his minister. This, however, after the death of Colbert in 1683, became a miserable dependence; men of learning and science were neglected as much as before they had been patronized; and Homberg, in 1687, left Paris for Rome, and took up the profession of physic. He now pursued and perfected his discoveries on phosphorus, and prosecuted his discoveries in pneumatics, and other branches of natural philosophy. Finding, after some time, that the learned were again patronized at Paris, he returned there in 1690, and entered into the academy of sciences tinder the protection of M. de Bignon. He now resumed the study of chemistry, but found his finances too limited to carry on his experiments as he wished, till he had the good fortune to be appointed chemist to the duke of Orleans, afterwards regent. In this situation he was supplied with the most perfect apparatus, and all materials for scientific investigation. Among other instruments, the large burning mirror of Tschirnaus was given to his care, and he made with it the most interesting experiments, on the combustibility of gold and other substances. In examining the nature of borax he discovered the sedative salt, and traced several remarkable properties of that production. Pleased with the researches of his chemist, the duke of Orleans in 1704 appointed him his first physician. About the same time he was strongly solicited by the elector palatine to settle in his dominions, but he was too much attached to his present patron to quit Paris, and was besides not without an inclination of a more tender kind for mademoiselle Dodart, daughter to the celebrated physician of that name. He married her in 1708, though hitherto much averse to matrimony; but enjoyed the benefit of his change of sentiments only seven years, being attacked in 1715 with a dysentery, of which he died in September of that year.

This opposition, which has been too hastily branded with the epithets of “bigotry and malice,” turned out much to Mr. Home’s advantage, whose friends contrived now to add to his other merits that of being a persecuted man; and David Hume, whose taste for the drama was the least of his qualifications, addressed his “Four Dissertations” to the author, and complimented him with possessing “the true theatric genius of Shakspeare and Otway, refined from the unhappy barbarism of the one, and licentiousness of the other.” With such recommendation, “Douglas” was presented at Covent-garden in March 14, 1757, but received at first with moderate applause. Its worth, however, was gradually acknowledged, and it is now fully established as a stock-piece. It would hare been happy for the author had he stopt here; but the success of “Douglas” had intoxicated him, and he went on from this time to 1778, producing “Agis,” “The Siege of Aquileia,” “The Fatal Discovery,” “Alonzo,” and Alfred,“none of which had even a temporary success. In the mean time lord Bute took him under his patronage, and procured him a pension. In March 1763 he was also appointed a commissioner for sick and wounded seamen, and for the exchange of prisoners; and in April of the same year was appointed conservator of the Scotch privileges at Campvere in Zealand. With his” Alfred,“which lived only three nights, he took his leave of the stage, and retired to Scotland, where he resided the greater part of his life. In. 1778, when the late duke of Buccleugh raised a regiment of militia, under the name of fencibles, Mr. Home received a captain’s commission, which he held until the peace. A few years ago, he published” The History of the Rebellion in Scotland in 1745-6," 4to, a work of which great expectations were formed, but whether he delayed it until too late, for he was now seventy-eight years old, or whether he did not feel himself at liberty to make use of all his materials, the public was not satisfied. For a considerable time prior to his death, his mental faculties were impaired, and in this distressful state he died at Merchiston-house, Sept. 4, 1808, at the advanced age of eightyfive.

, a lawyer of Nuremberg, was born there in 1662. He became counsellor to the duke of Meinungen, and bailli of Cobourg,' at which place he died in 1747. His works are chiefly these: 1. “Iter Juridicum, per Belgium, Angliam, Galliam, Italiam.” 2. “Lexicon Topographicum Franconia3.” 3. “History of the Duchy of Saxe-Cobourg,” in German. 4. “Thoughts on the Suppression of Mendicity,” in the same language.

, a celebrated artist, called also Gerardo Dalle Notti, from his principal subjects, was born at Utrecht in 1592, and was a disciple of Abraham Bloemavt; but completed his studies at Home, where he continued several years, employed there by persons of the first rank, and particularly by prince Justiniani. He imitated the style of Caravaggio, with whose vivid tone and powerful masses of light and shade, he attempted to combine correctness of outline, refinement of forms, graceful attitudes, and that dignity which ought to be the characteristic of sacred subjects. In this he often succeeded. His subjects are generally night-pieces as large as life, and illuminated by torch or candle-light. Among his numerous pictures, that of our Saviour before the Tribunal of Pilate, in the gallery Justiniani, for energy, dignity, and contrast, is the most celebrated. Soon after his return to his own country he visited London, and obtained the favour of king Charles I. by several grand performances and portraits; especially by one allegorical picture, in which he represented the portraits of the king and queen, in the characters of two deities, and the portrait of the. duke of Buckingham in the character of Mercury, introducing the liberal arts to that monarch and his consort. For that composition, which was well drawn and extremely well coloured, the king presented him with three thousand florins, a service of plate for twelve persons, and a beautiful horse; and he had afterwards the honour to instruct the queen of Bohemia, and the princesses her children, in drawing.

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

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

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

, archbishop of Tuam, appears to have been of a dissenting family, as he was educated in a dissenting school, between 1690 and 1695, under the direction of the rev. Thomas Rowe, and was a fellow-student with the celebrated Dr. Watts, who said of him, that he was “the first genius in that seminary.” After his academical studies were finished, he resided some time as chaplain with John Hampden, esq. M. P. for Bucks, and afterwards settled as a dissenting minister at Marshfield, in Gloucestershire. The time of his conformity is not ascertained, though it is evident that he was a clergyman of the church of England so early as 1708, for in that year he published a sermon preached at the archdeacon’s visitation at Aylesbury. In the preceding year he had printed a Thanksgiving Sermon on our national Successes, from Ps. cxlix. 6 8. There is a tradition in the family, that he had so greatly recommended himself to the court by his zeal and services in support of the Hanover succession, that, as he scrupled re-ordination, it was dispensed with, and the fivst preferment bescowed on him, was that of a bishopric in Ireland. It is certain that he went into that kingdom as chaplain to the lord lieutenant. He was consecrated bishop of Ferns and Leighlin, February 10, 1721, was translated to Kilinore and Ardagh, July 27, 1727, and preferred to the archiepiscopal see of Tuam, January 27, 1742, with the united bishopric of Enaghdoen, in the room of Dr. Synge, deceased, and likewise with liberty to retain his other bishopric of Ardagh. He died December 14, 1751, in a very advanced age. His publications were, 1. in 1738, at Dublin, a volume of Sermons, sixteen in number, in 8vo; they are judicious and impressive discourses. These were reprinted in London, in 1757, with the addition of the Visitation Sermon mentioned before. In this volume is a Sermon preached in the castle of Dublin, before the duke of Bolton the lord lieutenant of Ireland, after the suppression of the Preston rebellion. 2. A Charge entitled “Instructions to the Clergy of the Diocese of Tuam, at the primary visitation, July 8, 1742.” This, after the death of the author, was reprinted in London, with theapprobation and consent of the rev. Dr. Hort, canon of Windsor it is an excellent address. In the preface to the volume of sermons we learn, that for many years prer vious to its appearance from the press, the worthy author had been disabled from preaching by an over-strain of the voice in the pulpit, at a time when he had a cold with a hoarseness upon him. The providence of God, he says, having taken from him the power of discharging that part of his episcopal office which consisted in preaching, he, thought it incumbent on him to convey his thoughts and instructions from the press, that he might not be useless. The solemn promise that he made at his consecration, “to exercise himself in the Holy Scriptures, so as to be able by them to teach and exhort with wholesome doctrine,” was no small motive to that undertaking, as being the only means left him for making good that promise. It appears, that he kept up an epistolary correspondence with his “old friend,” as he called him, and fellow-student, Dr. Watts, to the closing period of the life of each. In Swift’s works we find a humorous paper of Dr. Hort’s, entitled “A New Proposal for the better regulation and improvement of Quadrille,” and some letters respecting it.

, a great mathematician of France, was born of a branch of the preceding family, in 1661. He was a geometrician almost from his infancy; for one day being at the duke de Rohan’s, where some able mathematicians were speaking of a problem of PaschaPs, which appeared to them extremely difficult, he ventured to say, that he, believed he could solve it. They were amazed at what appeared such unpardonable presumption in a boy of fifteen, for he was then no more, yet it a few days be sent them the solution. He entered early into the army, but always preserved his love for the mathematics, and studied them even in his tent; whither he used to retire, it is said, not only to study, but also to conceal his application to study: for in those days, to be knowing in the sciences was thought to derogate from nobility; and a soldier of quality, to preserve his dignity, was in some measure obliged to hide his literary attainments. De l'Hospital was a captain of horse; but, being extremely short-sighted, and exposed on that account to perpetual inconveniences and errors, he at length quitted the army, and applied himself entirely to his favourite amusement. He contracted a friendship with Malbranche, judging by his “Recherche de la Verite*,” that he must be an excellent guide in the sciences; and he took his opinion upon all occasions. His abilities and knowledge were no longer a secret: and at the age of thirty-two he gave a public solution of problems, drawn from the deepest geometry, which had been proposed to mathematicians in the acts of Leipsic. In 1693 he was received an honorary member of the academy of sciences at Paris; and published a work upon sir Isaac Newton’s calculations, entitled “L'Analyse des iniinimens petits.” He was the first in France who wrote on this subject: and on this account was regarded almost as a prodigy. He engaged afterwards in another work of the mathematical kind, in which he included “Les Sectiones coniques, les Lieux georoetriques, la Construction des Equations,” and “Une Theorie des Courbes mechaniques:” but a little before he had finished it, he was seized with a fever, of which he died Feb. 2, 1704, aged 49. It was published after his death, viz. in 1707. There are also six of his pieces inserted in different volumes of the memoirs of the academy of sciences.

, or L'Hoste (John), a learned mathematician of Nancy, towards the end of the sixteenth century, taught law and mathematics with uncommon reputation at Pont-a-Mousson, and was appointed superintendant of fortifications, and counsellor of war by Henry duke of Lorrain. His genius was extensive, penetrating, and formed for the sciences. He died in 1631, leaving several valuable works the principal ones are, “Le sommaire et l'usage de la Sphere Artificielle,” 4to “La Pratique de Géométrie,” 4to “Description et usage des principaux instrumens de Géométrie,” 4to “Du Quadran et quarré; Rayon astronomique Bâton de Jacob; interpretation du grand art de Raymond Lulle,” &c.

, in Latin Hototnanus, a learned French civilian, was born in 1524, at Paris, where his family, originally of Breslau in Silesia, had flourished for some time. He made so; rapid a progress in the belles lettres, that at the age of fifteen, he was sent to Orleans to study the civil law, and in three years was received doctor to that faculty. His father, a counsellor in parliament, had already designed him for that employment; and therer fore sent for him home, and placed him at the bar. But Hotman was soon displeased with the chicanery of the court, and applied himself vigorously to the study of the Roman law and polite literature. At the age of twentythree, he was chosen to read public lectures in the schools pf Paris: but, relishing the opinions of Luther, on account of which many persons were put to death in France, and finding that he could not profess them at Paris, he Went to Lyons in 1548. Having now nothing to expect“from his father, who was greatly irritated at the change of his religion, he left France, and retired to Geneva; where he lived some time in Calvin’s house. From hence he went to Lausanne,' where the magistrates of Bern gave him the place of professor of polite literature. He published there some books, which, however, young as he was, were not his first publications; and married a French gentlewoman, who had also retired thither on account of religion. His merit was so universally known, that the magistrates of Strasburg offered him a professorship of civil law; which he accepted, and held till 1561, and during this period, received invitations from the duke of Prussia, the landgrave of Hesse, the dukes of Saxony, and even from queen Elizabeth of England; but did not accept them. He did not refuse, however, to go to the court of the king of Navarre, at the begining of the troubles; and he went twice into Germany, to desire assistance of Ferdinand, in the name of the princes of the blood, and even in the name of the queen-mother. The speech he made at the diet of Francfort is published. Upon his return to Strasburg, he was prevailed upon to teach civil law at Valence; which he did with such success, that he raised the reputation of that university. Three years after, he went to be professor at Bourges, by the invitation of Margaret of France, sister of Henry II. but left that city in about five months, and retired to Orleans to the heads of the party, who made great use of his advice. The peace which was made a month after, did not prevent him from apprehending the return of the storm: upon which account he retired to Sancerre, and there wrote an excellent book,” De Consolatione,“which his son published after his death. He returned afterwards to his professorship at Bourges, where he very narrowly escaped the massacre of 1572: which induced him to leave France, with a full resolution never to return. He then went to Geneva, where he read lectures upon the civil law. Some time after, he went to Basil, and taught civil law, and was so pleased with this situation, that he refused great offers from the prince of Orange and the States-general, who would have draxvn him to Leyden. The plague having obliged him to leave Basil, he retired to Montbeliard, where he lost his wife; and went afterwards to live with her sisters at Geneva. He returned once more to Basil, and there died in 1590, of a dropsy, which had kept him constantly in a state of indisposition for six years before. During this, he revised and digested his works for a new edition, which appeared at Geneva in 1599, in 3 vols. folio, with his life prefixed by Neveletus Doschius> The first two contain treatises upon the civil law; the third, pieces relating to the government of France, and the right of succession; five books of Roman antiquities; commentaries upon Tally’s” Orations and Epistles;“notes upon Caesar’s” Commentaries,“&c. His” Franco-Gallia,“or,” Account of the free state of France,“has been translated into English by lord Molesworth, author of” The Account of Denmark." He published also several other articles without his name; but, being of the controversial kind, they were probably not thought of consequence enough to be revived in the collection of his works.

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

, an English prelate, memorable for the firm and patriotic stand which he made against the tyranny and bigotry of James II. was the son of John Hough, a citizen of London, descended from the Houghs of Leighton in Cheshire, and iof Margaret, the daughter of John Byrche of Leacroft in the county of Stafford, esq. He was born in Middlesex, April 12, 1651; and, after having received his education either at Birmingham or Walsall in Staffordshire, was entered of Magdalen college, Oxford, Nov. 12, 1669, and in a few years was elected a fellow. He took orders in 1675, and in 1678 was appointed domestic chaplain to the duke of Ormond, at that time lord lieutenant of Ireland, and went over with him to that country; but he returned soon after, and in 1685 was made a prebendary of Worcester. He was also presented to the rectory of Tempsford in Bedfordshire, in the gift of the crown. From these circumstances, it should seem that he must have been considered as a man of talents and merit, before he acted the conspicuous part he did in October 1687.

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.”

, 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.

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

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

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

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

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.

, 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.

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.

, 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.

, 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.

Mr. Howe has a copy of recommendatory English verses prefixed to the folio edition of Beaumont and Fletcher, printed in 1647; another to Randolph’s poems, 1640, and another to Cartwright’s comedies and poems, 1651. These pieces, says Warton, which are in the witty epigrammatic style that then prevailed, have uncommon acuteness, and highly deserve to be revived. Denham, Waller, Jonson, Corbet, Brome, Shirley, &c. appear to have been of his intimate acquaintance. Wood says that he wrote some English verses, which were much applauded, spoken before the duke and duchess of York, in 1683, at Trinitycollege.

, 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.

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.

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”

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.

, 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.

, 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.

, 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.

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.

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.”

, 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.

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.

Hyde withdrew to the king at York, having first obtained the great seal to be sent thither on May 20, 1642: and, upon his arrival, was admitted into the greatest confidence, though he was not under any official character in the court for some months. But, towards the latter end of the year, upon the promotion of sir John Colepepper to be master of th,e rolls, he succeeded him in the chancellorship of the exchequer, and the same year was knighted, and made a privy-counsellor. With these characters he sat in the parliament assembled at Oxford, Jan. 1643; and, in 1644, was one of the king’s commissioners at the treaty of Uxbridge. Not long after, the king sending the prince of Wales into the West, to have the superintendency of the affairs there, sir Edward Hyde was appointed to attend his highness, and to be of his council; where he entered, by his majesty’s command, into a correspondence with the marquis of Ormond, then lord-lieutenant of Ireland. Upon the declension of the king’s cause, he with the lords Capel and Colepepper sailed from Pendennis castle in Cornwall to Scilly, and thence to Jersey, where he arrived in March 1645; but being greatly disgusted at the prince’s removal thence the following year to France, he obtained leave to stay in that island. His opinion respecting the prince’s removal into France, is warmly expressed in the following letter to the duke of Ormond:

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

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

In August 1667, he was removed from his post of chancellor, and in November following was impeached by the house of commons of high treason, and other crimes and misdemeanors; upon which, in the beginning of December, he retired to France, and on the 19th, an act of banishment was passed against him. Echard observes, how often “it has been admired, that the king should not only consent to discard, but soon after banish a friend, who had been as honest and faithful to him a* the best, and perhaps more useful and serviceable than any he had ever employed; which surely could never have been brought to bear without innumerable enviers and enemies.” But to conceive how these were raised, we need only remember, that during the height of his grandeur, which continued two years after the Restoration without any rivalship, as well as the rest of his ministry, he manifested an inflexible steadiness to the constitution of the church of England, in equal opposition to the Papists on one side, and the Dissenters on the other; so that none of these could ever be reconciled to him or his proceedings. Yet at first he seemed so forward to effect a coalition of all parties, that the cavaliers and strict churchmen thought themselves much neglected; and many of them upon that account, though unjustly, entertained insuperable prejudices against him, and joined with the greatest of his enemies. But the circumstances which were supposed to weaken his interest with, and at length make him disagreeable to the king, were rather of a personal nature, and such as concerned the king and him only. It is allowed on all hands, that the chancellor was not without the pride of conscious virtue; so that his personal behaviour was accompanied with a sort of gravity and haughtiness, which struck a very unpleasing awe into a court filled with licentious persons of both sexes. He often took the liberty to give reproofs to these persons of mirth and gallantry; and sometimes thought it his duty to advise the king himself in such a manner that they took advantage of him, and as he passed in court, would often say to his majesty, “There goes your schoolmaster.” The chief of these was the duke of Buckingham, who had a surprising talent of ridicule and buffoonery; and that he might make way for lord Clarendon’s ruin, by bringing him first into contempt, he often acted and mimicked him in the presence of the king, walking in a stately manner with a pair of bellows before him for the purse, and colonel Titus carrying a fire-shovel on his shoulder for the mace; with which sort of farce and banter, the king, says Echard, was too much delighted and captivated. These, with some more serious of the Popish party, assisted by the solicitations of the ladies of pleasure, made such impressions upon the king, that he at last gave way, and became willing, and even pleased, to part both from his person and services. It was also believed, that the king had some private resentments against him, for checking of those who were too forward in loading the crown with prerogative and revenue; and particularly we are told, that he had counteracted the king in a grand design which he had, to be divorced from the queen, under pretence “that she had been pre-engaged to another person, or that she was incapable of bearing children.” The person designed to supply her place was Mrs. Stuart, a beautiful young lady, who was related to the king, and had some office under the queen. The chancellor, to prevent this, sent for the duke of Richmond, who was of the same name; and seeming to be sorry that a person of his worth and relation to his majesty should receive no marks of his favour, advised him to marry this lady, as the most likely means to advance himself. The young nobleman, liking the person, followed his advice, made immediate application to the lady, who was ignorant of the king’s intentions, and in a few days married her. The king, thus disappointed, and soon after informed how the match was brought about, banished the duke and his new duchess from court, reserving his resentment against the chancellor to a more convenient opportunity. Be this as it will, the private reasons that induced the king to abandon the chancellor were expressed in a letter to the duke of Ormond, then in Ireland; which the king wrote to that nobleman for his satisfaction, knowing him to be the chancellor’s friend. Echard observes, that this letter was never published, nor would a copy of it be granted; but that he had been told the substance of it more than once by those who had read it; and the principal reason there given by the king was, “The chancellor’s intolerable temper.”

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

Being greatly afflicted with the gout, and not finding himself secure in that part of France, he went in the summer to Montpelier, where, recovering his health in a considerable measure, he continued three or four years. In 1672 he resided at Moulins, and removing thence to Rouen, died Dec. 9, 1673, in that city; from whence his body was brought to England, and interred on the north side of Henry Vllth’s chapel in Westminster-abbey. He was twice married: first to Anne, daughter of sir Gregory Ayloffe, of Robson, in Wiltshire, knt. and this lady dying without issue, to Frances, daughter, and at length heiress, to sir Thomas Aylesbury, bart. in 1634; by whom he had four sons and two daughters. Anne his eldest daughter was married, as we have already observed, to the duke of York, by which match she became mother to two daughters, Mary and Anne, who were successively queens of England. Besides these, she brought the duke four sons and three daughters, who all died in their infancy. The last was born Feb. 9, 1670-1, and her mother died on March 31 following; having a little before her death changed her religion, to the great grief of her father, who on that occasion wrote a most pathetic letter to her, and another to the duke her consort.

