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

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

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

It was here, however, about 1758, that he published the “Highlander,” an heroic poem in six cantos, 12mo. Of this poem, which has not fallen in our way, we have seen two opinions, the one, that it indicated considerable genius in so young an author; the other that it is a tissue of fustian and absurdity, feeble, and in some parts ridiculous, and shews little or no talent in the art of versification. This last we take to be the opinion of the late Isaac Reed, who had a copy of the poem, which was purchased at his sale by George Chalmers, esq. Mr. Reed adds, that in a short time the author became sensible of its faults, and endeavoured to suppress it. About the same time he wrote an “Ode on the arrival of the Earl Marischal in Scotland,” which he called an attempt in the manner of Pindar, how justly, the reader may determine, as it was published in the European Magazine for 1796.

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

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

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

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

In 1731 his first tragedy, called “Eurydice,” was performed at Drury-lane, and very unfavourably received; nor when revived thirty years after, and supported by Garrick and Mrs. Gibber, could the town endure it with patience. On this last occasion Dayies informs us that the author would not take the blame upon himself; “he sat in the orchestra, and bestowed his execrations plentifully upon the players, to whom he attributed the cold reception of his tragedy.” About this time we find him an inmate in Mr. Knight’s family at Gosfield, probably as tutor to Mr. Newsham, Mrs. Knight’s son by her first husband. Her third was the late earl Nugent. We shall soon have occasion to quote a very remarkable passage from a letter of Pope’s to this lady, respecting Mallet.

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

His ministerial functions were exercised in various places, first at Sowton near Exeter, and then at Colyton in Devonshire, where he was much respected. Removing to London, he became more admired for his talents in the pulpit, and about 1643 was presented to the living of Stoke Newington, by colonel Popham, and here preached those lectures on the epistles of St. James and St. Jude, which he afterwards published in 1651 and 1652, 4to. During his residence at Newington, he often preached in London, and is said to have preached the second sermon before the sons of the clergy, an institution then set on foot, chiefly through the influence of Dr. Hall, son to the bishop, who preached the first. He was also one of those who were called occasionally to preach before the parliament, but being a decided enemy to the murder of the king, he gave great offence by a sermon in which he touched on that subject. In 1651 he shewed equal contempt for the tyranny of the usurpers, by preaching a funeral sermon for Mr. Love (see Christopher Love), and in neither case allowed the fears of his friends to prevent what he thought his duty. In 1650 he removed from Stoke-Newington, on being presented to the living of Covent garden by the earl, afterwards duke of Bedford, who had a high respect for him. At this church he had a numerous auditory. Archbishop Usher, who was one of his hearers, used to say that he was one of the best preachers in England, and had the art of reducing the substance of whole volumes into a narrow compass, and representing it to great advantage. Although he had already, by the two sermons above noticed, shewn that he was far from courting the favours, of government, Cromwell, who well knew how to avail himself of religious influence and popular talents, sent for him in 1653, when he assumed the protectorate, and desired him to pray at Whitehall on the morning of his installation; and about the same time made him one of his chaplains. He was nominated also by parliament one of a committee of divines to draw up a scheme of fundamental doctrines. In the same year he was appointed one of the committee for the trial and approbation of ministers, and appears to have acted in this troublesome office with considerable moderation. What influence he had with Cromwell, he employed for the benefit of others, and particularly solicited him to spare the life of Dr. Hewit, a loyalist, whom Cromwell executed for being concerned in a plot to restore Charles II. In 1660, when the days of usurpation were over, Mr. Manton co-operated openly in the restoration of Charles, was one of the ministers appointed to wait upon his majesty at Breda, and was afterwards sworn one of his majesty’s chaplains. In the same year he was, by mandamus, created doctor of divinity at Oxford.

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

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

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

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

Alexander, the second earl, second son of the preceding, was ambassador to Denmark and Prussia in 1715; in 1716 was appointed lord register of Scotland; and in 1721 was named first ambassador in the congress at Cambray .

Hugh, of whom we now speak, the third earl, was the third son of the above-mentioned Alexander, and twin-­brother of Mr. Hume Campbell, who was in the first practice at the English bar, but retired from it on being appointed lord register of Scotland. The subject of our present article having finished his studies in the learned languages, in which at an early period of his life he was a most distinguished scholar, he was sent to Utrecht to complete his education. Here, under the instruction of one of the most eminent civilians of modern times, he succeeded in the attainment of a knowledge of the civil law to an extent seldom acquired, even by those who were to follow it as a profession; and at the same time became master of several modern languages, which he read and wrote with great facility.

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

Lord Marchinont was also distinguished by Sarah duchess of Marlborough, in a very remarkable manner*, with whom he lived in the most friendly habits, and was appointed by her grace one of her executors, with a large legacy, and named in the succession to a part of her great estate, on failure of certain heirs of her body (excluding the duke of Marlborough) on whom she entailed the whole; the discharge of which trust fell principally on the earl.