On the death of Dr. Clarke, in May 1729, he succeeded, by the presentation of the duke of Rutland, thdn chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, to the mastership of Wigston’s hospital, which situation he preserved to“his death. The year before, 1728, he had published, in 8vo,” Novatiani Opera, ad antiquiores editiones castigata, & a multis mendis expurgata:“and now, intent upon books, and perhaps the more so by being incapable of rising to preferment, ha continued from time to time to send out various publications. In 1730,” A Defence of Human Liberty, against Cato’s Letters;“and, in the second edition,” A Supplement against Anthony Collins, esq. upon the same subject.“In 1730 and 1731,” Four Tracts in Defence of Human Reason, occasioned by bishop Gibson’s second Pastoral Letter.“In 1731, a piece against” Tindal’s Christianity as old as the Creation;“in 1733, another by way of answer to Browne bishop of Corke’s book, entitled” Things Divine and Supernatural, conceived by Analogy with Things Natural and Human;“in 1734,” The Existence and Unity of God, &c.“which led him into a controversy with Law, and other writers; and, in 1735,” A Dissertation on Matter and Spirit,“with remarks on Baxter’s” Inquiry into the Nature of the Human Soul.“In 173G, he published” A Narrative of his being refused the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper at Bath:" this had been done in a very public manner by Dr. Coney, and was the second refusal of that kind he had experienced; for, in 1730, he had been denied the use of the pulpit at St. Martin’s in Leicester, by the vicar, who set the sacristan at the bottom of the stairs to restrain him from ascending.

, an ingenious letter-founder, whose history affords one of those edifying examples which cannot be too often placed before the eyes of the young artisan, was born in Old-street, London, Sept. 4, 1733, and was educated at Fuller’s school in that neighbourhood. At the usual age he was put apprentice to Mr. Caslon, letterfounder, son to the first of that family. Having acquired a knowledge of the common operations, he had an ambition to learn the method of cutting punches; which was so much a secret, that both his master and his master’s father always locked themselves into a private apartment, when employed in that important branch of the business. Mr. Jackson, however, surmounted this difficulty, by boring a hole through the wainscot, and prying into their operations with such success, that he was soon enabled to finish a punch, and brought it in triumph to his master, probably expecting some reward. His surprise and chagrin must have therefore been great, when his master gave him a hard blow, and threatened him with Bridewell, if ever he made such another felonious attempt. Mr. Jackson, however, whose conscience was more easily reconciled to his crime, than his temper was to his punishment, was, by the assistance of his mother, provided with the necessary tools, and took every opportunity of improving himself in the art at her house. He continued also to work for his master for some time after the expiration of his apprenticeship, until a dispute respecting wages occasioned his being discharged, along with a Mr. Cottrell, with whom he united in partnership; but, on the death of his mother, in 1759, went on board the Minerva frigate, as armourer. He appears to have returned to London after the peace of 1762-3, and worked for some time under Mr. Cottrell, until, determining to adventure in business for himself, he was encouraged in the scheme, by two life-guardsmen, his felJow workmen, who engaged to allow him a small pittance for his subsistence, and to supply money to carry on the trade, for two years. Taking a small house in Cock-lane, he soon satisfied his partners that the business would be productive, before the time promised. When he had pursued his labours about six months, Mr. Bowyer, the cele.­brated printer, accidentally calling to inspect some of his punches (for he had no specimen), approved them so much, that he promised to employ him. Business increasing rapidly, Mr. Jackson removed to larger premises in Dorsetstreet; and about 1771 was applied to by the late duke of Norfolk, to make a mould to cast a hollow square. His grace informed him, that he had applied to allthe skilful mechanics in London, Mr. Caslon not excepted, who declared it impossible. Mr. Jackson howeve'r undertook, and in the course of three months produced it. He proceeded then in raising the reputation of his foundery; and among other articles of superior difficulty, we may mention the fac-simile types for the Domesday-book, and for the Alexandrian New Testament, and the types for Macklin’s Bible. Mr. Jackson died at his house in Dorset-street, Salisburysquare, Jan. 14, 1722.

, a Lutheran divine, was born at Stutgard, 1647, of a father who was counsellor of the dispatches to the duke of Wirtemberg. After he had finished his studies, he was entrusted with the education of duke Eberhard III. with whom he travelled into Italy in 1676, as preceptor. This charge being completed, he taught philosophy and divinity; and in 1698 was nominated a counsellor to the duke of Wirtemberg. The following year he became consistorial counsellor and preacher. to the cathedral of Stutgard, and superintendant-general and abbot of the monastery of Adelberg. At last he was promoted in 1702 to the places of first professor of divinity, chancellor of the university, and provost of the church of Tubingen. He died in 1720. His principal works are, 1. “Ecclesiastical History compared with Profane History,” 2. “A System or Compendium of Divinity.” 3. “Several Pieces upon Mystic Divinity, in which he refutes Poiret, Fenelon,” &c. “4.” Observations upon Puffendorf and Grotius, de jure belli & pacis.“5.” A Treatise of Laws.“6.” An Examination of the life and doctrine of Spinosa.“7.” A Moral Theology," &c. All his works are in Latin.

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

, a French poet, was, in his youth, a great traveller, and ran over Greece, the isles of the Archipelago, and Asia Minor. Poetry being his delight, he applied himself to it from his infancy; and his writings, both in verse and prose, shew that he had carefully studied the Greek and Latin authors, especially the poets. He is esteemed the rival of Ronsard, who was his contemporary and friend; but he is not so bombastical, nor so rough in the use of Greek words, and his style is more natural, simple, and pleasing. Jamyn was secretary and chamberreader in ordinary to Charles IX. and died about 1585. We have, 1. his “Poetical Works,” in 2 vols. 2. “Discours de philosophic a Passicharis & a Pedanthe,” with seven academical discourses, the whole in prose, Paris 1584, 12mo. 3. “A Translation of Homer’s Iliad,” in French verse, begun by Hugh Sale!, and finished by Jamyn from the 12th book inclusive, to which is added a translation of the three first books of the " Odyssey.*' He appears to have had some notion of the style into which Homer ought to be translated, but he has rendered his performance sufficiently ridiculous by giving modern titles to the Greeks, such as the duke Idomeneus, and the chevaliers Neptune and Nestor.

But Jansen had another war to maintain, which may be called a Protestant one; for Theodore Simonis, a wavering Roman Catholic, who wanted a master, waited upon him at Louvain, desiring him to clear up some doubts he had about the pope’s infallibility, the worship of the eucharist, and some other points. Jansen, being puzzled with this man’s objections, told him one day, that he would not dispute with him by word of mouth, but in writing; and that he saw plainly he had to do with a Roman Protestant Catholic, who would soon go to Holland, and there boast he had overcome him. Simonis, with some difficulty, complied with the proposal; but after both had written twice on the subject in question, his lodgings were surrounded with soldiers, and himself threatened with the punishment due to heretics. The duke d'Archot’s secretary exclaimed aloud against him, and said, that there was wood enough in his master’s forests to burn that heretic. But as the person who examined Simonis, in the name of the archbishop of Malines, declared that he had found him a good Catholic, and fully resolved to persevere in the Romish communion, the prisoner was set at liberty, and Jansen obliged to pay the expences of the soldiers. Yet this Simonis, two years after, turned Protestant, and published a book, entitled “De statu et religione propria Papatus adversus Jansenium.” He appears to have been a man of no stability, for he tirst quitted the Lutheran communion to go over to that of Home, then turned Lutheran again, and at last Socinian. He was principal of the Socinian college of Kisselin in Lithuania, was well versed in the Greek tongue, and translated Comenius’s “Janua linguarum” into that language.

, another artist, was born at Brussels in 1664. Having applied sedulously to the practice of the art, and made much proficiency, he was employed by the duke of Holstein at a pension of 800 florins, and afterwards enabled, by the same munificent patron, to go to Italy, where, at Rome, he studied the works of Raphael, and became eminent in fame. He afterwards associated withTempesta the landscape painter, and painted figures in his pictures. In general his pictures are small in size, and have somewhat of the style of Albano His invention was copious, and his works are very pleasing. He died in 1739, at the age of 75.

, a French preacher and poet, was born in the village of Jarry, near Xantes, about 1658. He went young to Paris, where the duke of Montausier, M. Bossuet, Bourdaloue, and Flechier, became his patrons, and encouraged him to write. He gained the poetical prize in the French academy in 1679 and in 1714, and it is remarkable that, on this latter occasion, Voltaire, then very young, was one of his competitors. The successful poem was, however, below mediocrity, and contained some blunders with which his young antagonist amused himself and the public. One of his verses began, “Poles, glaces, brulans.” “These torrid poles,” could not escape ridicule. At the same time he was celebrated as a preacher. He was prior of Notre Dame du Jarry of the order of Grammont, in the diocese of Xantes, where he died in 1730. We have of his, a work entitled “Le Ministere Evangelique;” of which the second edition was printed at Paris in 1726. 2. “A Collection of Sermons, Panegyrics, and Funeral Orations,” 4 vols. 12mo. 3. “Uu Recueil de divers ouvrages de Piete,” 1638, 12mo. 4. “Des Poeses Chretiennes Heroiques & Morales,” 1715, 12mo.

, son of the preceding, was born in 1729 at Stratford in Essex, where his father, the subject of the preceding article, practised as a physician. He had a liberal classical education at Cambridge; but being by principle a nonjuror, from his father, he could not be matriculated, nor take any degree at that university. He afterwards studied medicine in London and in Leyden; and from the unive sity in the latter city he obtained the degree of doctor of medicine. Upon settling in London he entered as licentiate of the college of physicians; and in 1768 he was elected a fellow of that body. He was for some time physician both to St. George’s hospital, and to the Westminster infirmary. As a practitioner he became so eminent, that when the duke of Gloucester fell dangerously ill in Italy, he was requested to go abroad to attend the health of that prince; and on this occasion his conduct gave so much satisfaction that he was called abroad ii second time to visit the same prince, on a future illness, in 1777. About this time he was made physician-extraordinary to the king; and in 1780 was appointed physician in ordinary to the prince of Wales. He not only held these offices about the royal family, but was for several years one of the physicians chiefly employed by them. Upon the death of sir Edward Wilmot, in 1786, he was appointed one of the physicians in ordinary to his majesty; but this office he did not enjoy many months; for, being in attendance on two of the princesses, who were affected with the measles, he was suddenly attacked with a fever in their apartments at Windsor, and fell a victim to the disease, after a few days illness, on the 4th day of July, 1787, in the 58th year of his age.

Soon after commencing his professional career, alderman Jeffreys, a namesake, and probably a relation, introduced him among the citizens; and, being a jovial bottle companion, he became very popular among them, came into great business, and was chosen their recorder. His influence in the city, and his readiness to promote any measures without reserve, introduced him at court; and he was appointed the duke of York’s solicitor.

He was very active in the duke’s interest, and carried through a cause which was of very great consequence to his revenue, respecting the right of the Penny-post-office. He was first made a judge in his native country; and, in 1680, was knighted, and made chief justice of Chester, and a baronet in 1681. When the parliament began the prosecution of the abhorrers, he resigned the recordership, and obtained the place of chief justice of the king’s-bench; and, soon after the accession of James II. the great seal. He was one of the greatest advisers and promoters of all the oppressive and arbitrary measures of that unhappy and tyrannical reign; and his sanguinary and inhuman proceedings against Monmouth’s miserable adherents in the West will ever render his name infamous. There is, however, a singular story of him in this expedition, which tends to his creuit; as it shews, that when he was not under state influence, he had a proper sense of the natural and civil rights of men, and an inclination to protect them. The mayor, aldermen, and justices of Bristol, had been used to transport convicted criminals to the American plantations, and sell them by way of trade; and finding the commodity turn to a good account, they contrived a method to make it more plentiful. Their legal convicts were but few, and the exportation was inconsiderable. When, therefore, any petty rogues and pilferers were brought before them in a judicial capacity, they were sure to be threatened with hanging; and they had some very diligent officers attending, who would advise the ignorant intimidated creatures to pray for transportation, as the only way to save them; and, in general, by some means or other, the advice was followed. Then, without any more fornij each alderman in course took one and sold for his own benefit; and sometimes warm disputes arose among them about the next turn. This trade had been carried on unnoticed many years, when it came to the knowledge of the lord chief justice; who, finding, upon inquiry, that the mayor was equally involved in the guilt of this outrageous practice with the rest of his brethren, made him descend from the bench where he was sitting, and stand at the bar in his scarlet and furs, and plead as a common criminal. He then took security of them to answer informations; but the amnesty after the revolution stopt the proceedings, and secured their iniquitous gains.

, an English poet, born in 1678, was the son of Christopher Jeffreys, esq. of Weldron in Northamptonshire, and nephew to James the eighth lord Chandos. He was educated at Westminster school under Dr. Busby, and was admitted of Trinity college, Cambridge, in 1694, where he took the degrees in arts, was elected fellow in 1701, and presided in the philosophyschools as moderator in 1706. He was also sub-orator for. Dr. Ayloffe, and not going into orders within eight years, as the statutes of that college required, he quitted his fellowship in 1709. Though Mr. Jeffreys was called to the bar, he never practised the law, but, after acting as secretary to Dr. Hartstronge bishop of Derry, at the latter end of queen Anne’s and the beginning of George the First’s reign, spent most of the remainder of his life in the families of the two last dukes of Chandos, his relations. In 1754 he published, by subscription, a 4to volume of “Miscellanies, in verse and prose,” among which are two tragedies, “Edwin,” and “Merope,” both acted at the theatre-royal in Lincoln’s- inn- fields, and “The Triumph of Truth,” an oratorio. “This collection,” as the author observes in his dedication to the late duke of Chandos, then marquis of Carnarvon, “includes an uncommon length of time, from the verses on the duke of Gloucester’s death in 1700, to those on his lordship’s marriage in 1753.” Mr. Jeffreys died in 1755, aged seventy-seven. In sir John Hawkins’s “History of Music,” his grandfather, George, is recorded as Charles the First’s organist at Oxford, in 1643, and servant to lord Hatton in Northamptonshire, where he had lands of his own; and also his father, Christopher, of Weldron in Northamptonshire, as “a student of Christ church, who played well on the organ.” The anonvmous verses prefixed to “Cato,” were by this gentleman, which Addison never knew. The alterations in the Odes in the “Select Collection” are from the author’s corrected copy.

Dr. Jenkin had an elder and a younger brother, Henry and John. John was a judge in Ireland, under the duke of Ormond. Henry, elder brother of the master, was vicar of Tilney, in Norfolk, and rector of South Rungton cum Wellington, where he died in 1732.

bestow her daughter Henrietta in mar- duke of York, as well as the princess

Soon after his arrival in England he was chosen one of the burgesses for the university of Oxford-and, in the parliament which met Oct. 17 following, opposed, to the utmost of his power, the bill brought in for the exclusion of the duke of York from the crown. He was sworn a privycounsellor before the expiration of this year; and received the seals as secretary of state, April 1680, being first secretary for the northern province, and in 1681 for the southern. He entered upon this arduous office in critical and dangerous times, which continued so all the while he enjoyed it yet he escaped the then common fate of being assailed by addresses against him,- or committed and impeached. Being chosen again for Oxford, in the parliament which met there March 21, 1681, he earnestly again opposed the exclusion of the duke of York, as he did also the printing of the Votes of the House of Commons; a practice which had then been lately (October 1680) assumed, but was considered by him as inconsistent with the gravity of that assembly, and a sort of improper appeal to the people. With similar zeal he withstood the command of the House, to carry their impeachment of Edward FitzHarris up to the Lords, regarding it as designed to reflect upon the king in the person of his secretary; nor did he comply till he saw himself in danger of being expelled the House for refusing *. But when the corporations began to

, the author of some dramas and poems of considerable merit, was a native of Ireland, where he was born in 1736. He appears to have profited by a liberal education, but entered early into the army, and attained the rank of captain in the 73d regiment of foot on the Irish establishment. When that regiment was reduced in 1763, he was put on the half- pay list. In 1763 he became acquainted with the late William Gerard Hamilton, esq. who was charmed with his liveliness of fancy and uncommon talents, and for about five years they lived together in the greatest and most unreserved intimacy; Mr. Jephson usually spending the summer with Mr. Hamilton at his house at Hampton-court, and also giving him much of his company in town during the winter. In 1767, Mr. Jephson married one of the daughters of Sir Edward Barry, hart, a celebrated physician, and author of various medical works; and was obliged to bid a long farewell to his friends in London, Dr. Johnson, Mr. Burke, Mr. Charles Townsend, Garrick, Goldsmith, &c. in consequence of having accepted the office of master of the horse to lord viscount Townsend, then appointed lord lieutenant of Ireland. Mr. Hamilton also used his influence to procure Mr. Jephson a permanent provision on the Irish establishment, of 300l. a year, which the duke' of Rutland, from personal regard, and a high admiration of Mr. Jephson’s talents, increased to 600l. per annum, for the joint lives of himself and Mrs. Jephson. In addition to this proof of his kindness and esteem, Mr. Hamilton never ceased, without any kind of solicitation, to watch over Mr. Jephson’s interest with the most lively solicitude constantly applying in person, in his behalf, to every new lord lieutenant, if he were acquainted with him; or, if that we.e not the case, contriving by some circuitous means to pro Mire Mr. Jephson’s re-appointment to the office originally con i erred upon him by lord Townsend and by these means chiefly he was continued for a long series of years, under tw- ive successive governors of Ireland, in the same station, which always before had been considered a temporary office. In Mr. Jephson’s case, this office was accompanied by a seat in the house of commons, where he occasionally amused the house by his wit, but does not at any time appear to have been a profound politician. His natural inclination was for literary pursuits; and he supported lord Towosend’s government with more effect in the “Bachelor,” a set of periodical essays which he wrote in conjunction with Mr. Courtenay, the Rev. Mr. Burroughs, and others. He died at his house at Blackrock, near Dublin, of a paralytic disorder, May 31, 1803.

As a dramatic writer, his claims seem to be founded chiefly on his tragedies of “Braganza,” and “The Count of Narbonne.” “Braganza was very successful on its original appearance, but fell into neglect after the first season, in 1775. Horace Walpole, whose admiration of it is expressed in the most extravagant terms, addressed to the author” Thoughts on Tragedy,“in three letters, which are included in his printed works. In return, Mr. Jephson took the story of his” Count of Narbonne“from Walpole’s” Castle of Otranto,“and few tragedies in our times have been more successful. It was produced in 1781, and continued to be acted until the death of Mr. Henderson, the principal performer. Of Mr. Jephson’s other dramas it may be sufficient to give the names:” The Law of Lombardy,“a tragedy, 1779;” The Hotel,“a farce, 1783;” The Campaign,“an opera, 1785” Julia,“a tragedy, 1787;” Love and War,“1787, and” Two Strings to your Bow,“1791, both farces; and” The Conspiracy“a tragedy. Mr. Jephson afterwards acquired a considerable share of poetical fame from his” Roman Portraits,“a quarto poem, or rather collection of poems, characteristic of the Roman heroes, published in 1794, which exhibited much taste and elegance of versification. About the same time he published anonymously,” The Confession of James Baptisto Couteau," 2 vols. 12mo, a kind of satire on the perpetrators of the revolutionary atrocities in France, and principally the wretched duke of Orleans.

, an eminent German divine, was born at Osnaburgh, in 1709, and died in 1789. Of his life we have no farther account than that his talents raised him to the offices of vice-president of the consistory of Brunswick, abbot of Marienthal, court preacher, and director of the Caroline-college at Brunswick, of which, in 1745, he wrote an account. He was reckoned in his country one of the most original and most excellent defenders of religion that the eighteenth century had produced. His principal works were, 1. Two volumes of “Sermons,” Brunswick, 1756 69. 2. “Letters on the Mosaic Religion and Philosophy,” 1773. This work contains a demonstration that Moses really wrote the books attributed to him: and observations on his being the author of the book of Genesis, and of the style of that book, &c. 3. “Life of prince Albert-Henry of Brunswick Lunenburgh.” 4. “Thoughts on the principal Truths of Religion,” Brunswick, 1768, &c. in several volumes, reckoned a very capital performance. The abbot Jerusalem had'been tutor to the late duke of Brunswick, and his highness desired him to digest the instructions he had given him on the Christian religion in a regular form; and afterwards gave him leave to publish them. 5. “Character of prince William Adolphus of Brunswick,” Berlin, 1771. 6. “Thoughts on the Union of the Church;” and 7. a very elegant and judicious letter “concerning German literature,” addressed to her royal highness the duchess dowager of Brunswick- Wolfenbuttel, 1781.

, commonly called the Maid of Orleans, one of the most remarkable heroines in history, was the daughter of James d' re, and of Isabella Rome his wife, two persons of low rank, in the village of Domremi, near Vauconleurs, on the borders of Lorraine, where she was born in 1402. The instructions she received during her childhood and youth were suited to her humble condition. She quitted her parents at an early age, as they were ill able to maintain her, and engaged herself as a servant at a small inn. In this situation she employed herself in attending the horses of the guests, and in riding them to the watering-place, and by these exercises she acquired a robust and hardy frame. At this time the affairs of France were in a desperate condition, and the city of Orleans, the most important place in the kingdom, was besieged by the English regent, the duke of Bedford, as a step to prepare the way for the conquest of all France. The French king used every expedient to supply the city with a garrison and provisions; and the English left no method unemployed for reducing it. The eyes of all Europe were turned towards this scene of action, and after numberless feats of valour on both sides, the attack was so vigorously pushed by the English,' that the king (Charles VII.) gave up the city as lost, when relief was brought from a very unexpected quarter. Joan, influenced by the frequent accounts of the rencounters at this memorable siege, and affected with the distresses of her country and king, was seized with a wild desire of relieving him; and as her inexperienced mind worked day and night on this favourite object, she fancied she saw visions, and heard voices, exhorting her to re-establish the throne of France, and expel the English invaders. Enthusiastic in these notions, she went to Vaucouleurs, and informed Baudricourt, the governor, of her inspirations and intentions, who sent her to the French court, then at Chinon. Here, on being introduced to the king, she offered, in the name of the Supreme Being, to raise the siege of Orleans, and conduct his majesty to Rheims, to be there crowned and anointed; and she demanded, as the instrument of her future victories, a particular sword which was kept in the church of St. Catherine de Fierbois. The king and his ministers at first either hesitated or pretended to hesitate; but after an assembly of grave and learned divines had pronounced her mission to be real and supernatural, her request was granted, and she was exhibited to the whole people, on horseback in military habiliments. On this sight, her dexterity in managing her steed, though acquired in her former station, was regarded as a fresh proof of her mission her former occupation was even denied she was converted into a shepherdess, an employment more agreeable to the fancy. Some years were subtracted from her age, in order to excite still more admiration; and she was received with the loudest acclamations, by persons of all ranks.

The Maid of Orleans, as she is called, declared after this coronation, that her mission was now accomplished; and expressed her inclination to retire to the occupations and course of life which became her sex. But Dunois, sensible of the great advantages which might still b- reaped from her presence in the army, exhorted her to persevere till the final expulsion of the English. In pursuance of this advice, she threw herself into the town of Compiegne, at that time besieged by the duke of Burgundy, assisted by the earls of Arundel and Suffolk. The garrison, on her appearance, believed themselves invincible; but Joan, after performing prodigies of valour, was taken prisoner in a sally, and no efforts having been made by the French court to deliver her, was condemned by the English to be burnt alive, which sentence she sustained with great courage in the nineteenth year of her age, 1431. Such are the outlines of the history of this extraordinary heroine, which however is involved in many doubts and difficulties, and has too many of the features of romance for serious belief. It has lately even been doubted whether she was actually put to death; and some plausible evidence has been brought forward to prove that the judges appointed by the duke of Bedford to try her, passed a sentence from which they saved her on the day of execution by a trick, and that she afterwards made her appearance, was married to a gentleman of the house of Amboise in 1436, and her sentence was annulled in 1456. Be this as it may, her memory has long been consecrated by her countrymen, none of whom, however, have done her so much honour as our present poet-laureat, in his admirable poem of “Joan of Arc.”

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

The court, however, having information of it, he was summoned, about two months after lord Russel was beheaded, to appear before the king and council, where the lord keeper North examined him upon these points 1. “Whether he was the author of a book called `Julian’s Arts and Methods to undermine and extirpate Christianity'?” To which having answered in the affirmative, he was aked, “Why, after the book-had been so long entered at Stationers’-hall, it was not published?” To which he replied, “That the nation was in too great a ferment to have the matter further debated at that time.” Upon this he was commanded to produce one of those books to the council, being told that it should be published if they approved it; but he answered, “he had suppressed them himself, so that they were now his own private thoughts, for which he was not accountable to any power upon earth.” The council then dismissed him; but he was sent for twice afterwards, and the same questions urged, to which he returned the same answers, and was then sent prisoner to the Gatehouse, by a warrant of commitment dated Aug. 3, 1683, and signed by sir Leoline Jenkins, one of the privy council, and principal secretary of state. He was bailed out of prison by two friends, and the court used all possible means to discover the book; but, being disappointed in the search, recourse was had to promises, and a considerable sum, besides the favour of the court, was offered for one of the copies, to the person in whose hands they were supposed to be lodged. This was refused; and, as neither threats nor promises prevailed, the court was obliged to drop the prosecution upon that book, and an information against Johnson was lodged in the King’s-bench, for writing “Julian the Apostate,” &c. The prosecution was begun and carried on by the interest of the duke of York. The following was one of the first of the passages on which the information was founded: “And therefore, I much wonder at those men who trouble the nation at this time of day, with the unseasonable prescription of prayers and tears, and the passive obedience of the Thebean legion, and such-like last remedies, which are proper only at such a time as the laws of our country are armed against our religion.” The attack of this apparently innocent sentence gives a strong idea of the violence of the times.

From 1758 to about 1768, he resided in Germany, being engaged in the service of the duke of Wurtemburg, at Stutgardt, or rather at Ludwigsburg, his new capital, where Jomelli’s works were performed. Here he produced a great number of operas and other compositions, by which he acquired great reputation, and totally changed the taste of vocal music in Germany. On his return to Italy, he left all these productions behind him, upon a supposition that he should again resume his station at Ludwigsburg, after visiting his native country. But as he never returned thither to claim these compositions, they fell into the hands of his patron, the duke of Wurtemburg, who preserved them as precious relics of this great master. Very few of his entire operas were ever performed in England. The first was “Attilio Regulo,” in 1753, and the second, in 1755, “Andromaca.” The operas of Jomelli will be always valuable to professors and curious collectors, for the excellence of the composition, though it has been thought necessary, in compliance with the general rage for novelty, to lay them aside and to have the same dramas new set for the stage, in order to display the talents, or hide the defects, of new singers.

From this period he produced many admirable compositions for the church, in which he united elegance with learning, and grace with bold design. Among other productions of this kind, the two following merit commemoration. An “OfTertorio,” or motet, for five voices without instruments, followed by an Alleluja of four parts in chorus; and a “Missa pro defunctis,” or burial service, which he composed at Stutgardt for the obsequies of a lady of high rank and favour at the court of his patron, the duke of Wurtemburg. These compositions, which are learned without pedantry, and grave without dulness, will be lasting monuments of his abilities as a contrapuntist.

As Raphael had three manners of painting, Jomelli had three styles of composition. Before he went to Germany the easy and graceful flow of Vinci and Pergolesi pervaded all his productions; but when he was in the service of the duke of Wurtemburg, finding the Germans were fond of learning and complication, he changed his style in compliance with the taste and expectations of his audience; and on his return to Italy he tried to thin and simplify his dramatic muse, which, however, was still so much too operose for Italian ears, that in 1770, upon a Neapolitan being asked how he liked Jomelli' s new opera of “Demofoonte,” he cried out with vehemence, “e scelerata, Signore” The health of Jomelli began to decline in 1770, and in 1771 he had a stroke of the palsy, which, however, did not impair his intellects, as he composed “Achille in Sciro” for the Roman theatre, and a cantata for the safe delivery of the queen of Naples, in 1772; and in 1773 his Italian “Miserere,” the most elaborate and studied of all his works. He died in Sept. 1774.

, an eminent German divine, and one of the first reformers, was born at Northausen, in Thuringia, June 5, 1493, where his father was chief magistrate. He first made considerable progress in the study of civil law, but relinquishing that, devoted his whole attention to theology, in which faculty he took his doctor’s degree. This was about the time that the reformation was begun and Jonas having been present at various disputations on the subject, espoused the principles of the reformers with great zeal, and, from his knowledge of civil law as well as divinity, was enabled to contribute very important assistance to their efforts, particularly Luther and Melancthon, with whom he became early acquainted. In 1521 he was made a canon of the collegiate church at Wittemberg, and appointed principal of the college and professor; and, with Spalatinus and Amsdorff, was employed by the elector of Saxony to reform the church in Misnia and Thuringia. From thence he was called to Halle in Saxony, where he greatly promoted the reformation. Luther sometimes resorted thither to him, and took him with him in his last journey to Isleben, where he died in his arms. After Luther’s death he continued for some time in the duke of Saxony’s court, and was at length appointed pastor of the church at Eisfield, where he died Oct. 9, 1555. Jonas has been ranked among the moderate reformers, being desirous of making no further alteration in the established modes of worship and even doctrine, than he thought absolutely necessary for the introduction of piety and truth. His death was therefore a serious loss to his brethren, whose cause suffered by the intemperate zeal of some of its supporters. Among his writings are enumerated a treatise in. defence of the marriage of priests, against Faber printed at Helmstadt, 1651, fol. another uponthe study of divinity and notes upon the Acts" of the Apostles; but of these his biographers have given very imperfect accounts.

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

In 1559, he quitted his church at Magdeburg, being promoted to the divinity professor’s chair at Jena in 1559; but did not keep possession of it above eighteen months, being deprived by order of John Frederic duke of Saxony. He remained, however, six months longer at Jena, and thence returning to Magdeburg, was obliged, in six months more, to retire to Wismar. He suffered many persecutions and vexations, which appear to have shortened his days, as he died in 1564, in the very prime of life. He was a man of good morals, laborious, zealous, learned; and wrote a great many books on religious controversies; and one, very rare, “De Typographic inventione,”Copenhagen, 1566, 8vo. He understood music very well, and had s’ome knowledge of mathematics. He could write verses both in Latin and Greek, and had designed to write an ecclesiastical history of his own time. Besides the share he had in the first two Centuries of Magdeburg, he was concerned in the German translation of the first three Centuries. These Centuries form an ecclesiastical history, carried down to 1298, and were compiled by various protestant divines of Magdeburg. The title is “Historia ecclesiastics congesta per Magdeburgenses, et alios,” Basil, 1562, 13 vols. folio, whicb is the best edition.

, another able French artist, and a member of the ancient academy of painting, was born in 1736, of poor parents at the village of Carigliano near Locarno in Swisserland, and was first a pupil of Bardon at Marseilles; and afterwards of Carlo Vanloo at Paris, where having gained the prize of the academy, he was sent to the French school at Rome under Natoire. The sight of the ancient and modern works of that city determined him to abandon the manner taught in France, and adopt that of the great masters of Italy. This procured him, among the wits, the name of Julien the apostate, to distingush him from others of the same name, and of the same school. His successes at Rome prolonged his stay there for ten years, after which he returned to Paris, and distinguished himself by various works of great merit. He painted for the hotel of the princess Kinski a St. Dominic, and several decorations for ceilings, mentioned in the “Reeueil des curiosites de Paris,” which attracted the attention of connoisseurs and strangers. Among the works which he exhibited to the academy, when nominated a member, was the “Triumph of Aurelian,” executed for the duke ^le Rochefoucault. In the saloon of St. Louis, he exhibited in 1788, his fine picture, “Study spreading her flowers over Time,” a work of admirable composition. This was sent into England, and engraved. Among other capital performances from his hand may be mentioned his Jupiter and Juno, and Aurora and Titan. His last important work was an altar-piece for the chapel of the archbishop of Paris at Conflans, representing St. Anthony in a trance. Notwithstanding his merit, we have to add that this artist died poor, in 1799.

, a learned Hollander, was born, in 1511 or 1512, at Hoorn, of which place his father had been secretary, and five times burgomaster. Having passed through his first studies at Haeriem and Louvain, he fixed Upon physic for his profession, and, for his improvement, resolved to travel abroad. Accordingly, going first to France, he put himself under the care of James Houlier, a celebrated physician at Paris. Thence he went to Bologna in Italy, where he was admitted M. D. and afterwards, passing through several parts of Germany, arrived in England, and became physician to the duke of Norfolk in 1543, and was afterwards retained in that quality by a certain great lady. He continued in England several years, and wrote many books there; among others, a Greek and Latin lexicon, to which he added above 6500 words. He dedicated this work, in 1548, to Edward VI. with the title of king. Edward not being acknowledged such by the pope> our author, who was of that religion, fell under the displeasure of the court of Rome for his dedication, and was prosecuted for it a long time after. His works were put into the “Index Expurgatorius,” where he was branded as a Calvinist, and an author “damnatae memories,” of condemned memory; a disgrace which gave him great uneasiness and concern; and, in order to be freed from it, having laid his case before cardinal Granville, he applied, by the advice of Arias Montanus, directly to the pope, and prepared an apology, shewing the indispensable necessity he was under of giving Edward the title of king, and at the same time protesting he had always been a good catholic.

, or Du Jon (Francis), professor of divinity at Leyden, was descended of a noble family, and born at Bourges in 1545. At the age of thirteen he began to study the law, and afterwards went to Geneva, to study the languages; but being restrained in his pursuits for want of a proper support from his family, he resolved to get his bread by teaching school, which he pursued till 1565, when he was made minister of the Walloon church at Antwerp. But as this was both a troublesome and dangerous post, on account of the tumultuous conflicts between the papists and protestants at that time, he was soon obliged to withdraw into Germany. He went first to Heidelberg, where the elector, Frederic III. received him very graciously. He then made a visit to his mother, who was still living at Bourges; after which, returning to the Palatinate, he was made minister of the church of Schoon there. This was hut a small congregation; and, while he held it, he was sent by the elector to the prince of Orange’s army, during the unsuccessful expedition of 1568. He continued chaplain to that prince till the troops returned into Germany; when he resumed his church in the Palatine, and resided upon it till 1579. This year his patron, the elector, appointed him to translate the Old Testament jointly with Tremellius, which employment brought him to Heidelberg. He afterwards read public lectures at Neustadt, till prince Casimir, administrator of the electorate, gave him the divinity-professor’s chair at Heidelberg. He returned into France with the duke de Bouillon; and paying his respects to Henry IV. that prince sent him upon some mission into Germany. Returning to give an account of his success, and passing through Holland, he was invited to be divinity-professor at Leyden; and, obtaining the permission of the French ambassador, he accepted the offer in 1592. He had passed through many scenes of life, and he wrote an account of them himself this year: after which, he filled the chair at Leyden with great reputation for the space of ten years, when he died of the plague in 1602.

In 1557 he accepted the offer made to him, of the Hebrew and divinity professorship in the new university of Jena, where he had read lectures for five years, and where he engaged in a dispute with his colleague, Strigelius, on the nature of original sin, which Strigelius held to be accidental of the soul, and Flacius maintained that it was of the soul’s substance and essence. This dispute was held before the duke of Saxony at Weimar, and carried on to thirteen meetings, the acts of which were published, with a preface by Musaeus, one of Flacius’s followers. His opinion on this subject, however, was so unpalatable, that he was obliged to leave Jena and go to Ratisbon, where he published some more works, and was in such reputation among the adherents to the Au^sburgh confession, that, in 1567, he was called into Brabant, to establish churches there according to that rule of faith; but these new churches were soon dispersed by the persecution arisen in that country, which obliged him to fly to Antwerp and Strasburg, and finally to Francfort. Here he maintained his opinion on original sin with such rigid adherence as to be charged with Manicheism on this point, which greatly injured his reputation, and deprived him of many of his followers. He died in this city, March 11, 1575. He is said to have been a man of extensive learning, but of a controversial turn, which frequently embroiled him with his brethren; but on the other hand he must be allowed to have been a powerful agent in promoting the Reformation. His works were numerous. Teissier, in his “Eloges des homines savans,” has given the titles of seventy-eight treatises, the greater part of which are also enumerated by Niceron. The principal are his “Clavis Scripturae,” 2 vols. fol. of which there have been seven editions, the last at Leipsic in. 1695; no inconsiderable test of its merit. To this may be added his “Catalogus testium veritatis,” of which there have been several editions in 4to and fol.; and an edition of the “Ancient Latin Mass,” Strasburg, 1557, 8vo. He thought this work would assist the common cause; but the Lutherans, perceiving the contrary, did all they could to suppress it, which is the reason of its scarceness; nor has the republication in P. le Cointe’s “Annals,” and in cardinal Bona’s “Liturgies,” reduced the very high price. In the edition of Sulpicius Severus, published by him ut Basil, 1556, 8vo, there is an “Appendix to the Latin Mass,” which may be added to it. There is another very rare work of his, entitled “Varia doctorum piorumque virorum de corrupto ecclesise statu, Poemata,” Basil, 1557.

, an eminent physician and chemist, was born at Breda in 1730. In 1767 he came to England with a view of obtaining information on the Suttonian method of inoculation for the small-pox, and in the following year he went, on the recommendation of the late sir John Pringle, to Vienna, to inoculate the archduchess Theresa- Elizabeth, only daughter of Joseph II. and the archdukes Ferdinand and Maximilian, brothers of the emperor. For these services he obtained rewards and honours: he was made body-physician aJid counsellor of state to their imperial majesties, with a pension of 600l. per annum. In the following spring he went to Italy, and inoculated the grand duke of Tuscany. After this he returned to England, to which he was much attached, where he spent his time in scientific pursuits. He published a very valuable work, entitled “Experiments on Vegetables, discovering their great power of purifying the common air in sunshine, but injuring it in the shade or night.” This work was first published in 1779, and was translated into the French and German languages, and highly esteemed by all the experimental philosophers of that period. He ascertained, that not only from the green matter found on stagnant waters, but likewise from the leaves of vegetables, from the green branches and shoots, even from the entire vegetable, when placed under water and exposed to the solar light, oxygen gas, in a state generally of great purity, is evolved; and as the result of his numerous experiments he adopted the conclusion, that oxygen is elaborated in the leaves and other organs of vegetables, by a vital action excited and sustained by the solar light. The doctor, through the whole of life, was fond of exhibiting among his friends, particularly young persons, experiments of this kind, which required scarcely any apparatus, excepting a bell glass and a phial or two; and with the oxygen gas which he obtained from cabbage-leaves or other vegetables, he would exhibit the combustion of iron-wire, which is a striking and very brilliant experiment. Dr. Ingenhouz was author of many papers inserted in the Transactions of the Royal Society, of which body he was an active and useful member. Of these papers we may notice the following: Experiments on the Torpedo. Methods of measuring the diminution of bulk taking place on the mixture of nitrous with common air. Experiments on the Electrophorus. New Methods of suspending Magnetic Needles. Considerations on the influence of the Vegetable Kingdom on the Animal Creation. He died in 1799, highly esteemed for the simplicity of his manners, and for the discoveries which he had made in the several departments of experimental philosophy.

, abbot of Croyland, and author of the history of that abbey, was born in London about 1030. He received the first part of his education at Westminster, and when he visited his father, who belonged to the court of Edward the Confessor, he was so fortunate as to engage the attention of queen Edgitha, who took a pleasure in the progress of his education, and in disputing with him in logic, and seldom dismissed him without some present as a mark of her approbation. From Westminster he went to Oxford, where he applied to the study of the Aristotelian philosophy, in which he made greater proficiency than many of his contemporaries, and, as be says, “clothed himself down to the heel in the first and second rhetoric of Tully.” When he was about twenty-one years of age, ho was iotroduced to> William duke of Normandy (who visited the court of England in 105 l) y and made himself so agreeable to that prince, that be appointed him his secretary, and carried him with him into his. Owt dominions. In a little time he became the prime favourite of his prince, and the dispenser of all preferments; but he himself confesses that he did not behave in this station with sufficient modesty and prudence, and that he incurred the envy and hatred of the courtiers, to avoid which he obtained leave from the duke to go on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. In the course of this journey, his attendant pilgrims at one time amounted to seven thousand, but either from being attacked and killed by the Arabs, or other disasters, twenty only of this goodly company were able to return home, and those half-starved, and almost naked. Ingulph now resolved to forsake the world, and became a monk in the abbey of Fontanelle in Normandy, of which he was in a few years made prior. When his old master William of Normandy was preparing for his memorable expedition into England, in 1066 r lagulphus was sent by hiw abbot with one hundred: marks in money, and twelve young men, nobly mounted and completely armed, as a present their abbey. In consequence of this, William raised him afterwards to the government of the rich abbey of Croyland in Lincolnshire, in 107S. Here Ingulphus spent the last thirty-four years of his life, governing that society with great prudence, and protecting their possessions from the rapacity of the neighbouring barons by the favour of his royal master; and here he died Dec. 1, 1109. He wrote, but in a homely Latin style, a very curious and valuable history of Croyland abbey from its foundation, in the year 664 to 1091. It was printed by sir H. Saville,' London, 1596, and is among Gale’s “Scriptores.” There is also an edition of Francfort in 1601, and one of Oxford, 1684, which last is thought the most complete.