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

It may be truly said, that there have been few men in any age, who read more deeply than this distinguished nobleman. The notes he left behind him on almost every eminent author of antiquity, and on the most useful publications in modern times, afford an unequivocal proof of this. He was never himself an author; but it is to him the public are indebted for the publication of the records of parliament, from very nearly the earliest period of that assembly meeting, which have thrown most useful light on our constitutional history. The famous survey of all the counties in England made under the authority of William the Conqueror, called Domesday Book , was printed at the same time. The earl died at his house in Hertfordshire, January 10, 1794.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But however writers may differ about her moral conduct, they agree more cordially as to the variety of her accomplishments. She wrote poems on various occasions, in the Latin, Italian, French, and Scotch languages; “Royal advice to her son,” in two books, the consolation of her long imprisonment. A great number of her original letters are preserved in the king of France’s library, in the Royal, Cottonian, and Ashmolean libraries . We have in print, eleven to earl Bothwell, translated from the French by Edward Simmonds, of Christ-church, Oxford, and printed at Westminster in 1726. There are ten more, with her answers to the articles against her, in “Haynes’s StatePapers;” six more in “Anderson’s Collections;” another in the “Appendix” to her life by Dr. Jebb and some others dispersed among the works of Pius V. Buchanan, Camden, Udall, and Sanderson.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There was a Cynic of Gadara, of the name of Meleager, whom some confound with this poet, and others distinguish; it seems very unlikely that this elegant writer was a Cynic. Meleager formed two collections of Greek verses, under the name of Anthologia - t one, it is melancholy to say, was entirely dedicated to that odious passion of the Greeks, which among us it is a shame even to mention. To this infamous collection was prefixed a poem, still extant, in which the youths whose beauty was celebrated, are described as flowers. A poet named Strato, increased this collection, and prefixed to it his own name: but Agathias and Planudes, to their honour, rejected this part altogether, and formed their collections from the second Anthologia of Meleager, which consisted of compositions entirely miscellaneous. On this the present collections of Greek epigrams are founded. The poems of Meleager in Brunck’s edition, amount to 129, the greater part of which are epigrams. They display great elegance of genius, and do as much honour to the collection, as most of those which it contains. Lord Chesterfield’s indiscriminate censure of the Greek epigrams, must be the result of mere ignorance, since many of them are of the highest elegance. He had seen, probably, a few of the worst, and knew nothing of the rest. Of the epigrams of Meleager, many are truly elegant, but those numbered, in Brunck’s Analecta, 50, 51, 52, 55, 57, 58, 61, 63, 109, 111, 112, and several others, have beauty enough to rescue the whole collection from the unjust censure of the witty, but not learned earl.

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

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

After retaining his post of chancellor of the exchequer for twenty-three years, he died May 31, 1589, and was buried in the chancel of the church of St. Bartholomew the Great, in West Smithfield, where a handsome monument was erected to his memory. Sir Waiter married Mary, sister to sir Francis Walsinghana, by whom he had two sons, Anthony and Humphrey, and three daughters, Winifred, married to William Fitzwilliam, of Gainspark, in Essex, an ancestor of the present earl Fitzwilliam; Christian, to Charles Barret, of Avely, in the same county; and Martha, to William Brounker.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We find him employed, so early as 1736, as an advocate against th bill of pains and penalties, which afterwards passed into a law, against the lord-provost and city of Edinburgh, for the riotous murder of captain Porteus. On Nov. 20, 1738, he married lady Elizabeth Finch, daughter of the earl of Winchelsea and, in November 1742, he was appointed solicitor- general in the room of sir John Strange, who resigned. He was also chosen representative of the town of Boroughbridge; and was afterwards returned for the same place in 1747 and 1754. In March 1746, he? was appointed one of the managers for the impeachment of lord Lovat by the House of Commons. It was his part to observe upon the evidence in reply to the prisoner; in this he displayed so much candour, as well as so much ability, that he was complimented by the prisoner no less than by the lord-chancellor Talbot, who presided at the trial.

In Jan. 1770 he was offered the great seal, which he declined; and it was put into commission again. In Hilary term, 1771, he declined the same offer, and it was delivered to Mr. Justice Bathurst. In 1770 an attack was made on this noble judicial character, both in the House of Lords and Commons. His direction to the jury, in the case of Woodfall, the printer, who was prosecuted for a libel, was called in question; but his lordship’s opinion, and that of the whole court, stood its ground. On Oct. 19, 1776, he was made an earl of Great Britain, by the title of earl of Mansfield, to him and his issue male; with remainder to Louisa viscountess Stormont, and to her heirs-male by David viscount Stormont, her husband.

His health continued to decline; but his mental faculties remained to the last very little impaired; he was glad to receive visitors, and talk upon the events of the time. Of the French revolution he is reported to have said, that it was an extraordinary event and, as it was without example, so it was without a prognostic no conjectures could be formed of its consequences. He lived to March 20, 1793, and departed this life in the eightyninth year of his age. He left no children; and the earldom, which was granted again by a new patent, in 1792, descended on his nephew, lord Stormont, together with his immense fortune. His will was dated April 17, 1782; it was written in his own hand, upon little more than a half sheet of paper. It begins thus: “When it shall please Almighty God to call me to that state, to which, of all I now enjoy, I can carry only the satisfaction of my own conscience, and a full reliance on his mercy, through Jesus Christ: I desire that my body may be interred as privately as may be; and, out of respect for the place of my early education, I should wish it to be in Westminster abbey.” He was buried, about nine o'clock in the morning of March 28, in the same vault with his countess, who died April 10, 1784, in Westminster-abbey, between the late earl of Chatham and lord Robert Manners.

"Mr. Murray, afterwards earl of Mansfield, and lord chief justice of England, was so extraordinary a person, and made so great a figure in the world, that his name must go down to posterity with distinguished honour in the public records of the nation; for, his shining talents displayed themselves in every department of the state as well as in the supreme court of justice, his peculiar province, which he filled with a lustre of reputation, not equalled perhaps, certainly not exceeded, by any of his predecessors.

, doctor of music, an eminent composer and teacher in that science, under whom some of the first musicians of the present day received the whole or part of their education, was tfce son of Mr. Nares, who was, for many years, steward to Montague and Willoughby, earl* of Abingdon. He was born, as well as his brother, the late Mr. Justice Nares, at Stanwell in Middlesex; the former in 1715, the latter in 1716. His musical education he commenced under Mr. Gates, then master of the royal choristers; and completed it under the celebrated Dr. Pepusch. Thus prepared, he officiated, for some time, as deputy to Mr. Pigott, organist of Windsor; but, on the resignation of Mr. Salisbury, organist of York, in 1734, was chosen to succeed him, being then only nineteen. It is related, on undoubted authority, that, when the old musician first saw his intended successor, he said, rather angrily, “What! is that child to succeed me?” which being mentioned to the organist-elect, he took an early opportunity, on a difficult service being appointed, to play it throughout half a note below the pitch, which brought it into a key with seven sharps; and went through it without the slightest error. Being asked why he did so, he said, that “he only wished to shew Mr. Salisbury what a child could do.” His knowledge in all branches of his profession was equal to his practical skill in this instance; and, during his residence at York, where he was abundantly employed as a teacher, and where he married, Mr. Nares, by his good conduct, as well as professional merit, obtained many powerful friends. Among the foremost of these was Dr. Fontayne, the late venerable dean of York; who, when Dr. Green died, towards the latter end of 1755, exerted his interest so successfully, that he obtained for him the united places of organist and composer to his majesty. He removed, therefore, to London in the beginning of 1756; and, about the same time, was created doctor in music at Cambridge.

His printed works are these 1 “Eight sets of Lessons for the Harpsichord dedicated to the right honourable Willoughby earl of Abingdon printed in 1748, reprinted in 1757.” 2. “Five Lessons for the Harpsichord, with a sonata in score for the harpsichord or organ; dedicated to the right honourable the countess of Carlisle;” published in 1758 or 1759. 3. “A set of easy Lessons for the Harpsichord,” three in number; with a dedication to the public, signed J. N. 4. “A Treatise on Singing,” small size. 5. “II Principio” or “.A regular introductionto playing on the Harpsichord or Organ.” This was the first set of progressive lessons published on a regular plan. 6. “The Royal Pastoral, a dramatic ode; dedicated to his royal highness the prince of Wales; printed in score, with an overture and choruses. 7.” Catches, Canons, and Glees; dedicated to the late lord Mornington.“8.” Six Fugues, with introductory voluntaries forMhe Organ or Harpsichord.“9.” A concise and easy treatise on Singing, with a set of English Duets for beginners;“- a different work from the former small treatise. 10.” Twenty Anthems, in score, for one, two, three, four, and rive voices composed for the use of his majesty’s chapels royal,“1778. 11.” Six, easy Anthems, with a favourite Morning and Evening Service,“left for publication at his death, and published in 1738, with a portrait and a concise account of the author. Of these compositions the following short character is given by an eminent musician, to whom they are all well known.” The Lessons are composed in a masterly and pleasing style; free from those tricks and unmeaning successions of semitones, to which a good ear and sound judgment never can be reconciled. The treatises on singing contain duets composed for the use of the children of the royal chapels, superior to any thing yet published and such as every teacher ought to peruse. His catches, canons, and glees, are natural and pleasing especially the glee to all Lovers of Harmony, which gained the prize-medal at the catch-club in 1770. The Royal Pastoral is composed throughout in a very masterly manner; particularly the choruses, with which each part concludes. This ode, containing 108 pages, was written, and all the vocal and instrumental parts transcribed for performing, within twelve days. The six fugues, with introductory voluntaries for the organ, contain the strongest proofs of ingenuity and judgment; few, if any, have ever been written that can be preferred to them. In both sets of the anthems, the same characteristics appear; and the service in the latter very justly acquired the title of favourite; nor can there be any doubt that the works of this author will be admired as long as a taste for music shall subsist."

, an Irish Roman catholic divine, of great learning, was born in the county of Kildare in 1660, and educated at Naas, in that county. In 1684 he received priest’s orders in the town of Kilkenny, and the year following went to Paris to pursue his studies in the Irish college, of which he was made afterwards provisor for about seven years. He took the degree of LL. D. in 1694, in the college of Cambray, and returning to London two years after, was appointed tutor to the earl of Antrim. He was afterwards made parish priest of St. Michan’s in Dublin, in which station he continued till his death, March 3, 1738. His principal works, rather numerous, were of the controversial kind, in defence of popery against Mr. Clayton and others, who acknowledged his learning as well as the politeness of his style and moderation of his sentiments. It was this quality which enabled him to have his works printed both at Dublin and London without molestation. Those that are not strictly of the controversial kind were, 1 “The New Testament translated into English from the Latin, with marginal notes,” Lond. 1705, 1718, 8vo. 2. “A new History of the World; containing an historical and chronological account of the times and transactions from the creation to the birth of Christ, according to the computation of the Septuagint,” &c. Dublin, 1720, fol.