, an English prelate, born in 1713, was the younger son of Charles Keene, of Lynn, in Norfolk, esq. sometime mayor of that town, whose eldest son was sir Benjamin Keene, many years ambassador at Madrid, and K. B. who died Dec. 15, 1757, leaving his fortune to the subject of this article. Mr. Edmund Keene was first educated at the Charter-house, and afterwards at Caius college, Cambridge, where he was admitted in 1730. In 1738 he was appointed one of his majesty’s preachers at Whitehall chapel, and made fellow of Peterhouse in 1739. In 1740 he was made chaplain to a regiment of marines; and, in the same year, by the interest of his brother with $ir Robert Walpole, he succeeded bishop Butler in the valuable rectory of Stanhope, in the bishopric of Durham. In 1748, he preached and published a sermon at Newcastle, at the anniversary meeting of the society for the relief of the widows and orphans of clergymen; and, in December following, on the death of Dr. Whalley, he was chosen master of Peterhouse. In 1750, being vice-chancellor, under the auspices of the late duke of Newcastle, he verified the concluding paragraph in his speech on being elected, “Nee tardum nee timidum habebitis procancellarium,” by promoting, with great zeal and success, the regulations for improving the discipline of the university. This exposed him to much obloquy from the younger part of it, particularly in the famous “Fragment,” and “The Key to the Fragment,” by Dr. King, in which Dr. Keene was ridiculed (in prose) under the name of Mun, and in that of the “Capitade” (in verse), under that of Acutus, but at the same time his care and attention to the interests and character of the university justly endeared him to his great patron, so that in Jan. 1752, soon after the expirW tion of his office, which he held for two years, he was nominated to the see of Chester, vacant by the death of bishop Peploe, and was consecrated in Ely-house chapel on Palm Sunday, March 22. With this he held in commendam his rectory, and, for- two years, his headship, when he was succeeded, much to his satisfaction, by Dr. Law. In May following his lordship married the only daughter of Lancelot Andrews, esq. of Edmonton, formerly an eminent linen-draper in Cheapside, a lady of considerable fortune, and a descendant of the family of bishop Andrews. She died March 24, 1776. In 1770, on the death of bishop Mawson, he was translated to the valuable see of Ely. Receiving large dilapidations, his lordship procured an act of parliament for alienating the old palace in Holborn, and building a new one, by which the see has been freed from a great incumbrance, and obtained some increase also of annual revenue. “The bishopric,” it has been humorously observed, “though stripped of the strawberries which Shakspeare commemorates to have been so noted in Holborn, has, in lieu of -them, what may very well console a man not over-scrupulous in his appetites, viz. a new mansion of Portland stone in Dover-street, and a revenue of 5000l. a year, to keep it warm and in good repute.” Bishop Keene soon followed his friend Dr. Caryl, “whom,” he said, “he had long known and regarded, and who, though he had a few more years over him, he did not think would have gone before him.” He died July 6, 1781, in the sixty-eighth year of his age, and was buried at his own desire in bishop West’s chapel, Ely cathedral, where is a short epitaph drawn up by himself. “Bishop Keene,” it is observed by bishop Newton, “succeeded to Ely, to his heart’s desire, and happy it was that he did so; for, few could have borne the expence, or have displayed the taste and magnificence, which he has done, having a liberal fortune as well as a liberal mind, and really meriting the appellation of a builder of palaces. For, he built a new palace at Chester; he built a new Fly-house in London and, in a great measure, a new palace at Ely leaving onjy the outer walls standing, he formed a new inside, and thereby converted it into one of the best episcopal houses, if not the very best, in the kingdom. He had indeed received the money which arose from the sale of old Elyhouse, and also what was paid by the executors of his predecessor for dilapidations, which, all together, amounted to about 11,000l. but yet he expended some thousands more of his own upon the buildings, and new houses require new furniture.” It is chiefly on account of this taste and munificence that he deserves notice, as he is not known in the literary world, unless by five occasional sermons of no distinguished merit.

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

, or in Latin Cellarius, was born in 1568, at Seckingen. He entered the Jesuits’ order in 1588, was appointed rector of the college at Ratisbon, afterwards of that at Munich, and was for a long time confessor to prince Albert of Bavaria, and the princess his wife. The elector Maximilian had a particular esteem for him, and frequently employed him in affairs of the utmost importance. Keller disputed publicly with James Kailbrunner, the duke of Neuburg’s most celebrated minister, on the accusation brought against the Lutheran ministers, of having corrupted several passages quoted from the Fathers, in a German work entitled “Papatus Acatholicus;” their dispute was held at Neuburg, 1615. Father Keller died at Munich, February 23, 1631, aged sixty-three, leaving some controversial works, and several political ones, concerning the affairs of Germany, in which he frequently conceals himself under the names of Fabius Hercynianus, Aurirnontius, Didacus Tamias, &c. His book against France, entitled “Mysteria Politica,” 1625, 4to, was burnt. by a sentence of the Chatelet, censured in the Sorbonne, and condemned by the French clergy. It is a collection of eight letters respecting the alliance of France with England, Venice, Holland, and Transylvania. The “Canea Turturis,” in answer to the learned Gravina’s Song of the Turtle, is attributed to Keller.

In 1776, Mr. Kelly received an invitation from the Episcopal congregation at Air, in North Britain, to become their pastor. On this title he was ordained by the bishop of Carlisle, before whom he preached the ordination sermon. From that time lip continued to reside at Air till 1779, when he was engaged by his grace the duke of Gordon as tutor to his son the marquis of Huntley. The studies of this gallant young nobleman Mr. K. continued to direct at Eton and Cambridge; and afterwards accompanied him on a tour to the Continent. After his return, in 1791, by the interest of his noble patron, Mr. K. obtained from the chancellor the presentation to the vicarage of Ardl< igh near Colchester, which preferment he continued to hold till 1807. Being presented by the chancellor to the more valuable rectory of Copford in the same neighbourhood, Dr. Kelly had the satisfaction of being enabled to resign his vicarage of Ardleigh in favour of his friend and brother-in-law the rev. Henry Bishop.

On May 5, 1694, he took the degree of B. D. that of D. D. July 19, 1699 and in 1700, was appointed minister of St. Botolph Aldgate in London, without any solicitation of his own. In 1701, he engaged against Dr. Atterbury, in the disputes about the rights of convocation, of which he became a member about this time, as archdeacon of Huntingdon; to which dignity he was advanced the same year by Dr. Gardiner, bishop of Lincoln. He now grew into great esteem by those who were deemed the lowchurch party, and particularly with Tenison the archbishop of Canterbury. He preached a sermon at Aldgate, January 30, 1703, which exposed him to great clamour, and occasioned many pamphlets to be written against it; and in 1705, when Dr. Wake was advanced to the see of Lincoln, was appointed to preach his consecration sermon; which was so much admired by lord chief-justice Holt, that he declared, “it had more in it to the purpose of the legal and Christian constitution of this church than any volume of discourses.” About the same time, some booksellers, having undertaken to print a collection of the best writers of the English history, as far as to the reign of Charles I. in two folio volumes, prevailed with Dr. Kennet to prepare a third volume, which should carry the history down to the then present reign of queen Anne. This, being finished with a particular preface, was published with the other two, tinder the title of “A complete History of England, &c.” in 1706. The two volumes were collected by Mr. Hughes, who wrote also the general preface, without any participation of Dr. Kennet: and, in 1719, appeared the second edition with notes, said to be inserted by Mr. Strype, and several alterations and additions. Not long after this, he was appointed chaplain to her majesty; and by the management of bishop Burnet, preached the funeral sermon on the death of the first duke of Devonshire, Sept. 5, 1707. This sermon gave great offence, and made some say, that “the preacher had built a bridge to heaven for men of wit and parts, but excluded the duller part of mankind from any chance of passing it.” This charge was grounded on the following passage; where, speaking of a late repentance, he says, that “this rarely happens but in men of distinguished sense and judgment. Ordinary abilities may Jt>e altogether sunk by a long vicious course of life: the duller flame is easily extinguished. The meaner sinful wretches are commonly given up to a reprobate mind, and die as stupidly as they lived; while the nobler and brighter parts have an advantage of understanding the worth of their souls before they resign them. If they are allowed the benefit of sickness, they commonly awake out of their dream of sin, and reflect, and look upward. They acknowledge an infinite being they feel their own immortal part they recollect and relish the holy Scriptures they call for the elders of the church they think what to answer at a judgment-seat. Not that God is a respecter of persons, but the difference is in men; and, the more intelligent nature is, the more susceptible of the divine grace.” Of this sermon a new edition, with “Memoirs of the Family of Cavendish,” and notes and illustrations, was published in 1797, which is now as scarce as the original edition, the greater part of the impression having been burnt at Mr. Nichols’s (the editor’s) fire in 1808.

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

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

, younger brother of the preceding, was born Oct. 21, 1674, at Postling in Kent, the vicarage of his father, who bred this son also to the church. He was sent to Corpus Christ! college, Oxford, in 1690, where he soon distinguished himself by his uncommon abilities, and extraordinary advances in classical literature. He took the degree of M. A. in 1696, and commenced author the same year, by the publication of his “Romas Antiquae Notitia, or, The Antiquities of Rome; in two parts; 1. A short History of the Rise, Progress, and Decay of the Commonwealth. 2. A Description of the City an Account of the Religion, Civil Government, and Art of War with the remarkable Customs and Ceremonies, public and private with Copper Cuts of the principal Buildings, &c. To which are prefixed, Two Essays, concerning the Roman Learning, and the Roman Education,” in 8vo. The dedication is addressed to his royal highness William duke of Gloucester; and the work must have been written for his use particularly, if any credit may be given to a report, then at Oxford, that Mr. Ken net was to be appointed subpreceptor to that darling of the nation. This book being very well received by the public, he was encouraged to go on with his design of facilitating the study of classical learning; and with this view published, in 1697, “The Lives and Characters of the ancient Grecian Poets,” in 8vo, which he also dedicated to the duke of Gloucester. This, however, did not succeed so well as the “Roman Antiquities,” which is scarcely yet superseded in common use. The same year he was admitted fellow of his college, and became a tutor. About this time he entered into orders; and, some years after, gave proofs of the progress he had made in the study of divinity. In 1705 he published “An Exposition of the Apostles Creed, according to bishop Pearson, in a new Method, by way of Paraphrase and Annotations,” in 8vo, which was followed by “An Essay towards a Paraphrase on the Psalms, in Verse; with a Paraphrase on the third Chapter of the Revelations,” 1706, 8vo.

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

, brother of the former, was born in 1612, educated in grammar learning under the celebrated Farnaby, and sent to Christ Church, Oxford, in 1628. In 1638, having taken his degrees in arts, he went into orders, and became a chaplain in the king’s army. In 1642 he was created doctor of divinity; and the same year made chaplain to James duke of York, and prebendary of Westminster. Afterwards he suffered as an adherent in the king’s cause; but, at the restoration, was made almoner to the duke of York, superintendant to the affairs of his chapel, rector of Wheathamstead, in Hertfordshire, and master of the Savoy hospital in Westminster. He wrote, when only seventeen years of age, a tragedy called 41 The Conspiracy,“which was admired by some wits of those times; particularly by Ben Jonson, then living, 4t who gave a testimony of it (says Langbaine) even to be envied,” and by lord Falkland. An imperfect copy of this appearing in 1638, he afterwards caused it to be republished in 1652, with the new title of “Pallantus and Eudora.” He published a volum of sermons, which had been preached at court in 1685, 4to; and also "two or three occasional sermons. The year of his death does not appear.

, “a Grace for beauty, and a Muse for wit,” as Wood says, was the daughter of Henry Killigrew, just recorded; and born in London, a little before the restoration. She gave the earliest discoveries of genius; which being improved by a polite education, she became eminent in the arts of poetry and painting. Dry. den seems quite lavish in her commendation; but Wood assures us that he has not said any thing of her which she was not equal, if not superior to. She was a great proficient in the art of painting, and painted a portrait of the duke of York, afterwards James 11. and also of the duchess, to whom she was a maid of honour; which pieces are highly applauded by Dryden. She drew several historypieces, also some portraits for her diversion, and likewise some pieces of still-life. Mr. Becket did her picture in mezzotinto, after her own painting, which is prefixed to her poems. To these accomplishments she joined an exemplary piety, and unblemished virtue. This amiable woman died of the small-pox, June 1685, when only in her 25th year; on which occasion Dryden wrote an ode to her memory. The year after were printed and published her “Poems,” in a large thin quarto, which, besides the publisher’s preface, and Dryden’s ode, contains an hundred pages. She was buried in the Savoy chapel, where is a very neat monument fixed in the wall, with a Latin inscription on it, commemorating her beauty, accomplishments, virtue, and piety.

At the end of this year, 1669, he became the steward, auditor, and secretary of the lady dowager Gerard, of Gerard’s Bromley, relict of Charles, and mother of Digby, lord Gerard. He resided with her ladyship’s father George Digby of Sandon, in Staffordshire, esq. until August, 1672. This task was somewhat arduous, for his predecessor, Mr. Chaunce, kept all his accounts, and other matters of moment, in characters which he had to decipher; and besides he drew and painted many things for lady Gerard, whilst inher service. From Staffordshire he went to London, where he renewed his acquaintance at the Heralds’ -college, paying a suitable attention to his old master, Dugdale. Here he became known to Hollar, the celebrated engraver. He recommended him to Mr. Ogilvy, to manage his undertakings, who having his majesty’s license to print whatever he composed or translated, kept a press in his house, and at that time was printing sir Peter Leicester’s “Antiquities of Chester.” Mr. King made his first attempt in etching some ancient seals in that work. Giving satisfaction he was employed in etching lome sculpts in Mr. Dugdale’s Esop (not the antiquary), fvhich was reduced from the folio to 8vo size, and several of Ogilvy’s “History of Asia,” vol. I. translated from De Meurs’ impression at Amsterdam. He also assisted in his new “Britannia,” travelling into Essex with the surveyor, Mr. Falgate, a native of that county. They in the middle of the winter, 1672, a very inclement one, took the ichnography of Ipswich, in Suffolk, and Maiden, in Essex, which were afterwards very curiously finished, and sent to those two places. He assisted and superintended the map of London, which Hollar engraved. He contrived and managed a lottery of books, to repay Mr. Ogilvy’s great expences in these concerns, and a lesser one of books for Bristol fair, which turned to good advantage, Mr. King attending there. He then engaged in Ogilvy’s “Book of” Roads," superintending the whole, digesting the notes, directing the engravings, three or four of which he executed with his own hand, which was the first time he attempted handling the graver. Mr. Ogilvy was so sensible of his merit and fidelity, that he treated him with peculiar; attention on all occasions, and allowed him a music-master to teach him to play upon the violin, and offered to renew his place of cosmographer to the king, and put his name in jointly, or in reversion; this he declined, but accepted the offer to undertake, on his own account, the map of Westminster, which he completed in 1675, on the scale of 100 feet to an inch. He employed himself also in engraving the letter-work of various maps. He laid out some of the principal streets of the metropolis, particularly those of Soho; and most of the first building articles, or leases, were drawn up by him. At length his connexions with the heralds procured him to be created Rouge-dragon in 1677, but the fees of this office being small, he found it expedient to continue his employment of engraving and herald-painting. He designed a map of Staffordshire; yet through sir Henry St. George, Norroy, and his old master, Dugdale, Garter, the duties of the office took a good part of his time. Being very useful to these kings at arms, they pressed him to remove to the college, which he did at Lady-day, 1680, Diigdale accommodating him with a chamber, and some other conveniences, and St. George with a kitchen. He assisted St. George in his visitations, as one of his deputies, in 1681 and 1682 and, upon the death of the duke of Norfolk, his successor nominated him registrar in the room of Mr. Devenish, York; although opposed by the college as without a precedent. He was also trusted and consulted about the burial of Charles II. the proclaiming and the coronation of his successor, and took a part in the magnificent publication of the latter ceremony with Mr. Sandford, Lancaster herald. The Revolution soon following, he became extremely useful in the ceremonial of William and Mary’s coronation. Mr. Sandford resigning his tajbard to him^ he became, for three or four months, Lancaster and Rouge-dragon, the patent not passing until-the following July.

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

In 1690 he translated from the French of Monsieur and Madame Dacier, “The Life of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, the Roman Emperor; together with some select remarks on the said Antoninus’s Meditations concerning himself, treating of a natural man’s happiness, &c. as also upon the Life of Antoninus.” About the same time he wrote “A Dialogue shewing the way to Modern Preferment,” a humourous satire, which contains some solid truths, under the disguise of a conversation between three illustrious personages; the tooth-drawer to cardinal PortoCarero; the corn-cutter to pope Innocent XI.; and the receiver-general to an Ottoman mufti. On July 7, 1692, he took his degree of B. and D. LL. and Nov. 12, that year, by favour of abp. Tillotson, obtained a fat, which, admitting him an advocate at Doctor’s commons, enabled him to plead in the courts of the civil and ecclesiastical law. In 1693 he published a translation of “New Manners and Characters of the two great Brothers, the Duke of Bouillon and MareschalTurenne, written in French by James de Langdale, Baron of Saumieres.” Either in this, or early in the following year, appeared a very extraordinary morçeau, under the title of “An Answer to a Book which will be published next week entitled A Letter to the Rev. Dr. South, upon occasion of a late Book entitled Animadversions on Dr. Sherlock’s Book, entiiled A Vindication of the Holy and Ever-blessed Trinity. Being a Letter to the Author.” In August 1694, Mr. Molesworth publishing his “Account of Denmark as it was in the year 1692,” in which he treata the Danes and their monarch with great contempt, and takes the opportunity of insinuating those wild principles, by which he supposes liberty to be established, and by which his adversaries suspect that all subordination and government is endangered. Dr. King therefore took up his pen once more in his country’s cause, the honour of which was thought to be blemished by that account, Mr. Scheel, the Danish minister, having presented a memorial against it. Animated with this spirit, Dr. King drew up a censure of it, which he printed in 1694, under the title of “Animadversions on the pretended Account of Denmark.” This was so much approved by prince George, consort to the princess Anne, that the doctor was soon after appointed secretary to her royal highness.

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

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

The two works already mentioned, are his principal performances, yet he was the author of other things; of treatises upon logic and rhetoric, and funeral orations. He published also in Latin, “The horoscope of the first-born son of the most illustrious prince, Adolphus Frederic, duke of Mecklenburg,” 1624, 4to, in which he shows a good deal of superstition.

Kneller did not stay long in Italy, as in 1674 became to England with his brother, John Zachary, who assisted him in painting, without intending to reside here; but being recommended to Mr. Banks, a Hamburgh merchant, he painted him and his family. Mr. Vernon, secretary to the duke of Monmouth, saw them, and sat to Kneller; and persuaded the duke also to sit. His grace was delighted, and engaged the king his father to have his picture by the new artist, at a time when the duke of York had been promised the king’s picture by Lely. Charles, unwilling to have double trouble, proposed that both artists should paint him at the same time. Lely, as the established artist, chose his light and station: Kneller took the next best he could, and performed his task with so much expedition and skill, that he had nearly finished his piece when Lely’s was only dead-coloured. The circumstance gained Kneller great credit; and Lely obtained no less honour, for he had the candour to acknowledge and admire the abilities of his rival. This success fixed Kneller here; and the immense number of portraits he executed, prove the continuance of his reputation.

, a learned professor of divinity at Kiel, was born Jan. 15, 1633, at Burg, in the isle of Femeren, near the Baltic sea, in the country of Holstein. He was sent first to school at Burg, whence in his sixteenth year he removed to Sleswick, where he applied to his books two years more; and afterwards studied in the college of Stetin, and gave public proofs of his progress by some theses. Going to Rostoch in 1652, he assiduously frequented the lectures of the professors, and took the degree of doctor in philosophy, in 1656. He then pursued his studies in the university of Jena, and gained great reputation by the academical acts, and by private lectures read on philosophy, the Eastern tongues, and divinity. He left Jena in 1660, and after visiting the universities of Leipsic and Wittemberg, returned to Rostoch, where he was made Greek professor in 1662; and took a doctor of divinity’s degree the same year. He married in 1664, and next year was invited to be second professor of divinity in the university just founded at Kiel. He was so zealous for the prosperity of that new university, and so grateful for the kindness of the duke of Holstein, his master, that he refused all the employments, though very beneficial and honourable, which were offered him in several places. This prince bestowed upon him, in 1680, the professorship of ecclesiastical antiquities; and declared him vice-chancellor of 'the university for life, 1689; and he discharged the duty of those offices with great ability, application, and prudence. His death, which happened March 31, 1694, was a great loss to the university of Kiel, and to the republic of letters. His works in Latin and German are numerous, and esteemed by the learned; the principal are, 1. “Tractatus de persecutionibus Ecclesise primitive, veterumque Martyrum cruciatibus,” the best edition of which is, Keil, 1689, 4to. 2. “Tractatus de Calumniis Pagariorum in veteres Christianos,” Keil, 1698, 4to. 3. “Tractatus de Religione Ethnica, Mahummedana et Judaica,” 1665, 4to. 4. “De Origine et Natura Christianismi ex mente Gentilium,” 1672, *4to. 5. “De tribus Impostoribus magnis Liber, Edwardo Herbert, Thomse Hobbes, et Benedicto Spinosa oppositis,” Hamburg, 1701, 4to. 6. “De rationis cum revelatione in Theologia concursu,” 1692, 4to “Oratio de Scholarum et Academiarum ortu et progressu, presertim in Germania,” 1666, folio, &c.

, a famous historian of the fifteenth century, was a native of Hamburg, and had no sooner finished his classical studies, than he set out upon his travels, visiting several parts of Europe, during which he studiously cultivated the sciences, and became a man of general knowledge. His talents procured him the title and offices of doctor of divinity and of the canon law, and professor of philosophy and divinity in the university of Rostoch, of which also he was rector in 1482. He went from Rostoch to Hamburg, and was elected dean of the chapter in the cathedral there in 1498. He executed many important affairs for the church and city of Hamburg; and was so famed for his abilities and prudence, that, in 1500, John king of Denmark, and Frederick duke of Holstein, did not scruple to make him umpire, in a contest they had with the province of Dietmarsen. He died Dec. 7, 1517, after having written some very good works, which were afterwards published: as, 1. V Ghronica Regnorum Aquilorum, Danise, Sueciae, Norvegiae,“Argentorat. 1546, folio. 2.” Saxonia, sive de Saxonicse Gentis vetusta Origine, longinquis Expeditionibus susceptis, et Bellis Domi pro Libertate diu fortiterque gestis Historia, Libris 13 comprehensa, et ad Annum 1501 deducta,“Colon. 1520, folio. 3.” Vandalia, sive Historia de Vandalorum ver& Origine, variis Gentibus, crebris e Patria Migrationibus, Regnis item, quorum vel Autores fuerunt vel Eversores, Libris 14 a prim& eorum Origine ad A. C. 1500 deducta,“Colon. 1519, folio. 4.” Metropolis, sive Historia Ecciesiastica Saxoniae,“Basil, 1548, fol. 5.” Jnstitutiones Logicoe," Leipsic, 1517, 4to, &c.