, a statesman in the reign of James I. was of an ancient family in Suffolk, and educated a fellow-commoner of Trinity-college, Cambridge, whence he removed to Trinity -hall, and was chosen a fellow. When his uncle, William Asriby, esq. was sent ambassador from queen Elizabeth into Scotland in 1589, he accompanied him, probably in the office of secretary; and was sometimes sent by him on affairs of trust and importance to the court of England, where we find him in July of that year, discontented with his unsuccessful dependance on courtiers, and resolved to hasten back to his uncle, to whom he returned in the beginning of the month following, and continued with him till January 1589, when Mr. Ashby was succeeded in his embassy by Robert Bowes, esq. Mr. Naunton was in France in 15.96 and 1597, whence he corresponded frequently with the earl of Essex, who does not appear to have had interest enough to advance him to any civil post; for which reason it is probable that, after his lordship’s disgrace, Mr. Naunton returned to college, and, in 1601, was elected public orator of the university. Lloyd observes, that his speeches, “both while proctor and orator of Cambridge, discovered him more inclined to public accomplishments than private studies.” A speech which he had to deliver before James I. at Hinchinbroke, is said to have pleased the king very much, and paved the way to his obtaining employment at court. Accordingly he was first made master of the requests, then surveyor of the court of wards, by the interest of sir Thomas Overbury and sir George Villiers, and, in January 1618, was advanced to be secretary of state. He was lastly promoted to be master of the court of wards, which office he resigned in March 1635, and died in the same month. He was buried in the church of Letheringham in Suffolk.

, an Oxford divine, was born at Yeate, in Gloucestershire, in 1519, and was educated under the care of his uncle Alexander Belsire, who was afterwards first president of St. John’s college, at Winchester school. From this he was removed to New college, Oxford, in 1538, and admitted fellow in 1540. He also took his degree of M. A. and six years afterwards was admitted into holy orders. He was reckoned an able divine, but was most noted for his skill in Greek and Hebrew, on which account sir Thomas White, the founder of St. John’s college, encouraged him by a yearly pension often pounds. His adherence to the popish religion induced him to go to the university of Paris, during king Edward the Sixth’s reign, where he took his degree of bachelor of divinity. On his return during Mary’s reign, he held the rectory of Thenford in Northamptonshire, and became chaplain to bishop Bonner but on the accession of queen Elizabeth, according to Dodd, he suffered himself to be deprived of his spiritualities, retired to Oxford, and entered himself a commoner in Hart-hall. He had not been long here before he professed conformity to the newly-established religion, and in 1559 was appointed Hebrew professor of the foundation of Henry VIII. in which office he remained until 1569. When first appointed he built lodgings opposite Hart-hall, joining to the westend of New college cloister, which were for some time known by the name of Neal’s lodgings. During queen Elizabeth’s visit to the university in 1566, he presented to her majesty, a ms. now in the British Museum, entitled “Rabbi Davidis Kimhi commentarii super Hoseam, Joellem, Amos, Abdiam, Jonam, Micheam, Nahum, Habacuc, et Sophonian; Latine redditi per Thomam Nelum, Heb. linguae profess. Oxonii; et R, Elizabethse inscripti.” He presented also to her majesty a little book of Latin verses, containing the description of the colleges, halls, &c.; and a few days after exhibited a map of Oxford, with small views very neatly drawn with a pen by Bereblock. These views, with the verses, were published by Hearne at the end of “Dodwell de parma equestri.” The verses are in the form of a dialogue between the queen and the earl of Leicester, chancellor of the university, and are not wanting in that species of pedantic flattery so frequently offered to her majesty. Neal, however, was never a conformist irr his heart, and in 1569 either resigned, or being known to be a Roman catholic, was ejected from his professorship, and then retired to the village of Cassington near Oxford, where he lived a private and studious life. Wood can trace him no further, but Dodd says that he was frequently disturbed while at Cassington on account of his religion, and being often obliged to conceal, or absent himself, went abroad. The records of Doway mention that one Thomas Neal, an ancient clergyman, who had suffered much in prison in England, arrived there June 1, 1578, and returned again to England January 7, 1580. How long he lived afterwards is uncertain. He was certainly alive in 1590, as appears by an inscription he wrote for himself to be put upon his tomb-stone in Cassington church, which also states that he was then seventy-one years old. In the British Museum, among the royal Mss. is another ms. of his, entitled “Rabbinicae qusedam Observationes ex praedictis commentariis.” Wood speaks of one of his names, of Yeate in Gloucestershire, who dying in 1590, his widow had letters of administration granted, and adds, “whether it be meant of our author I cannot justly say, because I could never learn that he was married.” But nothing can be more improbable than the marriage of -a man who had suffered so much for a religion that prohibits the marriage of the clergy, and who was so inveterate against the reformed religion, that we are told the fable of the Nag’s-head ordination was first propagated by him.