, an useful and agreeable French writer, was born Jan. 3, 1709, at Vauxcouleurs, in Champagne, where his father was a magistrate. He studied in his native place, but particularly at Pont-a-mousson, where he was called “the prince of philosophers,” an academical title given to those who distinguished themselves by their talents and application. Being intended for the church, he was sent to the seminary of St. Louis in Paris, where he remained five years. He afterwards took the degree of bachelor of divinity, was admitted of the house of the Sorbonne in 1734, and of the society in 1736, being then in his licentiateship; but after finishing that career with equal ardour and reputation, he was placed in the second rank, among more than 140 competitors. He took a doctor’s degree June 1738, and afterwards served the curacy of Greux, and Dom-Remi, to which he had been nominated by his bishop. This prelate proposed to have M. Ladvocat near him, fix him in his chapter, and place his whole confidence in him; but the Sorbonne did not give the bishop time to execute his plan for one of their royal professorships becoming vacant by the resignanation of M. Thierri, chancellor of the church and university of Paris, they hastened to appoint M. Ladvocat to it, January 11, 1740. Our new professor was unable to continue his lectures more than two years and a half, from a disorder of his lungs, thought by the physicians to be incurable, but of which he at length cured himself by consulting the best authors. In the mean time he wrote two tracts, one “on the Proofs of religion,” the other, “on the Councils,” both which are valued by catholics. In October 1742, he resigned his chair to be librarian to the Sorbonne, an office then vacant by the premature death of the abbe Guedier de St. Aubin, and made use of the leisure this situation afforded, to improve himself in the learned languages, which he had never neglected in the midst of his other studies. He was often consulted by Louis, duke of Orleans, first prince of the blood, who, among other things, wished to become acquainted with the original language of the holy scriptures. M. Ladvocat took advantage of his situation with this prince to represent to him what great and important benefits religion would derive from the establishment of a professor who should explain the holy scriptures according to the Hebrew text. M. the duke immediately comprehending all the good which would result from this professorship, realized it in 1751, and chose M. Ladvocat to fulfil its duties; desiring that for that time only, without any precedent being drawn from it in future, the offices of librarian and professor, which till then had been incompatible, might center in one person. M. Ladvocat was no sooner appointed to this professorship, than he considered by what means he might procure scholars to it; in which he was again seconded by the pious liberality of its august founder. The seminary of the Holy Family, endowed by Anne of Austria, offered choice subjects; the duke assembled them, and revived that seminary by paying the debts which had been necessarily contracted in repairing its buildings. The extinct, or suspended fellowships, rose to new existence, and were no longer given but to deserving competitors; an emulation for understanding scripture inspired the most indifferent, and. all the students in divinity hastened to receive lectures from the Orleans professor. The example was followed by some other communities, and this school, which seemed at first likely to be deserted, had the credit of training up many men of great talents. M. Ladvocat died at Paris, December 29, 1765, by which event the house and society of the Sorhonne lost one of its most learned members, the faculty of theology one of its most ingenious doctors, and religion one of its ablest defenders. There is scarce any kind of knowledge which he had not pursued; philosophy, mathematics, the learned languages, history, theology, the holy scripture, all fixed his attention. Assiduous and deliberate study had made the Greek and Latin fathers familiar to him: no monument of ecclesiastical antiquity had escaped his researches; but his peculiar study was to find the true sense of the sacred books; and the theses which he caused to be maintained on the Pentateuch, the Psalms, and the Book of Job, at which the most distinguished among the learned were present, prove the utility of his labours. A genius lively and penetrating, uncommon and extensive, accurate and indefatigable; a ready and retentive memory, a delicate and enlightened feeling, a decided taste formed from the best models of antiquity, a clear and impartial judgment, a fertile, singular, and natural imagination, and a conversation, which, without seeking for ornaments of style, never failed to prove agreeable and interesting, characterized the scholar in M. Ladvocat, and gained him the regard and esteem of all with whom he had any intercourse or connections. He was frequently consulted on the most intricate and important points, by persons of the greatest distinction in different departments, while his uniform conduct, full of candour and simplicity, tender and compassionate, honest and virtuous, rendered him, though always far from affluence, the resource of indigent men of letters, and made him a kind relation, an excellent friend, beloved by all who had any intercourse with him, and a most valuable member of society in general. His works are, “A Hebrew Grammar,” 1758, 8vo; “The Historical Dictionary,” 4 vols. 8vo, reprinted several times during his lite; “Tractatus de Consiliis” a “Dissertation on Psalm, 67, Exurgat Deus;” “Lettres sur FAutorite des Textes originaux de FEcriture Sainte;” “Jugemens sur qoelques nouvelles Traductions de ‘lEcriture Sainte, d’apres le Texte Hebreu.” The four last were published after his death. M. Ladvocat assisted in the “Dict. Geographique,” which has appeared under the name of M. the abbé de Vosgiens, the best edition of which is that of 1772, 8vo. He had planned several other works which ke had not time to finish, but which were impatiently expected even in foreign countries.

, an eminent mathematician, was born at Lyons in 1660. Being intended for the bar, he was sent to study the law first at the college of Lyons, and next at the university of Thoulouse but having accidentally met with Fournier’s Euclid, and a treatise on algebra, mathematics became his favourite science. In 1686 he came to Paris, was soon after appointed tutor to the duke de Noailles, elected a member of the academy of sciences, and was appointed by Louis XIV, royal hydrographer at Rochefort; but sixteen years afterwards, he was recalled to Paris, and made librarian to the king with a considerable pension. He died April 11, 1734, and in his last moments, when he no longer knew the persons who surrounded his bed, one of them, through a foolish curiosity, asked him “What is the square of 12” to which he replied, as it were mechanically, 144. His works are, 1. “New Methods for the Extraction and Approximation of Roots,” 1692, 4to, 2. “Elements of Arithmetic and Algebra,” 1697, 12mo. 3. “On the Cubature of the, Sphere,” 1702, 12mo. 4. “A general Analysis, or Method of resolving Problems,” published by Richer in 1733, 4to. 5. Several Papers in the Memoirs of the Academy. Lagny excelled in arithmetic, algebra, and geometry, in which he made many important discoveries.

, an Italian ecclesiastic, and able philologist, was born at Santa-croce, between Pisa and Florence, Feb. 6, 1697. His father, Benedict Lami, a learned physician, died when he was an infant, but this loss was in a great measure supplied by the care which his mother took of his education. After learning with great facility the elements of Greek, Latin, history, and geography, he was placed at the college of Prato, where he studied so hard as to injure his health. Having recovered this in some degree, he pursued his studies at Pisa, and with such success that in 1718 he was unanimously appointed vice-rector. He was afterwards appointed chaplain to the grand duke of Tuscany, professor of ecclesiastical history in the university of Florence, and keeper of the Ricardi library. He died at Florence, Feb. 6, 1770. He was not more remarkable for learning than for wit. One day at Florence, shewing some Swedish gentlemen the ancient palace of the dukes of Medicis, “There,” said he, “behold the cradle of literature” then, turning to the college of the Jesuits, “and there behold its tomb.” The Jesuits he neither loved nor flattered, and was often engaged in controversies with them. His principal works are, 1. “De recta patrum Nicenorum fide Dissertatio,” Venice, 1730, reprinted with additions at Florence, 1770, 4to. 2. “De recta Christianorum in eo quod mysterium divinse Trinitatis adtinet sententia libri sex,” Florence, 1733, 4to. 3. “De eruditione Ap<~,stolorum liber singularis,” Florence, 173$. A very much enlarged edition of this curious work on the antiquities of the primitive church, was printed in 1766, 4to. 4. “Deliciae eruditorum, seu veterum anecdoton opusculorum collectanea,” Florence, a miscellany published from 1736 to 1769, forming 18 vols. 8vo, in which are many essays from his own pen. 5. “Meursii opera,” Florence, 12 vols. folio. 6. An edition of “Anacreon,” Florence, 1742, 12mo. f. “Memorabilia Italorum eruditione praestantium, quibus vertens sseculum gloriatur,” ibid. 1742, 1748, 2 vols. 8. “Dialogi d'Aniceto Nemesio,” 1742: this was written in defence of his work on the antiquities of the primitive church, in which some of his opponents discovered a tendency towards Socinianism. 9. “Sanctae ecclesiae Florentine monumenta,” Florence, 1758, 3 vols. fol. 10. “Lezioni d'antichita Toscane, e speciaimente dellacittadi Firenze,” ibid. 1766, 2 vols. 4to.

, the son of Francis Lamotte, a native of Ypres, in Flanders, fled thence into England from the persecution of the duke of Alva, and settled at Colchester, where he had a principal hand in establishing the manufacture of “sayes and bayes.” He afterwards became a wealthy merchant of London, and was chosen alderman of the city. None of his contemporaries maintained a fairer character, or had a more extensive credit. His piety was exemplary; and his charities, in his life-time, almost without example, extending to the distressed protestants in foreign parts, as well as to multitudes of miserable objects in "the three kingdoms. He died much lamented, July 13, 1655. He was grandfather to the facetious Dr. William King.

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

Languet returned to Antwerp in 1580; and in 1581 the prince of Orange sent him to France to negociate a reconciliation between Charlotte of Bourbon, his consort, and her brother Louis, duke of Montpensier; which he effected. He died at Antwerp, Sept. 20, 1581, and was interred with great funeral solemnity, the prince of Orange going at the head of the train. During his illness he was visited by madam Du Plessis, who, though sick herself, attended him to his last moment. His dying words were, that “the only thing which grieved him was, that he had not been able to see mons. Du Plessis again before he died, to whom he would have left his very heart, had it been in his power: that he had wished to live to see the world reformed; but, since it became daily worse, he had no longer any business in it: that the princes of these times were strange men: that virtue had much to suffer, and little to get: that he pitied mons. Du Plessis very much, to whose share a great part of the misfortunes of the time would fall, and who would see many unhappy days; but that he must take courage, for God would assist him. For the rest, he begged one thing of him in his last farewell, namely, that he would mention something of their friendship in the first book he should publish.” This request was performed by Du Plessis, soon after, in a short preface to his treatise “Of the Truth of the Christian religion;” where he makes the following eloge of this friend in a few comprehensive words: “Is fuit qualis multi videri volunt: is vixit qualiter optimi raori cupiunt.”

His parish-church being out of repair, and scarce fit to hold 1200 or 1500 persons out of a parish which contained 125,000 inhabitants, he conceived a design to build a church in some degree proportionable to them; and undertook this great work without any greater fund to begin with than the sum of one hundred crowns, which had been, left him for this design by a pious and benevolent lad' T He laid out this money in stones, which he caused to be carried through all the streets, to shew his design to the public. He soon obtained considerable donations from all parts; and the duke of Orleans, regent of the kingdom, granted him a lottery. That prince likewise laid the first stone of the porch in 1718; and Languet spared neither labour nor expence during his life, to make the church one of the finest in the kingdom, both for architecture and ornaments. It was consecrated in 1745, with so much splendour, that Frederic II. of Prussia wrote the vicar a congratulatory letter, in which he not only praises the building, but even the piety of the founder, a quality which Frederic knew how to notice when it served to point a compliment.

Languet was not less to be esteemed for his beneficence and his zeal in aiding the poor of every sort. Never man took more pains than he did in procuring donations and legacies, which he distributed with admirable prudence and discretion. He inquired with care if the legacies which were left him were to the disadvantage of the poor relations of the testator; if he found that to be the case, he restored to them not only the legacy, but gave them, when wanting, a large sum of his own. Madame de Camois, as illustrious for the benevolence of her disposition as for her rank in life, having left him by her last will a legacy of more than 600,000 livres, he only took 30,000 livres for the poor, and returned the remaining sum to her relations. It is said from good authority, that he disbursed near a million of livres in charities every year. He always chose noble families reduced to poverty, before all others; and there were some families of distinction in his parish, to each of whom he distributed 30,000 livres per annum. Always willing to serve mankind, he gave liberally, and often before any application was made to him. When there was a general dearth in 1725, he sold, in order to relieve the poor, his household goods, his pictures, and some scarce and curious pieces of furniture, which he had procured with difficulty. From that time he had only three pieces of plate, no tapestry, and but a mean serge bed, which madam e de Camois had lent him, having before sold all the presents she had made him at different periods. His charity was not confined to his own parish. At the time that the plague raged at Marseilles, he sent large sums into Provence to assist the distressed. He interested himself with great zeal in the promotion of arts and commerce, and in whatever concerned the glory of the nation. In times of public calamity, as conflagrations, &c. his prudence and assiduity have been much admired. He understood well the different dispositions of men. He knew how to employ every one according to his talent or capacity. In the most intricate and perplexed affairs he decided with a sagacity and judgment that surprized every one. Languet refused the bishopric of Couserans anid that of Poictiers, and aeveral others which were offered him by Louis Xtv. and Louis XV. under the ministry of the duke of Orleans and cardinal Fleury. He resigned hia vicarage to Mons. l'Abbé du Lau, in 1748, but continued to preach every Sunday, according to his custom, in his own parish church; and continued also to support the house de rev fans Jesus till his death, which happened Oct. 11, 1750, in his seventy-fifth year,- at the abbey de Bernay, to which place he went to make some charitable establishments. His piety and continued application to works of beneficence did not hinder him from being lively and chearful; and he delighted his friends by the agreeable repartees and sensible remarks he made in conversation.

, an able Italian antiquary, was born June 13, 1732, at Monte-del-Ceirao, near Macerata, and was educated in the schools of the Jesuits, where he was distinguished for the rapid progress he made in theology, philosophy, rhetoric, and poetry. After being admitted into the order of the Jesuits, he taught rhetoric in various academies in Italy with great success. When the order of the Jesuits was suppressed, he was appointed sub-director of the gallery of Florence, by Peter Leopold, grand duke of Tuscany; and that noble collection was considerably improved and enriched by his care. His first work was a “Guide” to this gallery, which he printed in 1782, and which both in matter and style is far superior to performances of that kind. In 1789 he published his “Essay on the Tuscan Language,” 3 vols. 8vo, which gave him a reputation over all Europe, and was followed by his elaborate “History of Painting m Italy,” the best edition of which is that printed at Bassano, in 1809, 6 vols. 8vo. His next publication, much admired by foreign antiquaries, was his “Dissertations on the Vases commonly called Etruscan.” In 1808 appeared his translation of “Hesiod,” 4to, of which a very high character has been given. He died March 31, 1810, at Florence, a period so recent as to prevent our discovering any more particular memoirs of him than the above.

, a learned Greek, descended from the imperial family of that name, was born at Constantinople, but became a refugee when it was taken, by the Turks in 1454, and went to Italy, where he was most amicably received by duke Francis Sforza of Milan, who placed his own daughter, a child of ten years of age, under the cure of Lascaris for instruction in the Greek language, and it is said to have been for her use he composed his Greek grammar. From Milan he went to Rome, about 1463, or perhaps later, and from, thence, at the invitation of king Ferdinand, to Naples, where he opened a public school for Greek and rhetoric. Having spent some years in this employment, he was desirous of repose, and embarked with the intention of settling at a town of Greece; but having touched at Messina, he was urged by such advantageous oilers to make it his residence, that he complied, and passed there the remainder of his days. Here he received the honour of citizenship, which he merited by his virtues as well as his learning, and by the influx of scholars which his reputation drew thither. He lived to a very advanced age, and is supposed to have died about the end of the fifteenth century. He bequeathed his library to the city of Messina. His Greek grammar was printed at Milan in 1476, reprinted in 1480, and was, according to Zeno, “prima Graeco-Latina praelorum foetura,” the first Greek and Latin book that issued from the Italian press. A better edition of it was given in 1495, by Aldus, from a copy corrected by the author, and with which the printer was furnished by Bembo and Gabrielli. This was the first essay of the Aldine press. Bembo and Gabrielli had been the scholars of Lascaris, although in his old age, as they did not set out for Messina until 1493. A copy of this Greek grammar of the first edition is now of immense value. Erasmus considered it as the best Greek grammar then extant, excepting that of Theodore Gaza. Lascaris was author likewise of two tracts on the Sicilian and Calabrian Greek writers, and some other pieces, which remain in manuscript.

, or, as he is called by the Italians, Orlando di Lasso, an eminent musician, was a native of Mons, in Hainault, born in 1520, and not only spent many years of his life in Italy, but had his musical education there, having been carried thither surreptitiously, when a child, on account of his fine voice. The historian Thuanus, who has given Orlando a place among the illustrious men of his time, tells us that it was a common practice for young singers to be forced away from their parents, and detained in the service of princes; and that Orlando was carried to Milan, Naples, and Sicily, by Ferdinand Gonzago. Afterwards, when he was grown up, and had probably lost his voice, he went to Rome, where he taught music during two years; at the expiration of which, he travelled through different parts of Italy and France with Julius Caesar Brancatius, and at length, returning to Flanders, resided many years at Antwerp, till being invited, by the duke of Bavaria, to Munich, he settled at that court, and married. He had afterwards an invitation, accompanied with the promise of great emoluments, from Charles IX. king of France, to take upon him the office of master and director of his band; an honour which he accepted, but was stopped on the road to Paris by the news of that monarach’s death. After this event he returned to Munich, whither he was recalled by William, the son and successor of his patron Albert, to the same office which he had held under his father. Orlando continued at this court till his death, in 1593, at upwards of seventy years of age. His reputation was so great, that it was said of him: “Hic ille Orlandus Lassus, qui recreat orbem.” As he lived to a considerable age, and never seems to have checked the fertility of his genius by indolence, his compositions exceed, in number, even those of Palestrina. There is a complete catalogue of them in Draudius, amounting to upwards of fifty different works, consisting of masses, magnificats, passiones, motets, and psalms: with Latin, Italian, German, and French songs, printed in Italy, Germany, France, and the Netherlands. He excelled in modulation, of which he gave many new specimens, and was a great master of harmony.

Upon the revolution which happened at court after the death of the duke of Somerset, Latimer seems to have retired into the country, and made use of the king’s licence as a general preacher in those parts where he thought his labours might be most serviceable. He was thus employed during the remainder of that reign, and continued in the same course, for a short time, in the beginning of the next; but, as soon as the introduction of popery was resolved on, the first step towards it was the prohibition of all preaching throughout the kingdom, and a licensing only of such as were known to be popishly inclined: accordingly, a strict inquiry was made after the more forward and popular preachers; and many of them were taken into custody. The bishop of Winchester, who was now prime minister, having proscribed Latimer from the first, sent a message to cite him before the council. He had notice of this design some hours before the messenger’s arrival, but made no use of the intelligence. The messenger found him equipped for his journey; at which expressing surprize, Latimer told him that he was as ready to attend him to London, thus called upon to answer for his faith, as he ever was to take any journey in his life and that he doubted not but God, who had en- ­abled him to stand before two princes, would enable him to stand before a third. The messenger, then acquainting him that he had no orders to seize his person, delivered a letter, and departed. Latimer, however, opening the letter, and finding it contain a citation from the council, resolved to obey it. He set out therefore immediately; and, as he passed through Smithfield, where heretics were usually burnt, he said cheerfully, “This place hath long groaned for me.” The next morning he waited upon the council, who, having loaded him with many severe reproaches, sent him to the Tower. This was his second visit to this prison, but now he met with harsher treatment, and had more frequent occasion to exercise his resignation, which virtue no man possessed in a larger measure; nor did the usual cheerfulness of his disposition forsake him. A servant leaving his apartment one day, Latimer called after him, and bid him tell his master, that unless he took better care of him, he would certainly escape him. Upon this message the lieutenant, with some discomposure of countenance, came to Latimer, and desired an explanation. “Why, you expect, I suppose, sir,” replied Latimerj “that I should be burnt; but if you do not allow me a little fire this frosty weather, I can tell you, I shall first be starved.” Cranmer and Ridley were also prisoners in the same cause with Latimer; and when it was resolved to have a public disputation at Oxford, between the most eminent of the popish and protestant divines, these three were appointed to manage the dispute on the part of the protestants. Accordingly they were taken out of the Tower, and sent to Oxford, where they were closely confined in the common prison, and might easily imagine how free the disputation was likely to be, when they found themselves denied the use even of books, and pen and ink.

About Oct. 1623, the lord-keeper Williams’s jealousy of Laud, as a rival in the duke of Buckingham’s favour, and other misunderstandings or misrepresentations on both sides, occasioned such animosity between these two prelates as was attended with the worst consequences. Archbishop Abbot also, resolving to depress Laud as long as he could, left him out of the high commission, of which he complained to the duke of Buckingham, Nov. 1624, and then was put into the commission. Yet he was not so attached to Buckingham, as not to oppose the design, formed by that nobleman, of appropriating the endowment of the Charter-house to the maintenance of an army, under pretence of its being for the king’s advantage and the ease of the subject. In December this year, he presented to the duke a tract, drawn up at his request, under ten heads, concerning doctrinal puritanism. He corresponded also with him, during his absence in France, respecting Charles the First’s marriage with the princess Henrietta-Maria; and that prince, soon after his accession to the throne, wanting to regulate the number of his chaplains, and to know the principles and qualifications of the most eminent divines in his kingdom, our bishop was ordered to draw a list of them, which he distinguished by the letter O for orthodox, and P for puritans. At Charles’s coronation, Feb. 2, 1625-6, he officiated as dean of Westminster, in the room of Williams, then in disgrace; and has been charged, although unjustly, with altering the coronationoath. In 1626 he was translated from St. David’s to Bath and Wells and in 1628 to London. The king having appointed him dean of his chapel-royal, in 1626, and taken him into the privy-council in 1627, he was likewise in the commission for exercising archiepiscopal jurisdiction during Abbot’s sequestration. In the third parliament of king Charles, which met March 17, 1627, he was voted a favourer of the Arminians, and one justly suspected to be unsound in his opinions that >vay accordingly, his name was inserted as such in the Commons’ remonstrance and, because he was thought to be the writer of the king’s speeches, and of the duke of Buckingham’s answer to his impeachment, &c. these suspicions so exposed him to popular rage, that his life was threatened . About the same time, he was put into an ungracious office; namely, in a commission for raising money by impositions, which the Commons called excises; but it seems never to have been executed.

After the duke of Buckingham’s murder, Laud became chief favourite to Charles I. which augmented indeed his power and interest, but at the same time increased that envy and jealousy, already too strong, which at length proved fatal to him. Upon the decline of archbishop Abbot’s health and favour at court, Laud’s concurrence in the very severe prosecutions carried on in the high-commission and star-chamber courts, against preachers and writers, did him great prejudice with most people. Among these, however, it has been remarked that his prosecution of the king’s printers, for leaving out the word “not,” in the seventh commandment, cpuld be liable to no just objection. On May 13, 163 3, he left London to attend the king, who was about to set out for his coronation in Scotland, and was sworn a privy-counsellor of that kingdom, June 15, and, on the 26th, came back to Fulham. During his stay in Scotland he formed a resolution of bringing that cnurch to a conformity with the church of Englan I; but the king committed the framing of a liturgy to a select number of Scottish bishops, who, inserting several variations from the English liturgy, were opposed strenuously but unsuccessfully, by Laud. Having endeavoured to supplant Abbot, “whom,” as Fuller observes in his Church History, “he could not be contented to succeed,” upon his death in August this year,' he was appointed his successor. That very morning, August 4, there came one to him at Greenwich, with a serious offer (and an avowed ability to perform it) of a cardinal’s hat; which offer was repeated on the 17th; but his answer both times was, “that somewhat dwelt within him which would not suffer that till Home were other than it is.” On Sept. 14 he was elected chancellor of the university of Dublin.

The few productions we have of archbishop Laud show that his time was more occupied in active life, than in studious retirement, and demonstrate but little of that learning which was very justly attributed to him. These are, 1. “Seven Sermons preached and printed on several Occasions,” reprinted in 1651, 8vo. 2. “Short Annotations upon the Life and Death of the most august King James,” drawn up at the desire of George duke of Bucks. 3. Answer to the Remonstrance made by the House of Commons in 1628.“4.” His Diary by Wharton in 1694; with six other pieces, and several letters, especially one to sir Kenelm Digby, on his embracing Popery.“5.” The second volume of the Remains of Archbishop Laud, written by himself,“&c. 1700, fol. 6.” Officium Quotidianum; or, a Manual of private Devotions,*' 1650, 8vo. 7. “A Summary of Devotions,” 1667, 12mo. There are about 18 letters of his to Gerard John Vossius, printed by Colomesius in his edition of “Vossii Epistol.” Lond. 1690, fol. Some other letters of his are published at the end of Usher’s life by Dr. Parr, 1686, fol. And a few more by Dr. Twells, in his “Life of Dr. Pocock,” prefixed to that author’s theological works, 1645, in 2 vols. folio.

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

Dr. Keene held at this time with the bishopric of Chester, the mastership of Peter-house, in Cambridge. Desiring to leave the university, he procured Dr. Law to be elected to succeed him in that station. This took place in 1756, in which year Dr. Law resigned his archdeaconry in favour of Mr. Eyre, a brother-in-law of Dr. Keene. Two years before this (the list of graduates says 1749) he had proceeded to his degree of D. D., in his public exercise for which, he defended the doctrine of what is usually called the “sleep of the soul,” a tenet to which we shall have occasion to revert hereafter. About 1760 he was appointed head librarian of the university; a situation which, as it procured an easy and quick access to books, was peculiarly agreeable to his taste and habits. Some time after this he was appointed casuistical professor. In 1762 he suffered an irreparable loss by the death of his wife; a loss in itself every way afflicting, and rendered more so by the situation of his family, which then consisted of eleven children, many of them very young. Some years afterwards he received several preferments, which were rather honourable expressions of regard from his friends, than of much advantage to his fortune. By Dr. Cornwallis, then bishop of Lichfield, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, xvho had been his pupil at Christcollege, he was appointed to the archdeaconry of Staffordshire, and to a prebend in the church of Lichfield. By his old acquaintance Dr. Green, bishop of Lincoln, he was made a prebendary of that church. But in 1767, by the intervention of the duke of Newcastle, to whose interest, in the memorable contest for the high stewardship of the university, he had adhered in opposition to some temptations, he obtained a stall in the church of Durham. The year after this, the duke of Grafton, who had a short time before been elected chancellor of the university, recommended the master of Peterhouse to his majesty for the bishopric of Carlisle. This recommendation was made, not only without solicitation on his part, or that of his friends, but without his knowledge, until the duke’s intention in his favour was signified to him by the archbishop.

Our projector had now arrived at an unexampled pitch of power and wealth; he possessed the ear of the duke of Orleans; he was almost adored by the people, and was constantly surrounded by princes, dukes, and prelates, who courted his friendship, and even seemed ambitious of his patronage. Such was the immensity of his property, that he bought no less than fourteen estates with titles annexed to them, among which was the marquisate of Rosny, that had belonged to the great duke of Sully, the minister and friend of Henry IV. About this period too, a free pardon for the murder of Mr. Wilson was conveyed to him from England, while Edinburgh, proud of having produced so great a man, transmitted the freedom of the city in a gold box.

The only obstacle to his advancement to the highest offices in the state being soon after removed by his abjuration of the protestant religion, he was declared comptroller-general of the finances on Jan. 18, 1720. But after having raised himself to such an envied situation, he at length fell a sacrifice to the intrigues of the other ministers, who, playing upon the fears of the regent, induced him to issue an arret on May 21, 1720, which, contrary to sound policy, and even to the most solemn stipulations, reduced the value of the company’s bank notes one half, and fixed their actions or shares at 5000 livres. By this fatal step, which seems to have been taken in opposition to the opinion and advice of the comptroller-general, the whole paper fabrick was destroyed, and this immense speculation turned out to be a mere bubble. The consternation of the populace was soon converted into rage; troops were obliged to be stationed in all parts of the capital to prevent mischief; and such was the depreciation of this boasted paper money, that 100 livres were given for a single louis-d'or. Law with some difficulty made his escape to Brussels, and of all his wealth and property, retained only the salary of his office, through the friendship of the duke of Orleans.

, master-gunner of England, was born at Harwich, in 1629, and being bred to the sea-service, distinguished himself by his skill and bravery in many actions. At the restoration he was made master-gunner of the Princess, a frigate of fifty guns; and in the first Dutch war exhibited his skill and bravery in two very extraordinary actions, in one against fifteen sail of Dutch men of war, and another in 1667, against two Danish ships in the Baltic, in which, the principal officers being killed, the command devolved on him, though only master-gunner. In 1669 he was promoted to be gunner of the Royal Prince, a first-rate man of war. In 1673 he was engaged with his two sons Henry and John, against Van Trump. His ship was the Royal Prince, a first-rate man of war, all the masts of which were shot away, four hundred of her men killed or disabled, and most of her upper tier of guns dismounted. Whilst she was thus a wreck, a large Dutch ship of war came down upon her, with two fire-ships, meaning to burn or carry her off. Captain, afterwards sir George Rooke, thinking her condition hopeless, ordered the men to save their lives, and strike the colours. Mr. Leake, hearing this, ordered the lieutenant off the quarter-deck, and took the command upon himself, saying, “the Royal Prince shall never be given up while I am alive to defend her.” The chief- gunner’s gallantry communicated itself to all around the crew returned with spirit to their guns, and, under the direction of Mr. Leake and his two sons, compelled the Dutchman to sheer off, and sunk both the fireships. Leake afterwards brought the Royal Prince safe to Chatham; but the joy of his victory was damped by the loss of his son Henry, who was killed by his side. He was afterwards made master-gunner of England, and storekeeper of the ordnance at Woolwich. He had a particular genius for every thing which related to the management of artillery, and was the first who contrived to fire otf a mortar by the blast of a piece, which has been used ever since. He was also very skilful in the composition of fire-works, which he often and successfully exhibited for the amusement of the king, and his brother, the duke of York. He died in 1686, leaving a son, who is the subject of our next article.

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

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

In 1726, he published his “Nummi Britan. Historia, or Historical Account of English Money.” A new edition, with large additions, was printed in 1745, dedicated to the duke of Suffolk. It is much to Mr. Leake’s honour, that he was the first writer upon the English coinage. From affectionate gratitude to admiral sir John Leake, and at the particular desire of his father, he had written a history of the life of that admiral, prepared from a great collection of books and papers relating to the subject which were in his possession. This he published in 1750, in large octavo. Fifty copies only were printed, to be given to his friends: this book is therefore very scarce and difficult to be obtained. Bowyer, in 1766, printed for him fifty copies of the Statutes of the Order of St. George, to enable him to supply each knight at his installation with one, as he was required to do officially. Ever attentive to promote science, he was constantly adding to the knowledge of arms, decents, honors, precedency, the history of the college, and of the several persons who had been officers of arms, and every other subject in any manner connected with his office. He also wrote several original essays on some of those subjects. These multifarious collections are contained in upward of fifty volumes, all in his own handwriting; which ms., with many others, he bequeathed to his son, John-Martin Leake, esq. He married Ann, youngest daughter, and at length sole- heiress of Fletcher Pervall, esq. of Downton, in the parish and county of Radnor, by Ann his wife, daughter of Samuel Hoole of London, by whom he had nine children, six sons and three daughters; all of whom survived him. He died at his seat at Mile-end at Middlesex, March 24, 1773, in the seventieth year of his age, and was buried in the chancel of Thorpe Soken church in Essex, of which parish he was long impropriator, and owner of the seat of Thorpe-hall, and the estate belonging to it, inheriting them from his father.

, an English dramatic poet, was the son of Dr. Richard Lee, who had the living of Hatfield, in Hertfordshire, where he died in 1684. He was bred at Westminster-school under Dr. Busby, whence he removed to Trinity-college, in Cambridge, and became scholar upon that foundation in 1668. He proceeded B. A. the same year; but, not succeeding to a fellowship, quitted the university, and came to London, where be made an unsuccessful attempt to become an actor in 1672. The part he performed was Duncan in sir William Davenant’s alteration of Macbeth. Cibber says that Lee “was so pathetic a reader of his own scenes, that I have been informed by an actor who was present, that while Lee was reading to major Mohun at a rehearsal, Mohun, in the warmth of his admiration, threw down his part, and said, Unless I were able to play it as well as you read it, to what purpose, should I undertake it! And yet (continues the laureat) this very author, whose elocution raised such admiration in so capital an actor, when he attempted to he an actor himself, soon quitted the stage in an honest despair of ever making any profitable figure there.” Failing, therefore, in this design, he had recourse to his pen for support; and composed a tragedy, called “Nero Emperor of Rome,” in 1675; which being well received, he produced nine plays, besides two in conjunction with Dryden, between, that period and 1684, when his habits of dissipation, aided probably by a hereditary taint, brought on insanity, and in November he was taken into Bedlam, where he continued four years under care of the physicians. In April 1688, he was discharged, being so much recovered as to be able to return to his occupation of writing for the stage; and he produced two plays afterwards, “The Princess of Cleve,” in 1689, and The Massacre of Paris,“in 1690, but, notwithstanding the profits arising from these performances, he was this year reduced to so low an ebb, that a weekly stipend of ten shillings from the theatre royal was his chief dependence. Nor was he so free from his phrenzy as not to suffer some temporary relapses; and perhaps his untimely end might be occasioned by one. He died in 1691 or 1692, in consequence of a drunken frolic, by night, in the street; and was interred in the parish of Clement Danes, near Temple-Bar. He is the author of eleven plays, all acted with applause, and printed as soon as finished, with dedications of most of them to the earls of Dorset, Mulgrave, Pembroke, the duchesses of Portsmouth and Richmond, as his patrons. Addison declares, that among our modern English poets there was none better turned for tragedy than Lee, if, instead of favouring his impetuosity of genius, he had restrained and kept it within proper bounds. His thoughts are wonderfully suited to tragedy, but frequently lost in such a cloud of words, that it is hard to see the beauty of them. There is infinite fire in his works, but so involved in smoke, that it does not appear in half its lustre. He frequently succeeds in the passionate parts of the tragedy, but more particularly where he slackens his efforts, and eases the style of those epithets and metaphors with which he so much abounds. His” Rival Queens“and” Theodosius“still keep possession of the stage. None ever felt the passion of love pore truly; nor could any one describe it with more tenderness; and for this reason he has been compared to Ovid among the ancients, and to Otway among the moderns. Dryden prefixed a copy of commendatory verses to the” Rival Queens“and Lee joined with that laureat in writing the tragedies of” The duke of Guise“and” CEdipus.“Notwithstanding Lee’s imprudence and eccentricities, no man could be more respected by his contemporaries. In Spence’s” Anecdotes" we are told that ViU liers, duke of Buckingham, brought him up to town, where he never did any thing for him; and this is said to have contributed to bring on insanity.

, a learned Protestant divine, was born in 1594, at Ville Seiche, in the valley of St. Martin in Piedmont. Going to Constantinople as chaplain to the ambassador from the States-general, he formed a friendship in that city with the famous Cyrillus Lucar, and obtained from him a confession of the faith of the Greek and Eastern churches. On his return to the Vallies he was appointed minister there; but being condemned to death by the duke of Savoy, took refuge in Geneva, where he was made professor of divinity, and died in 1661. He left an edition of the New Testament in the original Greek, and vulgar Greek, 2 vols. 4to. His son, Anthony Leger, born 1652, at Geneva, was a celebrated preacher, and five volumes of his sermons have been published since his death, which happened at Geneva, in 1719.

, baron of Dartmouth, an eminent naval commander, was the eldest son of colonel William Legge, groom of the bed-chamber to king Charles I. and brought up under the brave admiral sir Edward Spragge. He entered the navy at seventeen years of age, and, before he was twenty, his gallant behaviour recommended him so effectually to king Charles II. that in 1667, he promoted him to the command of the Pembroke. In 1671, he was appointed captain of the Fairfax, and the next year removed to the Royal Catharine, in which ship he obtained high reputation, by beating off the Dutch after they had boarded her, though the ship seemed on the point of sinking; and then finding the means of stopping her leaks, he carried her safe into port. In 1673, he was made governor of Portsmouth, master of the horse, and gentleman to the duke of York. Several other posts were successively conferred upon him, and in December 1682, he was created baron of Dartmouth. The port of Tangier having been attended with great expence to keep the fortifications in repair, and to maintain in it a numerous garrison to protect it from the Moors, who watched every opportunity of seizing it, the king determined to demolish the fortifications, and bring the garrison to England; but the difficulty was to perform it without the Moors having any suspicion of the design. Lord Dartmouth was appointed to manage this difficult affair, and, for that purpose, was, in 1683, made governor of Tangier, general of his majesty’s forces in Africa, and admiral of the fleet. At his arrival he prepared every thing necessary for putting his design in execution, blew up all the fortifications, and returned to England with the garrison; soon after which, the king made him a present of ten thousand pounds. When James II. ascended the throne, his lordship was created master of the horse, general of the ordnance, constable of the tower of London, captain of an independent company of foot, and one of the privy-council. That monarch placed the highest confidence in his friendship; and, on his being thoroughly convinced that the prince of Orange intended to land in England, he appointed him commander of the fleet; and, had he not been prevented by the wind and other accidents from coming up with the prince of Orange, a bloody engagement would doubtless have ensued.

While he was in England he received an account of the death of the elector of Mentz, by which he lost his pension. He then returned to France, whence be wrote to the duke of Brunswick Lunenburg, to inform him of his circumstances. That prince sent him a very gracious answer, assuring him of his favour, and, for the present, appointed him counsellor of his court, with a salary; but gave him leave to stay at Paris, in order to complete his arithmetical machine, which, however, was not completed until after his death. In 1674 be went again to England, whence he passed, through Holland, to Hanover, and from his first arrival there made it his business to enrich the library of that prince with the best books of all kinds. That duke dying in 1679, his successor, Ernest Augustus, then bishop of Osnabrug, afterwards George I. extended the same patronage to Leibnitz, and directed him to write the history of the house of Brunswick. Leibnitz undertook the task; and, travelling through Germany and Italy to collect materials, returned to Hanover in 1690, with an ample store. While he was in Italy he met with a singular instance of bigotry, which, but for his happy presence of mind, might have proved fatal. Passing in a small bark from Venice to Mesola, a storm arose, during which the pilot, imagining he was not understood by a German, whom being a heretic he looked on as the cause of the tempest, proposed to strip him of his cloaths and money, and throw him overboard. Leibnitz hearing this, without discovering the least emotion, pulled out a set of beads, and turned them over with a seeming devotion. The artifice succeeded; one of the sailors observing to the pilot, that, since the man was no heretic, it would be of no use to drown him. In 1700 he was admitted a member of the royal academy of sciences at Paris. The same year the elector of Brandenburg, afterwards king of Prussia, founded an academy at Berlin, by the advice of Leibnitz, who was appointed perpetual president of it; and, though his other affairs did not permit him to reside constantly upon the spot, yet he made ample amends by the treasures with which he enriched their memoirs, in several dissertations upon geometry, polite learning, natural philosophy, and physic. He also projected to establish at Dresden another academy like that at Berlin. He communicated his design to the king of Poland in 1703, who was inclined to promote it; but the troubles which arose shortly after in that kingdom, hindered it from being carried into execution.

The consequence is, that individual expression, the very essence of portrait-painting, is lost sight of; and a certain air of general resemblance is seen in them all. Yet Lely’s pictures, by the mastery of his execution, and his skill of imitation, where he pleased to employ it, will ever command admiration. He possessed the art of flattery more than most artists; and no doubt by that secured the approbation of his contemporaries, and consequently great practice. He acquired a very considerable fortune, of which he employed a large portion to furnish himself with a collection of pictures and drawings. These, at his death, were sold by auction, and were so numerous, that forty days were consumed in the sale; and the product amounted to 26,000l.; besides which, he left an estate he had purchased, of 900l. per annum. Among his more celebrated pictures in this country, are the series of beauties at Windsor; a remarkable picture of Charles I. and heads of the duke of York, and lady Elizabeth, at Sion-house several portraits in the gallery at Althorp the duke of Devonshire’s, lord Pomfret’s, &c.