, one of the bravest, and the most successful navai commander that 'ever appeared in the world, the fourth son of the rev. Edmund Nelson, rector of Burnham- Thorpe, in the county of Norfolk, was born in the parsonage-house of that parish, September 29, 1758. His father’s progenitors were originally settled at Hilsborough, where, in addition to a small hereditary estate, they possessed the patronage of the living, which our hero’s grandfather enjoyed for several years. His father married, in May 1749, Catherine, daughter of Maurice Suckling, D. D. prebendary of Westminster, whose grandmother had been sister to sir Robert Walpole, earl of Orford. By this lady he had eight sons and three daughters. Horatio, so called after the late earl of Orford, was placed at the high-school of Norwich, whence he was removed to NorthWalsham, both within the precincts of his native county. In his twelfth year, the dispute having taken place between the courts of St. James’s and Madrid, relative to the possession of the Falkland Islands, an armament was immediately ordered, and captain Maurice Suckling, his maternal uncle, having obtained a ship, young Nelson was, at his own earnest request, placed on his quarter-deck as a midshipman, on board the Raisonable, of 64 guns. But in consequence of the dispute being terminated, and capt. Suckling being appointed to a guard-ship in the Medway, Nelson was sent a voyage to the West Indies, and on his return he was received by his uncle on board the Triumph, then lying at Chatham, in the month of July 1772. It was observed, however, that although his voyage to the East Indies had given him a good practical knowledge of seamanship, he had acquired an absolute horror of the royal navy and it was with some difficulty that captain Suckling was enabled to reconcile him to the service; but an inherent ardour, coupled with an unabating spirit of enterprize, and utter scorn of danger, made him at length ambitious to partake in every scene where knowledge was to be obtained or glory earned.

He was now obliged to go to England for medical advice, where honours awaited him sufficient to recover his accustomed spirit, and he received assurance from his surgeons, more gratifying than all, that he would soon be fit for active service. Letters were addressed to him by the first lord of the Admiralty, the earl Spencer, and by his steady friend the duke of Clarence, to congratulate him on his return. The freedom of the cities of London and Bristol was conferred upon him; he was invested with the order of the Bath, and on his first appearance at court, his majesty received him in the most gracious and tender manner, expressing his sorrow at the loss which the noble admiral had sustained, and at his impaired state of health, which might deprive the country of his future services. “May it please your majesty,” replied the admiral, “I can never think that a loss, which the performance of my duty has occasioned; and so long as 1 have a foot to stand on, I will combat for my king and country.” Among other marks of national gratitude, it was intended to bestow a pension of 1000l. a year on him, and etiquette requiring that he should give in a memorial of his services, previous to such a grant, he accordingly presented the following, which, like the general course of his wonderful life, has no parallel in naval history:

In April 1798, sir Horatio Nelson hoisted his flag in the Vanguard, and as soon as he had rejoined earl St. Vincent, he was dispatched to the Mediterranean, that he might ascertain the object of the great expedition fitting out at Toulon. He sailed with a small squadron from Gibraltar, on the 9th of May, to watch this armament. On the 22 d, a sudden storm in the gulph of Lyons carried away all the top-masts of the Vanguard; the fore-mast went into three pieces, and the bow-sprit was sprung. Captain (afterwards sir Alexander) Ball took the ship in tow, to carry her into St. Pietros, Sardinia. Nelson, apprehensive that this attempt might endanger both vessels, ordered him to cast off; but that excellent officer, possessing a spirit very like that of his commander, replied that he was confident he could save the Vanguard, and by God’s help he would do it. Previously to this, there had been a coolness between these brave seamen but from that moment, Nelson became fully sensibje of the extraordinary merit of captain Ball, and a sincere friendship subsisted between them during the remainder of their lives. Being compelled to refit, the delay enabled him to secure his junction with the reinforcement which lord St. Vincent had sent to join him, under commodore Trowbridge. That officer brought with him no instructions to Nelson, as to the course he was to steer, nor any positive account of the enemy’s destination every thing was left to his own judgment. The first news was, that they had surprised Malta. He formed a plan for attacking them while at Gozo; but on the 22d, intelligence reached him that they had left that island on the 16th, the day after their arrival. He then pursued them to Egypt, but he could not learn any thing of them during his voyage; and when he reached Alexandria, the enemy were not there. He then shaped his course for the coast of Caramania, and steered from thence along the southern side of Candia, carrying a press of sail both night and day, with a contrary wind. Irritated that they should have eluded his vigilance, the tediousness of the night made him impatient, and the officer of the watch was repeatedly called upon to declare the hour, and convince his admiral, who measured time by his own eagerness, that it was not yet break of day. “It would have been my delight,” said he, “to have tried Bonaparte on a wind.” Baffled in his pursuit, Nelson returned to Sicily, took in stores at Syracuse, and then made for the Morea. There, on the 28th of July, he learnt that the French had been seen about a month before, steering to the south-east from Candia. He resolved to return, and immediately, with every sail set, stood again for the coast of Egypt. On the 1st of August, they came in sight of Alexandria; and at four in the afternoon, captain Hood, in the Zealous, made signal for the French fleet. For several preceding days, the admiral had scarcely taken either food or sleep: he now ordered his dinner to be served, while preparations were making for battle; and when his officers rose from, table, and went to their separate stations, he said to them, “Before this time to-morrow I shall have gained a peerage or Westminster- abbey.” It has never been explained, why Bonaparte, having effected his landing, should not have ordered the fleet to return. It is, however, certain, that it was detained by his express command; though after the death of Brueys, he accused 4iim of having lingered there, contrary to his received orders. That admiral, not being able to enter the port of Alexandria, had moored his fleet in Aboukir bay, in a strong and compact line of battle; the headmost vessel being as close as possible to a shoal on the north-west, and the rest of the fleet forming a kind of curve along the line of deep water, so as not to be turned by any means on the south-west. The French admiral had the advantage of numbers in ships, in guns, and in men: he had thirteen ships of the line and four frigates, carrying 1196 guns, and 11,230 men; whereas the English had the same number of ships of the line, and one 50 gun ship, carrying 1012 guns, and 8068 men. They had, however, Nelson for chief-in-command, who, in all cases, was a mighty host in himself. During the whole cruize, it had been Nelson’s practice, whenever circumstances would admit of it, to have his captains on board the Vanguard, and fully explain to them his own ideas of the best modes of attack, whatever might be the situation of the enemy. His officers, therefore, were well acquainted with his principles of tactics and such was his confidence in their abilities and zeal, that the only plan arranged, in case they should find the French at anchor, was for the ships to form as most convenient for their mutual support, and to anchor by the stern. When he had fully explained his intended plan, captain Berry exclaimed with transport, “If we succeed, what will the world say” “There is no if.” replied the admiral “that we shall succeed is most certain: who may live to tell the story is a very different question.”