was a pontiff whose history is so connected with that of literature and the reformation, that more notice of him becomes necessary than we usually allot to his brethren, although scarce any abridgment of his life will be thought satisfactory, after the very luminous and interesting work of Mr. Roscoe. Leo was born at Florence in December 1475, the second son of Lorenzo de Medici, the Magnificent, and was christened John. Being originally destined by his father for the church, he was prorooted before he knew what it meant, received the tonsure at the age of seven years, two rich abbacies, and before he ceased to he a boy, received other preferments to the number of twenty-nine, and thus early imbibed a taste for aggrandizement which never left him. Upon the accession of Innocent VIII. to the pontificate, John, then thirteen years of age only, was nominated to the dignity of cardinal. Having now secured his promotion, his father began to think of his education, and when he was nominated to the cardinalate, it was made a condition that he should spend three years at the university of Pisa, in professional studies, before he was invested formally with the purple. In 145>2 this solemn act took place, and he immediately went to reside at Rome as one of the sacred college. His father soon after died, and was succeeded in his honours in the Florentine republic by his eldest son Peter. The young cardinal’s opposition to the election of pope Alexander VI. rendered it expedient for him to withdraw to Florence, and at the invasion of Italy by Charles VIII. he and the whole family were obliged to take refuge in Bologna. About 1500 he again fixed his residence at Rome, where he resided during the remainder of Alexander’s pontificate, and likewise in the early part of that of Julius II. cultivating polite literature, and the pleasures of elegant society, and indulging his taste for the fine arts, for music, and the chase, to which latter amusement he was much addicted. In 1505 he began to take an active part in public affairs, and was appointed by Julius to the government of Perugia. By his firm adherence to the interest of the pope, the cardinal acquired the most unlimited confidence of his holiness, and was entrusted with the supreme direction of the papal army in the Holj League against the French in 1511, with the title of legate of Bologna. At the bloody battle of Ravenna, in 1512, he was made prisoner, and wos conveyed to Milan, but afterwards effected his escape. About this time he contributed to the restoration of his family at Florence, by overthrowing the popular “constitution of that republic, and there he remained until the death of Julius II. in 1513, when he was elected pope in his stead, in the thirty-eighth year of his age. He assumed the name of Leo X. and ascended the throne with greater manifestations of goodwill, both from Italians and foreigners, than most of his predecessors had enjoyed. One of his first acts was to interpose in favour of some conspirators against the house of Medici, at Florence, and he treated with great kindness the family of Sodorini, which had long been at the head of the opposite party in that republic. He exhibited his taste for literature by the appointment of two of the most elegant scholars of the age, Bembo and Sadoleti, to the ffice of papal secretaries. With regard to foreign politics, he pursued the system of his predecessor, in attempting to free Italy from the dominion of foreign powers: and in order to counteract the antipapal council of Pisa, which was assembled at Lyons, he renewed the meetings of the council of Lateran, which Julius II. had begun, and he had the good fortune to terminate a division which threatened a schism in the church. Lewis XII. who had incurred ecclesiastical censure, made a formal submission, and received absolution. Having secured external tranquillity, Leo did not delay to consult the interests of literature by an ample patronage of learned studies. He restored to its former splendour the Roman gymnasium or university, which he effected by new grants of its revenues and privileges, and by filling its professorships with eminent men invited from all quarters. The study of the Greek language was a very particular object of his encouragement. Under the direction of Lascaris a college of noble Grecian youths was founded at Rome for the purpose of editing Greek authors; and a Greek press was established in that city. Public notice was circulated throughout Europe, that all persons who possessed Mss. of ancient authors would be liberally rewarded on bringing or sending them to the pope. Leo founded the first professorship in Italy of the Syriac and Chaldaic languages in the university of Bologna. With regard to the politics of the times, the pope had two leading objects in view, viz. the maintenance of that balance of power which might protect Italy from the over-bearing influence of any foreign potentate; and the aggrandizement of the house of Medici. When Francis I. succeeded to the throne of France, it was soon apparent that there would necessarily be a new war in the north of Italy.' Leo attempted to remain neuter, winch. being found to be impracticable, he joined the emperor, the Swiss, and other sovereigns against the French king and the state of Venice. The rapid successes of the French arms soon brought him to hesitate, and after the Swiss army had been defeated, the pope thought it expedient to abandon his allies, and form an union with the king of France. These two sovereigns, in the close of 1515, had an interview at Bologna, when the famous Pragmatic Sanction was abolished, and a concordat established in it stead. The death of Leo’s brother left his nephew Lorenzo the principal object of that passion for aggrandizing his family, which this pontiff felt full as strongly as any one of his predecessors, and to gratify which he scrupled no acts of injustice and tyranny. In 1516 he issued a monitory against the duke of Urbino, and upon his non-appearance, an excommunication, and then seized his whole territory, with which, together with the ducal title, he invested his nephew. In the same year a general pacification took place, though all the efforts of the pope were made to prevent it. In 1517 the expelled duke of Urbino collected an army, and, by rapid movements, completely regained his capital and dominions. Leo, excessively chagrined at this event, would gladly have engaged a crusade of all Christian princes against him. By an application, which nothing could justify, of the treasures of the church, he raised a considerable army, under the command of his nephew, and compelled the duke to resign his dominion, upon what were called honourable terms. The violation of the safe conduct, granted by Lorenzo to the duke’s secretary, who was seized at Rome, and put to torture, in order to oblige him to reveal his master’s secrets, imprints on the memory of Leo X. an indelible stain. In the same year his life was endangered by a conspiracy formed against him, in which the chief actor was cardinal Petrucci. The plan failed, and the cardinal, being decoyed to Rome, from whence he had escaped, was put to dt-ath; and his agents, as many as were discovered, were executed with horrid tortures. The conduct of Leo on this occasion was little honourable to his fortitude or clemency, and it was believed that several persons suffered as guilty who were wholly innocent of the crimes laid to their charge. To secure himself for the future, the pope, by a great stretch of his high authority, created in one day thirty-one nevr cardinals, many of them his relations and friends, who had not even risen in the.church to the dignity of. the episcopal office; but many persons also, who, from their talents and virtues, were well worthy of his choice. He bestowed upon them rich benefices and preferments, as well in the remote parts of Christendom, as in Italy, and thus formed a numerous and splendid court attached to his person, and adding to the pomp and grandeur of the capital. During the pontificate of Leo X. the reformation under Luther took its rise, humanly speaking, from the following circumstances. The unbounded profusion of this pope had rendered it necessary to devise means for replenishing his exhausted treasury; and one of those which occurred was the sale of indulgences, which were sold in Germany with such ridiculous parade of their efficacy, as to rouse the spirit of Luther, who warmly protested against this abuse in his discourses, and in a letter addressed to the elector of Mentz. He likewise published a set of propositions, in which he called in question the authority of the pope to remit sins, and made some very severe strictures on this method of raising money. His remonstrances produced considerable effect, and several of his cloth undertook to refute him. Leo probably regarded theological quarrels with contempt, and from his pontifical throne looked down upon the efforts of a German doctor with scorn; even when his interference was deemed necessary, he was inclined to lenient measures. At length, at the express desire of the emperor Maximilian, he summoned Luther to appear before the court of Rome. Permission was, however, granted for the cardinal of Gaeta to hear his defence at Augsburg. Nothing satisfactory was determined, and the pope, in 1518, published a bull, asserting his authority to grant indulgences, which would avail both the living, and the dead in purgatory. Upon this, the reformer appealed to a general council, and thus open war was declared, in which the abettors of Luther appeared with a strength little calculated upon by the court of Rome. The sentiments of the Christian world were not at all favourable to that court.” The scandal,“says the biographer,” incurred by the infamy of Alexander VI., and the violence of Julius II., was not much alleviated in the reign of a pontiff who was characterized by an inordinate love of pomp and pleasure, and whose classical taste even caused him to be regarded by many as more of a heathen than a Christian."

The warlike disposition of Selim. the reigning Turkish emperor, excited great alarms in Europe, and gave occasion to Leo to attempt a revival of the ancient crusades, by means of an alliance between all Christian princes; he probably hoped, by this show of zeal for the Christian cause, that he should recover some of his lost credit as head of the church. He had, likewise, another object in view, viz. that of recruiting his finances, by the contributions which his emissaries levied upon the devotees in different countries. By the death of Maximilian in 1519, a competition for the imperial crown between Charles V. and Francis 1. took place. Leo was decidedly against the claims of both the rival candidates, and attempted to raise a competitor in one of the German princes, but he was unable to resist the fortune of Charles. At this period he incurred a very severe domestic misfortune in the death of his nephew Lorenzo, who left an infant daughter, afterwards the celebrated Catherine de Medicis, the queen and regent of France. The death of Lorenzo led to the immediate annexation of the duchy of Urbino, with its dependencies, to the Roman see, and to the appointment of Julius, Leo’s cousin, to the supreme direction of the state of Florence. The issue of his contest with Luther will occur hereafter in our account of that reformer. It may here, however, be noticed that Leo conferred on Henry VIII. of England, the title of “Defender of the Faith,” for his appearance on the side of the church as a controversial writer. The tranquil state of Italy, at this period, allowed the pope to indulge his taste for magnificence in shows and spectacles. His private hours were chiefly devoted to indolence, or to amusements, frequently of a kind little suited to the dignity of his high station. He was not, however, so much absorbed in them as to neglect the aggrandizement of his family and see. Several cities and districts in the vicinity of the papal territories, and to which the church had claims, had been seized by powerful citizens, or military adventurers; some of these the pope summoned to his court to answer for their conduct; which not being able to do, he caused them to be put to death. Having next set his heart on the possession of the territory of Ferrara, he had recourse to treachery, and is thought to have even meditated the assassination of the duke, but his plot being discovered by the treachery of one whom he had bribed, he was disappointed in his plans. Another of his designs was the expulsion of the French from Italy,* and he had made some progress in this when he was seized with an illness which put an end to his life in a few days. He died Dec. 1, 1521, in the forty-sixth year of his age.

, an eminent Italian phy-, sician, was born in one of the Venetian states in 1428. He was professor of medicine at Ferrara during upwards of, sixty years, and was the first person who undertook to translate the works of Galen into Latin. His attachment to literary pursuits alienated him from practice; and in excuse he used to say, “I do more service to the public than if I visited the sick, by instructing those who are to cure them.” Extending his attention also to the belles lettres, he wrote some poetry, and translated into Italian the history of Dion Cassius, and the dialogues of Lucian. Until the age of thirty, Leonicenus was tormented with frequent attacks of epilepsy, which reduced him at times to melancholy and despair. This disease, however, afterwards left him, and, by means of great regularity and temperance, he attained the age of ninety-six years, and died in 1524, possessed of all his faculties. To one who in quired, with astonishment, by what secret he had preserved this entire possession of his faculties, together with an erect body and vigorous health, at so great an age, he replied, that it was the effect of innocence of manners, tranquillity of mind, and frugality in diet. The duke and senate of. Ferrara erected a monument to his memory. He left several works, most of which have been several times reprinted, but are not now in request, except perhaps his examination of the errors of Pliny, &c. “Plinii et aliorurn plurimum auctorum qui de simplicibus medicaminibui scripserunt, crrores notati,” Bude, 1532, folio, which involved him in a controversy, sustained with his usual tranquillity; and his “Liber de Epidemia quam Itali morbum Gallicum vocant,” Venice, 1497, 4to, a book of great rarity. He was the first in Italy who treated of this disorder 1 There is an edition of all his works, printed at Bale, 1533, fol.

, peer, marechal, and constable of France, governor of Dauphiny, and one of the greatest generals of his age, was born April 1, 1543, at St. Bonnet de Chamsaut, in Dauphiny, of a noble and ancient family. He was among the chiefs of the protestants, for whom he took several places, and when Henry IV. ascended the throne, received fresh marks of his esteem, being appointed lieutenant-general of his forces in Piedmont, Savoy, and Dauphiny. Lesdiguieres defeated the duke of Savoy at the battle of Esparon, April 15, 1591, and in several other engagements; and when the king blamed him for having suffered that prince to build Fort Barreaux, he replied, “Let the duke of Savoy be at that expence; your majesty wants a fortress opposite to Montmelian, and when it is built and stored, we will take it.” He kept his word, and conquered Savoy. This brave man received the marechal’s staff in 1607, and his estate of Lesdiguieres was made a dukedom, as a reward for his services. At length he abjured protestantism at Grenoble, and was afterwards presented by his son-in-law, the maredial de Crequi, with letters, in which the king appointed him constable, July 24, 1622. He commanded the troops in Italy in 1625, and died at Valence in Dauphiny, Sept. 28, 1626, aged eighty-four. His secretary, Lewis Videl, has written his life, or rather his eulogy, 1638, folio. There were, however, many defects in his moral character, and his apostacy is said to have been founded in avarice.

Soon after his arrival, he was appointed one of the senators of the college of justice, and sworn into the privycouncil. In 1564, the abbey of Lundores was conferred upon him; and, upon the death of Sinclair bishop of Ross, he was promoted to that see. This advancement was no more than he merited from the head of the Roman church in Scotland, in whose defence he was always an active and able disputant with the reformed party. His learning was not inferior to his other attainments; nor was his attention so entirely absorbed in ecclesiastical matters, as to prevent his introducing some important improvements in the civil state of the kingdom. To this end, having observed that all the ancient laws were growing obsolete, for want of being collected into a body, he represented this matter to the queen, and prevailed with her majesty to appoint proper persons for the work. Accordingly, a commission was made out, granting to Lesley, and fifteen others, privycounsellors and advocates in the law, authority to print the same. Thus it is to the care principally of the bishop of Ross, that the Scots owe the first impression of their laws at Edinburgh, in 1566, commonly called the black acts of parliament, from their being printed in the black Saxon character. Upon the queen’s flying into England from her protestant subjects, who had taken up arms against her, queen Elizabeth appointed commissioners at York to examine the case between her and them, and bishop Lesley was one of those chosen by Mary, in 1568, to defend her cause, which he did with great vigour and strength of reasoning; and, when this method proved ineffectual, appeared afterwards in the character of ambassador at the English court, to complain of the injustice done to his queen. Finding no notice taken of his public solicitations, he began to form schemes to procure her escape privately, and at the same time seems to have been concerned with foreign courts in conspiracies against queen Elizabeth. With a view, however, to serve queen Mary, he hit upon the unfortunate expedient of negotiating her marriage with the duke of Norfolk; which being discovered, the duke was convicted of treason, and executed. Lesley being examined upon it, pleaded the privileges of an ambassador; alleging, that he had done nothing but what his place and duty demanded for procuring the liberty of his princess; and that he came into England with sufficient warrant and authority, which he had produced, and which had been admitted. It was answered, that the privileges of ambasjadors could not protect those who offended against the majesty of the princes to whom they were sent; and that they werfe to be considered in no other light than as enemies who practised rebellion against the state. To this our prelate replied, that he had neither raised nor practised rebellion; but, perceiving the adversaries of queen Mary countenanced, and her deprived of all hope of liberty, he could not abandon his sovereign in her afflictions, but do his best to procure her freedom; and that it would never be found that the privileges of ambassadors were violated, via juris, by course of law, but only via facti, by way of fact, which seldom had good success.

Bishop Lesley’s writings are, 1. “Afflicti Aninw Consolationes, & tranquilli Animi Conservatio,” Paris, 1574, 8vo. 2. “De Origine, Moribus, & Rebus gestis Scotorum,” Romae, 1578, 4to. It consists of ten books, of which the three last, making half the volume, are dedicated to queen Mary; to whom they had been presented in English, seven years before the first publication in Latin. There are separate copies of them in several libraries. See Catalog, Mss. Oxon. This valuable history is carried down to the queen’s return from France in 1561. He seems unwilling to divulge what he knew of some transactions after that period. “Some things,” says he, “savoured so much of ingratitude and perfidy, that, although it were very proper they should be known, yet it were improper for me to record them, because often, with the danger of my life, I endeavoured to put a stop to them; and I ought to do all that is in me, not to let them be known unto strangers.” With this work are published, 3. “Paraenesis ad Nobilitatem Populumque Scotorum” and, 4. “Regionum & Insularum Scotiae Descriptio.” 5.“” Defence of the Honour of Mary Queen of Scotland; with a Declaration of her right, title, and interest, to the crown of England,“Liege, 1571, 8vo, which was immediately suppressed. 6.” A Treatise, shewing, that the Regimen of Women is conformable to the Law of God and Nature.“These two last are ascribed, by Parsons the Jesuit, to Morgan Philips, but Camden asserts them to be our author’s, Annal. Eliz. sub. ann. 1569. 7.” DeTitulo & Jure Marias Scotorum Reginae, quo Anglias Successionem Jure sibi vindicat,“Rheims, 1580, 4to. 8. There is a ms. upon the same subject in French, entitled” Remonstrance au Pape,“&c. Cotton library, Titus, cxii. 1. and F. 3. 14. 9.” An Account of his Embassage in. England, from 1568 to 1572,“ms. in the advocates’ library in Scotland. Catal. of Oxford Mss. 10.” An Apology for the Bishop of Ross, as to what is laid to his Charge concerning the Duke of Norfolk,“ms. in the library of the lord Longueville. 11.” Several Letters in the hands of Dr. George Mackenzie," who wrote his life.

, bishop of Cloghcr in Ireland, was descended from an ancient family, and born at Balquhaine, in the north of Scotland. The first part of his education was at Aberdeen, whence he removed to Oxford. Afterwards he travelled into Spain, Italy, Germany, and France: he spoke French, Spanish, and Italian, with the same propriety and fluency as the natives; and was so great a master of the Latin, that it was said of him, when in Spain, Solus Lcsleius Latine loquitur. He continued twenty-two years abroad; and, during that time, was at the siege of Rochelle, and the expedition to the isle of Rhee, with the duke of Buckingham. He was all along conversant in courts, and at home was happy in that of Charles I. who admitted him into his privy. council both in Scotland and Ireland; in which stations he was continued by Charles II. after the restoration. His chief preferment in the church of Scotland was the bishopric of the Orkneys, whence he was translated to Raphoe in Ireland, in 1633; and, the same year, sworn a privy-counsellor in that kingdom. He built a stately palace in his diocese, in the form and strength of a castle, one of the finest episcopal palaces in Ireland, and proved to be useful afterwards in the rebellion of 1641, by preserving a good part of that country. The good bishop exerted himself, as much as he could, in defence of the royal cause, and endured a siege in his castle of Raphoe, before he would surrender it to Oliver Cromwell, being the last which held out in that country. He then retired to Dublin, where he always used the liturgy of the church of Ireland in his family, and even had frequent confirmations and ordinations. After the restoration, he came over to England; and, in 1661, was translated to the see of Clogher. He died in 1671, aged above 100 3'ears, having been above 50 years a bishop; and was then consequently the oldest bishop in the world.

lu 1762, he accompanied his general to the siege of Schweidnitz; but after the peace, he was introduced to the king of Prussia, and then resumed his literary occupations at Berlin. Though he produced many works, yet they were not the source of much profit, and, in 1769, his circumstances were so narrow, that he was obliged to sell his library for support. At this critical juncture he met with a generous patron in Leopold, heir-apparent to the duke of Brunswick, through whose means he was appointed librarian at Wolfenbuttle. One of the fruits of this very desirable situation was a periodical publication, entitled “Contributions to Literary History,” containing notices and extracts of the most remarkable Mss. The “Contributions” were made the vehicle of “Fragments of an anonymous Writer discovered in the Library at Wolfenbuttle,” which consisted of direct attacks upon the Christian revelation. They occasioned a great commotion among the German theologians, and would not have been printed but for the interference of prince Leopold with the licensers of the press. In 1778 they were suppressed. Lessing, from his rising fame, and connection with prince Leopold, with whom he went on a tour to Italy, was so distinguished among the German literati, that several potentates of that country made him offers. of an advantageous settlement. Nothing, however, could lead him to break his connection with his liberal patron the prince of Brunswick, who, by his accession in 1730 to the sovereignty, was enabled to augment his favours towards him. His latter publications were “Nathan the Wise;” a second part of the same drama, entitled “The Monk of Lebanon;” and “A Dissertation on the Education of the Human Race.” He died at Hamburgh in the month of February, 1781. Lessing had more genius than learning, and his fame, therefore, even in his own country, rests on his plays, fables, songs, and epigrams. His life was published at Berlin in 1793, and is more replete with anecdote than instruction, as may be gathered from the few circumstances we have detailed. He was a decided deist, and his morals corresponded.

, a voluminous writer of history, was born at Milan, May 29, 1630, of a family once of considerable distinction at Bologna. He was intended for the church, but was induced to make open profession of the protestant religion at Lausanne in 1657. This so pleased Guerin, an eminent physician, with whom he lodged, that he gave him his daughter for a wife; and Leti, settling at Geneva in 1660, passed nearly twenty years in that city employed on many of his publications. In 1674, the freedom of the city was presented to him, which had never before been granted to any stranger. Five years after he went to France, and in 1680, to England, where he was very graciously received by Charles II.; received a large present in money, and was promised the place of historiographer. On this he wrote his “Teatro Britannico,” a history of England; but, this work displeasing the court, he was ordered to quit the kingdom. Leti then went to Amsterdam, had the office of historiographer in that city, and died suddenly June 9, 1701, aged seventy-one. He was an indefatigable writer, and tells us in his “Belgic Theatre,” that three days in the week he spent twelve hours in writing, and six hours the other three days; whence the number of his works is prodigious. The greatest part are written in Italian; among which are, “The Nepotism of Rome,” 2 vols. 12mo; “The Universal Monarchy of Louis XIV.” 2 vols. 12mo; “The Life of Pope Sixtus V.” in Italian, Amsterdam, 1721, 3 vols. 12mo, plates; in French, 4to, or 2 vols. 12mo and in English by Farneworth. “The Life of Philip 11. king of Spain,” 6 vols. 12mo; “Of Charles V.”. Amsterdam, 1730, 4 vols. 12mo; “Of Queen Elizabeth,” Amsterdam, 1741, 2 vols. 12mo, plates; “History of Cromwell,” 1703, 2 vols. 12mo, plates; “Life of Giron, duke d'Ossone,” 3 vols. 12mo; “The French Theatre,*' 7 vols. 4to, a bad work;” The Belgic Theatre,“2 vols. 4to, equally bad;” The British Theatre, or History of England, 11 Amsterdam, 1684, 5 vols. 12mo; in which there is a capital portrait of queen Elizabeth. It was for this work that he was sent out of England. “L'ltalia regnante,” 4 vols. 12mo; “History of the Roman Empire in Germany,” 4 vols. 4to; “The Cardinalism of the Holy Church,” 3 vols. 12mo, a violent satire; “History of Geneva,” 5 vols. 12mo; “The just balance in which are weighed all the maxims of Rome, and the actions of the living cardinals,” 4 vols. 12mo; “The Historical Ceremonial,” 6 vols. 12mo; “Political Dialogues on the means used by the Italian Republics for their preservation,” 2 vols. 12mo “An Abridgment of Patriotic virtues,” 2 vols. 8vo “Fame jealous of Fortune a panegyric on Louis XIV,” 4to “A Poem on the enterprize of the Prince of Orange in England,” 1695, folio; “An Eulogy on Hunting,” 12mo; “Letters,” 1 vol. 12mo; “The Itinerary of the Court of Rome,” 3 vols. 8vo “History of the House of Saxony,” 4 vols. 4to “History of the House of Brandenburg,” 4 vols. 4to “The slaughter of the Innocent reformed,” 4to “The Ruins of the Apostolical See,” 1672, 12mo, &c. Although M. le Clerc, his son-in-law, has mentioned him with high encomiums, we know few writers of history who are less to be depended on, having debased all his productions with fable. It is impossible to give credit to him unless his facts can be supported by other authority. He, on some occasions, assumes all the dignity of conceited ignorance, and relates his fictions with all the confidence of a vain man, who thinks he cannot be contradicted. His aim indeed was to please rather than instruct, and he has, with his anecdotes, frequently amused and misled his readers. We know few more amusing works than his “Life of pope Sixtus V.” Granger, whose character of him we have partly adopted, relates that Leti being one day at Charles II.'s levee, the king said to him, “Leti, I hear you are writing the history of the court of England.” “Sir,” said he, “I have been for some time preparing materials for such a history.” “Take care,” said the king, “that your work give no offence.” “Sir,” replied Leti, “I will do what 1 can but if a man were as wise as Solomon, he would scarce be able to avoid giving some offence.” “Why then,” rejoined the king, “be as wise as Solomon, write proverbs, not tories.”

, a celebrated sophist of antiquity, was born of an ancient and noble family at Antioch, on the Orontes, in the year 314. Suidas calls his father “Phasganius” but this was the name of one of his uncles; the other, who was the elder, was named Panolbius. His great-grandfather, who excelled in the art of divination, had published some pieces in Latin, which occasioned his being supposed by some, but falsely, to be an Italian. His maternal and paternal grandfathers were eminent in rank and in eloquence; the latter, with his brother Brasidas, was put to death by the order of Dioclesian, in the year 303, after the tumult of the tyrant Eugenius. Libanius, the second of his father’s three sons, in the fifteenth year of his age, wishing to devote himself entirely to literature, complains that he met with some “shadoxvs of sophists.” Then, assisted by a proper master, he began to read the ancient writers at Antioch; and thence, with Jasion, a Cappadocian, went to Athens, and residing there for more than four years, became intimately acquainted with Crispinus of Heraclea, who, he says, “enriched him afterwards with books at Nicomedia, and went, but seldom, to the schools of Diophantus.” At Constantinople he ingratiated himself with Nicocles of Lacedosmon (a grammarian, who was master to the emperor Julian), and the sophist Bermarchius. Returning to Athens, and soliciting the office of a professor, which the proconsul had before intended for him when he was twenty- five years of age, a certain Cappadocian happened to be preferred to him. But being encouraged by Dionysius, a Sicilian who had been prefect of Syria, some specimens of his eloquence, that were published at Constantinople, made him so generally known and applauded, that he collected more than eighty disciples, the two sophists, who then filled the chair there, raging in vain, and Bermarchius ineffectually opposing him in rival orations, and, when he could not excel him, having recourse to the frigid calumny of magic. At length, about the year 346, being expelled the city by his competitors, the prefect Limenius concurring, he repaired to Nice, and soon after to Nicomedia, the Athens of Bithynia, where his excellence in speaking began to be more and more approved by all; and Julian, if not a hearer, was a reader and admirer of his orations. In the dame'city, he says, “he was particularly delighted with the friendship of Aristaenetus;” and the five years which he passed there, he styles “the spring or any thing else that can be conceived pleasanter than spring, of his whole life.” Being invited again to Constantinople, and afterwards returning to Nicomedia, being also tired of Constantinople, where he found Phoenix and Xenobius, rival sophists, though he was patronised by Strategius, who succeeded Domitian as prefect of the East, not daring on account of his rivals to occupy the Athenian chair, he obtained permission from Gallus Cassar to visit for four months, his native city Antioch, where, after Gallus was killed, in the year 354, he fixed his residence for the remainder of his life, and initiated many in the sacred rites of eloquence. He was also much beloved by the emperor Julian, who heard his discourses with pleasure, received him with kindness, and imitated him in his writings. Honoured by that prince with the rank of quaestor, and with several epistles of which six only are extant, the‘ last written by the emperor during’ his fatal expedition against the Persians, he the more lamented his death in the flower of Ms age, as from him he had promised himself a certain and lasting support both in the worship of idols and in his own studies. There was afterwards a report, that Liba­Ihus, with the younger Jamblichus, the master of Proclus, inquired by divination who would be the successor of Valens, and ia consequence with difficulty escaped his cruelty, Irenaeus attesting the innocence of Libanius. In like manner he happily escaped another calumny, by the favour of duke Lupicinus, when he was accused by his enemy Fidelis, or Fidustius, of having written an eulogium on the tyrant Procopius. He was not, however, totally neglected by Valens, whom he not only celebrated in an oration, but obtained from him a confirmation of the law against entirely, excluding illegitimate children from the inheritance of their paternal estates, which he solicited from the emperor, no doubt for a private reason, since, as Eunapius informs us, he kept a mistress, and was never married. The remainder of his life he passed as before mentioned, at Antioch, to an advanced age, amidst various wrongs and oppressions from his rivals and the times, which he copiously relates in his life, though, tired of the manners of that city, be had thoughts, in his old age, of changing his abode, as he tells Eusebius. He continued there, however, and on various occasions was very serviceable to the city, either by appeasing seditions, and calming the disturbed minds of the citizens, or by reconciling to them the emperors Julian and Theodosius. That Libanius lived even to the reign of Arcadius, that is, beyond the seventieth year of his age, the learned collect from his oration on Lucian, and the testimony of Cedrenus; and of the same opinion is Godfrey Olearius, a man not more respectable for his exquisite knowledge of sacred and polite literature than for his judgment and probity, in his’ ms prelections, in which, when he was professor of both languages in the university of his own country, he has given an account of the life of this sophist.

His first patron was the honourable Mr. Lane, son to the late lord Bingley. Lord chancellor Northington presented him to the living of Shelden, in Hants, which he resigned on taking the rectory of Gotham, co. Nottingham. He had also Sutton in Lownd, in the same county; to both of which he was presented by his grace the duke of Portland. His ecclesiastical preferments amounted to above 500l. a year. He was also domestic chaplain to his illustrious patroness the late duchess dowager of Portland, and by her liberality enjoyed during her grace’s life, an annuity of a hundred a year. During her grace’s summer residence at Bulstrode, he performed duty in the family twice a week, and at other times was of very considerable use to her grace in arranging her magnificent collection of natural history, particularly the shells and the botanical part. He also drew up the catalogue of her museum for sale. He was an excellent scholar in many branches of literature, but, next to the study of his profession, he addicted himself chiefly to botany and conchy I iology, excelling in both, but particularly in botany, and he was equally versed in the knowledge of foreign as of British botany.

Mr. Lightfoot was for some years a fellow of the royal society, and was one of the original fellows of the Linnaean society, the formation of which he contemplated with great pleasure, though his death happened before he could attend any of its public meetings. Having married the daughter of Mr. William Burton Raynes, an opulent miller at Uxbridge, he resided in that town, and died there suddenly, Feb. 18, 1788, aged fifty-three, leaving a widow, two sons, and three daughters. Mrs. Lightfoot was married in 1802 to John Springett Harvey, esq. barrister at law. He was buried in Cowley church, where his grave remained, for some time at least, without any memorial. He is supposed never to have recovered from a disappointment respecting a living which his patron, the late duke of Portland, solicited from lord chancellor Thurlow, but which the latter did not think fit to bestow. Mr. Lightfoot had in the course of his botanical studies collected an excellent British herbarium, consisting of abundant specimens, generally gathered wild, and in many cases important for the illustration of his work. He had also amassed from sir Joseph Banks and other friends, a number of exotic plants. The whole was bought after his death, for 100 guineas, by his majesty, as a present to the queen, and deposited at Frogmore, the price being fixed by an intelligent friend of the family.

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

, a French advocate and political writer, was born at Rheims, July 14, 1736. His father was one of the professors of the college of Beauvais, at Paris, and had his son educated under him, v who made such proficiency in his studies as to gain the three chief prizes of the college in 1751. This early celebrity was noticed by the duke de Deux-Pont, then at Paris, who took him with him to the country; but Linguet soon left this nobleman for the service of the prince de Beavau, who employed him as his aide-de-camp in the war in Portugal, on account of his skill in mathematics. During his residence in that country, Linguet learned the language so far as to be able to translate some Portuguese dramas into French. Returning to France in 1762, he was admitted to the bar, where his character was very various; but amongst the reports both of enemies and friends, it appears that of an hundred and thirty causes, he lost only nine, and was allowed to shine both in oiatory and compo*­sidon. He had the art, however, of making enemies by the occasional liberties he took with characters; and at one time twenty-four of his brethren at the bar, whether from jealousy or a better reason, determined that they would take no brief in any cause in which he was concerned, and the parliament of Paris approved this so far as to interdict him from pleading. We are not sufficiently acquainted with the circumstances of the case to be able to form an opinion on the justice of this harsh measure. It appears, however, to have thrown Linguet out of his profession, and he then began to employ his pen on his numerous political writings but these, while they added to his reputation as a lively writer, added likewise to the number of his enemies. The most pointed satire levelled at him was the “Theory of Paradox,” generally attributed to the abbe Morellet, who collected all the absurd paradoxes to be found in Linguet’s productions, which it must be allowed are sufficiently numerous, and deserve the castigation he received. Linguet endeavoured to reply, but the laugh was against him, and all the wits of Paris enjoyed his mortification. His “Journal,” likewise, in which most of his effusions appeared, was suppressed by the minister of state, Maurepas; and Linguet, thinking his personal liberty was now in danger, came to London; but the English not receiving him as he expected, he went to Brussels, and in consequence of an application to the count de Vergeunes, was allowed to return to France. He had not been here long, before, fresh complaints having been made of his conduct, he was, Sept. 27, 1780, sent to the Bastille, where he remained twenty months. Of his imprisonment and the causes he published a very interesting account, which was translated into English, and printed here in 1783. He was, after being released, exiled to Rethel, but in a short time returned to England. He had been exiled on two other occasions, once to Chartres, and the other to Nogent-le-Kotrou. At this last place, he seduced a madame But, the wife of a manufacturer, who accompanied him to England. From England he went again to Brussels, and resumed his journal, or “Annales politiques,” in which he endeavoured to pay his court to the emperor Joseph, who was so much pleased with a paper he had written on his favourite project of opening the Scheldt, that he invited him to Vienna, and made him a present of 1000 ducats. Linguet, however, soon forfeited the emperor’s favour, by taking part with Varider Noot and the other insurgents of Brabant. Obliged, therefore, to quit the Netherlands, he came to Paris in 1791, and appeared at the bar of the constituent assembly as advocate for the colonial assembly of St. Domingo and the cause of the blacks. In February 1792, he appeared in the legislative assembly to denounce Bertrand de Moleville, the minister of the marine; but his manner was so absurd, that notwithstanding the unpopularity of that statesman, the assembly treated it with contempt, and Linguet indignantly tore in pieces his memorial, which he had been desired to leave on the table. During the reign of terror, he withdrew into the country, but was discovered and brought before the revolutionary tribunal, and condemned to death June 27, 1794, for having in his works paid court to the despots of Vienna and London. At the age of fifty-seven he went with serenity and courage to meet his fate. It is not very easy to form an opinion of Linguet’s real character. His being interrupted in his profession seems to have thrown him upon the public, whose prejudices he alternately opposed and flattered. His works abound in contradictions, but upon the whole it may be inferred that he was a lover of liberty, and no inconsiderable promoter of those opinions which precipitated the revolution. That he was not one of the ferocious sect, appears from his escape, and his death. His works are very numerous. The principal are, 1. “Voyage au labyrinthe du jardin du roi,” Hague, (Paris,) 1755, 12mo. 2. “Histoire du siecle d'Alexandre,” Paris, 1762, 12mo. 3. “Projet d‘un canal et d’un pont sur les cotes de Picardie,” 1764, 8vo. 4. “Le Fanatisme de Philosophes,” 1764, 8vo. 5. “Necessit6 d‘une reforme dans l’administration de la justice et des lois civiles de France,” Amst. 1764, 8vo. 6. “La Dime royale,” 1764, reprinted in 1787. 7. “Histoire des Revolutions de l'empire Remain,” 1766, 2 vols. 12mo. This is one of his paradoxical works, in which tyranny and slavery are represented in the most favourable light. 8. “Theorie des Lois,” 1767, 2 vols. 8vo, reprinted in 1774. 9. “Histoire impartiale des Jesuites,” 1768, 8vo. 10. “Hardion’s Universal History,” vols. 19th and 20th. 11. “Theatre Espagnole,” 1770, 4 vols. 12mo. 12. “Theorie du Libelle,” Amst. (Paris), 1775, 12mo, an a,nswer to the abbe Morellet. 13. “Du plusheureux gouvernment,” &c. 1774, 2 vols. 12mo. 14. “Essai philosophique sur le Monachisme,” 1777, 8vo. Besides these he wrote several pieces on the revolution in Brabant, and a collection of law cases.

, an eminent mnsic professor and organist, long resident at Bath, where he had served an apprenticeship under Chilcot, the organist of that city, was a studious man, equally versed in the theory and practice of his art. Having a large family of children, in whom he found the seeds of genius had been planted by nature, and the gift of voice, in order to cultivate this, he pointed his studies to singing, and became the best singing-master of his time, if we may judge by the specimens of “his success in his own family. He was not only a masterly player on the organ and harpsichord, but a good composer, as his elegies and several compositions for Drury-lane theatre evinced. His son Thomas, who was placed under Nardini at Florence, the celebrated disciple of Tartini, was a fine performer on the violin, with a talent for composition, which, if he had lived to develope, would have given longevity to his fame. Being at Grimsthorpe, in Lincolnshire, at the seat of the duke of Ancaster, where he often amused himself in rowing, fishing, and sailing in a boat on a piece of water, in a squall of wind, or by some accident, the boat was overset, and this amiable and promising youth was drowned at an early age, to the great affliction of his family and friends, particularly his matchless sister, Mrs. Sheridan, whom this calamity rendered miserable for a long time; during which, her affection and grief appeared in verses of the most sweet and affecting kind on the sorrowful event. The beauty, talents, and mental endowments of this” Sancta Caecilia rediviva," will be remembered to the last hour of all who heard, or even saw and conversed with her. The tone of her voice and expressive manner of singing were as enchanting as her countenance and conversation. In her singing, with a mellifluous-toned voice, a perfect shake and intonation, she was possessed of the double power of delighting an audience equally in pathetic strains and songs of brilliant execution, which is allowed to very tew singers. When she had heard the Agujari and the Danzi, afterwards madame le Brun, she astonished all hearers by performing their bravura airs, extending the natural compass of her voice a fourth above the highest note of the harpsichord, before additional keys were in fashion. Mrs. Sheridan died at Bristol in 1792.

, an eminent historical painter, was born at Florence, probably about the beginning of the fifteenth century, as he was a scholar of, and of course nearly contemporary with, Massaccio. At the age of sixteen, being entered a noviciate in the convent of Carmelites at Florence, he had there an opportunity of seeing that extraordinary artist at work upon the astonishing frescoes with which he adorned the chapel of Brancacci, in the church there; and being eager to embrace the art, such was his success, that after the death of his master, it was said by common consent, that the soul of Massaccio still abode with Fra. Filippo. He now forsook the habit of his convent, and devoted himself entirely to painting; but his studies were for a time disturbed by his being unfortunately taken, while out on a party of pleasure, by some Moors, and carried prisoner to Barbary; where he remained in slavery eighteen months. But having drawn, with a piece of charcoal, the portrait of his master upon a wall, the latter was so affected by the novelty of the performance, and its exact resemblance, that, after exacting a few more specimens of his art, he generously restored him to his liberty. On his return home he painted some works for Alphonso, king of Calabria. He employed himself also in Padua; but it was in his native city of Florence that his principal works were performed. He was employed by the grand duke Cosmo di Medici, who presented his pictures to his friends; and one to pope Eugenius IV. He was also employed to adorn the palaces of the republic, the churches, and many of the houses of the principal citizens; among whom his talents were held in high estimation. He was the first of the Florentine painters who attempted to design figures as large as life, and the first who remarkably diversified the draperies, and who gave his figures the air of antiques. It is to be lamented that such a man should at last perish by the consequences of a guilty amour he indulged in at Spoleto; where he was employed at the cathedral to paint the chapel of the blessed virgin. This is differently told by different writers, some saying that he seduced a nun who sat to him for a model of the virgin, and others that the object of his passion was a married woman. In either case, it is certain that he was poisoned by the relations of the lady whose favours he was supposed to enjoy. Lorenzo di Medici erected a marble tomb in the cathedral to his memory, which Politian adorned with a Latin epitaph. His son Lippi Filippo, was renowned for excellent imitations of architectural ornaments. He died in 1505, at the age of forty-five. There was also a Florentine painter, Lorenzo Lippi, born in 1606, and likewise a great musician and a poet. In the latter character he published “II Malmantile racquistato,” which is considered as a classical work in the Tuscan language. He died in 1664.

, historiographer and censor royal, and the first of a family of men of considerable eminence in France, was born Nov. 5, 1644, at Vaucouleurs. He gave private lectures on history and geography at Paris, and had not only the principal lords of the court among his pupils, but the duke of Orleans, afterwards regent of France, who always retained a particular value for him, and gave him frequent proofs of his esteem. He died at Paris, May 2, 1720, aged 76, leaving twelve children, of whom three sons will form the subject of the ensuing articles. His works are, “Relation historique du Roiaume de Siam,” 1684, 12mo; “An Abridgement of the Universal History,” 1731, 7 vols. 12mo-, and a Genealogical and Historical Atlas, on engraved plates.

, lord keeper of the great seal of England in the reign of Charles I. was descended, by a collateral branch, from the preceding judge Littleton, being grandson of John Littleton, parson of Mouuslow in Shropshire, and son of sir Edward Littleton of Henley in that county, one of the justices of the inarches, and judge of North Wales. He was born in 1589, and admitted a gentleman commoner of Christchurch, Oxford, in 1606, where he took the degree of bachelor of arts in 1609. Some time after, being designed for the law by his father, he removed to the InnerTemple, and soon became eminent in his profession. In 1628, we find him in parliament; and on the 6th of May he was appointed, together with sir Edward Coke and sir Dudley Digges, to carry up the petition of right to the house of lords. He had also the management of the charge made against the duke of Buckingham, concerning king James’s death; on which occasion he behaved himself with universal applause, although he had to consult both the jealousy of the people and the honour of the court. His first preferment in the law was the appointment to succeed his father as a Welch judge; after which he was elected recorder of London, and about the same time counsel for the university of Oxford. In 1632, he was chosen summer-reader of the Inner-Temple, and in 1634, appointed solicitor-general, and received the honour of knighthood in 1635. In 1639, he was constituted lord chief-justice of the common-pleas; and, in 1640, on the flight of lord-keeper Finch from the resentment of the parliament, the great seal was put into his custody, with the same title. In February following, he was created a peer of England, by the title of lord Littleton, baron of Mounslow in Shropshire.

He seems first to have appeared as an author in 1657, during the interregnum, by the publication of his “little consort of three parts for viols or violins, consisting of pavans, ayres, corants, sarabands, in two several varieties, the first twenty of which are for two trebles and a base.” Some of his compositions appear in the second part of John Playford’s continuation of Hilton’s “Catch that catch can,” in 1667; and among them the most pleasing of Lock’s compositions, “Never trouble thyself about times or their turnings,” a glee for three voices. He was the first Who attempted dramatic music for the English stage, if we except the masques that were performed at court, and at the houses of the nobility, in the time of Charles I. and during the reign of Charles II. When musical dramas were first attempted, which Dryden calls heroic plays and dramatic operas, Lock was employed to set most of them, particularly the semi-operas, as they were called, the Tempest, Macbeth,] and Psyche, translated from the French of Moliere, by Shadwell. The Tempest and Psyche were printed in 1675, and dedicated to James duke of Monmouth. There is a preface of some length by Lock, which, like his music, is rough and nervous, exactly corresponding with the idea which is generated of his private character, by the perusal of his controversy with Salmon, and the sight of his picture in the music-school at Oxford. It is written with that natural petulance which probably gave birth to most of the quarrels in which he was involved. It includes, however, a short history of these early attempts at dramatic music on our stage, in which, as in the most successful representations of this kind in later times, the chief part of the dialogue was spoken, and recitative, or musical declamation, which seems to be the true criterion and characteristic of Italian operas, but seldom used, unless merely to introduce some particular airs and choruses. Upon examining this music, it appears to have been very much composed on Lulli’s model. The melody is neither recitative nor air, but partaking of both, with a change of measure as frequent as in any old French opera which we ever saw.

After this cure, his lordship, by frequent conversations, discovered qualities in Locke, which made him regard his medical skill as the least of his merits; and foreseeing the bent of his talents, advised him to apply himself to the study of political and religious topics, on which his lordship seems often to have consulted him. By his acquaintance with this nobleman, he was introduced to some persons of eminence, such as Villiers duke of Buckingham, lord Halifax, and other noblemen of wit and parts, who were all charmed with his conversation, and more so, it appears, than he was sometimes with theirs. One day, three or four of these lords having met at lord Ashley’s when Mr. Locke was there, after some compliments, cards were brought in, before scarce any conversation had passed between them. Mr. Locke looked upon them for some time while they were at play, and taking his pocket book began to write with great attention. One of the lords asked him what he was writing: “My lord,” said he, “I am endeavouring to profit as far as I am able, in your company; for having waited with impatience for the honour of being in an assembly of the greatest geniuses of this age, and at last having obtained the good fortune, I thought I could not do better than write down your conversation; and indeed I have set down the substance of what has been said for this hour or two.” This rebuke appears to have been taken in good part; the company quitted their play, and passed the rest of their time in a. manner more suitable to the rational character.

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