In 1680 he was chosen F. R. S. probably by the introduction of his friend and school-fellow, Dr. Halley, for whom he had a particular regard, and in whose company he set out on his travels the same year. In the road to Paris they saw the remarkable comet which gave rise to the cometical astronomy of sir Isaac Newton; and our author, apparently by the advantage of his fellow-traveller’s instructions, sent dean Tillotson a description of it. Before he left Paris he received a letter from a friend in the English court, suggesting to him to purchase a place there, and promising his assistance in it. But although Nelson had a great affection for king Charles and the duke of York, and was at first pleased with the thoughts of aU taching himself to the court, on which, however, at that time, he was more likely to confer honour, than to derive any from it, yet he could not resolve upon an affair of such consequence without the approbation of his mother and uncle. He first, therefore, applied to Tillotson to obtain their opinion, with assurances of determining himself by their and the dean’s advice; but, finding no encouragement from either of the parties, he relinquished his intention, and pursued his journey with his fellow-traveller to Rome. Here he became acquainted with a lady considerably older than himself, the lady Theophila Lucy, widow of sir Kingsmili Lucy, of Broxburne, Herts, bare, and second daughter of George earl of Berkeley, who soon discovered a strong passion for him, which concluded in a marriage, after his arrival in England, in 1682. His disappointment was, however, very great, when he found that she had deceived him in one very essential point, that of her having been won over to the popish religion while on this tour; and it was some time before she confessed this change, which was owing to her acquaintance with Bossuet, and conversations at Rome with cardinal Philip Howard, who was grandson of the earl of Arundel, the collector of the Arundelian marbles, &c. and had been raised to the purple by Clement X. in May 1675. Nor was this important alteration of her religious sentiments confined to her own mind, but involved in it her daughter by her first husband, whom she drew over to her new religion; and her zeal for it prompted her even to become a writer in one of the controversies so common at that time. She is the supposed authoress of a piece printed in 1686, 4to, under the title of “A Discourse concerning a Judge of Controversy in matters of Religion, shewing the necessity of such a judge.”

From the Hague he arrived in England in 1691, confirmed in his dislike of the change of government. He had, while abroad, shewn his regard for king James by holding a correspondence with the earl of Melfort, his majesty’s ambassador to the pope, after the revolution; and now declared himself a nonjuror, and left the communion of the church of England, although, we think, without being fully decided. He had, indeed, consulted Tillotson, and followed his opinion, who thought it no better than a trick, detestable in any thing, and especially in religion, to join in prayers where there was any petition which was held to be sinful. On this subject, however, we shall soon find that Nelson changed his opinion. The friendship between him and Tillotson remained the same; and the good archbishop expired in his friend’s arms in 1694, after which Nelson was very instrumental in procuring Mrs. Tillotson’s pension from the crown to be augmented from 400l. to 600l. per annum. Mr. Nelson’s new character unavoidably threw him into new connections, among whom was Mr. Kettlewel), who had resigned his living at Coleshill in Warwickshire, on account of the new oaths, and afterwards resided in London. This pious and learned divine was of his opinion as to leaving the communion of the established church; yet persuaded him to engage in the general service of piety and devotion; observing to him, that he was very able to compose excellent books of that kind, which too would be apt to do more good, as coming from a layman. This recomdation was highly agreeable to Mr. Nelson; and indeed it was their agreement in this, rather than in state-principles, that first made Kettleweli admire our author, who, in return, is said to have encouraged Kettleweli to proceed in that soft and gentle manner, in which he excelled, in managing the nonjurors’ controversy; and animated him besides to begin and prosecute some things for the public good, which otherwise would not have seen the light. Mr. Kettlewell died in 1695, and left Mr. Nelson his sole executor and trustee in consequence of which he published his posthumous piece entitled “An Office for Prisoners,” &c. in 1697. He also published five other of his friend’s posthumous pieces, and furnished the chief materials for the account of his life afterwards.

, an English poetical writer, was a native of Kent, descended from the ancient and honourable family of Nevil, was the son of Richard Nevil of the county of Nottingham, esq. by Anne Mantel, daughter of sir Walter Mantel, of Heyford in Northamptonshire, knight. He was born in 1544. If not educated at Cambridge, his name occurs as having received the degree of M. A. there, along with Robert earl of Essex, July 6, 1581. He was one of the learned men whom archbishop Parker retained in his family, and was his secretary at his grace’s death in 1575. It is no small testimony of his merit and virtues that he was retained in the same of-, fice by the succeeding archbishop, Grindal, to whom, as well as to archbishop Parker, he dedicated his Latin narrative of the Norfolk insurrection under Kett. To this he added a Latin account of Norwich, accompanied by an engraved map of the Saxon and British kings. These were both written in archbishop Parker’s time, who assisted Nevile in the latter. The title is, “Kettus, sive de furoribus Norfolciensium Ketto duce,” Lond. 1575, 4to. reprinted both in Latin and English the same year, in Latin in 1582, and in English in 1615 and 1623. Prefixed are some verses on the death of archbishop Parker, and the epistle dedicatory to Grindal, with a recommendatory Latin poem, by Thomas Drant, the first translator of Horace. His “Norvicus,” published with the preceding, is the first printed account of Norwich; the plates are by R. Lyne and Rem. Hogenbergius, both attached to the household of the learned and munificent Parker. There are copies of almost all the preceding editions in Mr. Cough’s library at Oxford. Strype has published, in the appendix to his Life of Parker, an elegant Latin letter from Nevile to Parker, which is prefixed to the “Kettus.” The first Latin edition, printed in 1575, is dedicated solely to -Parker: and the second, of the same year, which has the two dedications, has also a passage, not in the former, and probably struck out by Parker, which gave offence to the Welsh. It occurs at p. 132, “Sed enim Kettiani rati,” &c, to “Nam prosterquam quod,” &c. p. 133.

, dean of Canterbury, and an eminent benefactor to Trinity college, Cambridge, brother to the preceding, was born in Canterbury, to which city his father, who had spent his younger days at court, had, in his declining years, retired. He entered early at Pembroke-hall, Cambridge, of which he was elected a fellow in November 1570. In 1580, he was senior proctor of the university, and in 1582 was presented to the mastership of Magdalen -college by the then patron of that office, Thomas lord Howard, first earl of Suffolk. In 1587, the queen, to whom he was chaplain, conferred on him the second prebend in the church of Ely, at which time he was also rector of Doddington cum Marchj in the isle of Ely. In 158S, he was elected vice-chancellor of the University, but relinquished the office, in the following year, to Dr. Preston, master of Trinity-hall. While he presided in this station, he took the degree of D. D. During his being vice-chancellor, it is only recorded, that he had occasion to repress the freedoms which two of the university preachers took when speaking in their sermons of the established church.

After Dr. Young had published his celebrated satires, Mr. Newcomb, who was very intimate with him, printed, 1. “The Manners of the Times, in seven Satires.” 2. “An Ode to the Queen, on the happy accession of their Majesties to the Crown,” 1727. 3. “An Ode to the Right Honourable the Earl of Orford, on Retirement,” 1742. 4. “A Collection of Odes and Epigrams, &c. occasioned by the Success of the British and Confederate Arms in Germany,” 1743. 5. “An Ode inscribed to the Memory of the late Earl of Orford,” 1747. 6. Two Odes to his Royal Highness the Duke of Cumberland, on hjs return from Scotland, and on his Voyage to Holland,“1746. 7.” A Paraphrase on some Select Psalms.“8.” The Consummation, a Sacred Ode on the final Dissolution of the World, inscribed to his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury,“1752, 4to. 9.” A Miscellaneous Collection of Original Poems, Odes, Epistles, Translations, &c. written chiefly on political and moral subjects; to which are added, Occasional Letters and Essays, formerly published in defence of the present government and administration,“1756, a large volume in 4to. 10.” Vindicta Britannicn, an Ode on the Royal Navy, inscribed to the King,“1759, 4to, 11.” Novus Epigrammatum Delectus, or Original State Epigrams and Minor Odes, suited to the Times,“1760, 8vo. 12.” The Retired Penitent, being a poetical Version of one of the Rev. Dr. Young’s Moral Contemplations. Revised, approved, and published, with the Consent of that learned and eminent Writer,“1760, 12mo. 13.” A congratulatory Ode to the Queen, on her Voyage to England,“1761, 4to. 14.” On the Success of the British Arms;, A congratulatory Ode addressed to his Majesty,“1763, 4to. 15.” The Death of Abel, a Sacred Poem, written originally in the German language, attempted in the style of Milton,“1763, 12mo. 16. In 1757, he published” Versions of two of Hervey’s Meditations,“in blank verse. And, in 1764, the whole of them were printed in two volumes, 12mo, inscribed to the right hon. Arthur Onslow, sir Thomas Parker, and lady Juliana Penn. Mr. Nichols also supposes, that Dr. Newcomb was the author of” A Supplement to a late excellent poem, entitled Are these things so?“1740; and of” Preexistence and Transmigration, or the new Metamorphosis; a Philosophical Essay on the Nature and Progress of the Soul; a poem, something between a panegyric and a satire," 1743. Dr. Newcomb died probably about 1766^ in which year his library was sold, an4 when he must have been in his ninety-first year.

, an eminent prelate, descended from a non-conformist family, was born at Barton-le-Clay, in Bedfordshire, April 10, 1729, and educated at Abingdon school. In 1745 he entered of Pembroke college, Oxford, but removed some time after to Hertford college, where he took his degree of M. A. in 1753, and became a tutor of considerable eminence. Among other pupils who preserved a high respect for his memory, was the late hon. Charles James Fox. In 1765 he took his degrees of B. D. and D. D. and was appointed chaplain to the earl of Hertford, then lord lieutenant of Ireland, who conferred on him, withiti a year, the see of Dromore. In 1775, he was translated to Ossoryj and in 1778 produced his first workj “An Harmony of the Gospels,” which involved him in a controversy with Dr. Priestley respecting the duration of our Lord’s ministry, Dr. Priestley confining it to one year, while the bishop extended its duration to three years and a half. In 1779 Dr. Newcome was translated to the see of Waterford; and in 1782 published “Observations on our Lord’s conduct as a divine Instructor, and on the excellence of his moral character.” This was followed, ia 1785, by “An attempt towards an improved version, a metrical arrangement, and an explanation of the Twelve Minor Prophets,” 4to, and in 1788, by “An attempt towards an improved version, a metrical arrangement, and an explanation of the prophet Ezekiel,” 4to. He published also about the same time “A Review of the chief difficulties in the Gospel history respecting our Lord’s Resurrection,” 4to, the purpose of which was to correct some errors in his “Harmony.” In 1792 he published at Dublin one of his most useful works, “Art historical view of the English Biblical translations; the expediency of revising by authority our present translation; and the means of executing such a work,” 8vo. Concerning the latter part of this scheme there are many differences of opinion, and in the learned prelate’s zeal to effect a new translation, he is thought, both in this and his former publications, to have been too general in his strictures on the old. He lived, however, to witness Dr. Geddes’s abortive attempt towards a new translation, and the danger of such a work falling into improper hands. For the historical part, the bishop is chiefly indebted to Lewis, but his arrangement is better, and his list of editions more easily to be consulted, and therefore more useful. Except a very valuable Charge, this was the last of Dr. Newcorae’s publications which appeared in his life-time. In January 1795 he was translated to the archbishopric of Armagh. He died at his house in St. Stephen’s Green, Dublin, Jan. 11, 1800, in the seventy-first year of his age; and was interred in the new chapel of Trinity college. Soon after his death was published his “Attempt towards revising our English Translation of the Greek Scriptures, or the New Covenant of Jesus Christ,” &c. The writer of his life in the Cyclopaedia says that this work “has been made the basis of an” Improved Version of the New Testament, published by a Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge, &c.“much to the mortification, as we have heard, of some of the archbishop’s relatives;” nor will our readers fail to sympathize with them, when they are told that this “Improved version” is that which has been so ably and justly censured and exposed by the Rev. Edward Nares, in his “Remarks on the Version of the New Testament lately edited by the Unitarians,” &c. 1810, 8vo. Archbishop Newcome’s interleaved Bible, in four volumes folio, is in the library at Lambeth-palace. He was, unquestionably, an excellent scholar, and well-qualified for biblical criticism; but either his zeal for a new version, or his views of liberality, led him to give too much encouragement to the attempts of those witb whom he never could have cordially agreed, and who seem to consider every deviation from what the majority hold sacred, as an improvement.

In 1664 he took his bachelor’s degree, and in 1667 he was elected fellow of Trinity college. The following year he took his master’s degree, and in 1669 Dr. Barrow resigned his mathematical professorship to him. In 1671 he was elected fellow of the royal society. It has been asserted that at this time he was so poor that he was obliged to apply to the society for a dispensation from the usual contribution df a shilling a week, which all the fellows of the society regularly paid. But this, in the opinion of his excellent biographer, whom we principally follow, seems doubtful. Bis estates, for he had two, were worth about 80l. a year, which, added to his fellowship and professorship, mast have been sufficient for such a trifling expence. He had indeed his mother and her family to support, but when we consider the expence of living at this time, Mr. Newton, with about 200^ a year, his probable income, could not be reckoned a poor man. In 1675 he had a dispensation from king Charles II. to retain his fellowship without taking orders. In 1687 he was chosen one of the delegates to represent the university of Cambridge, before the high commission court, to answer far their refusing to admit father Francis master of arts upon king James’s mandamus, without his taking the oaths prescribed by the statutes; and was greatly instrumental in persuading his colleagues to persist in the maintenance of their rights and privileges. So strenuous indeed was the defence which he made, that James, infatuated as he was at this time, thought proper to drop his pretensions. In 1688 he was chosen by the university of Cambridge, member of the convention parliament, and was again chosen in 1701. In 1696, the earl of Halifax, at that time Mr. Montague, and chancellor of the exchequer, who was a great patron of the learned, wrote to him that he had prevailed on the king to make him warden of the mint, a place worth five or six hundred pounds a year, and which Mr. Montague stated would not require more attendance than he could spare. In this office he did signal service in the great re-coinage which took place soon after, and is said to have saved the nation 80,000l. In 1699 he was made master and worker of the mint, in which situation he continued until his death, and behaved himself with an universal character of integrity and disinterestedness. He had frequent opportunities of employing his skill in mathematics and chemistry, particularly in his “Table of Assay of Foreign Coins,” which is printed at the end of Dr. Arbuthnot’s book of coins.

Sir Isaac was remarkably liberal to all his relations, particularly to his mother’s family by Mr. Smith, giving to one 500l. to another an estate of 4000l. or thereabouts, to make up a loss occasioned by the imprudent marriage of one of them, and to prevent a lawsuit among themselves. This was done many years before his death. He had a half-sister, who had a daughter, to whom he gave the best of educations. This was “the famous witty Miss Barton,” who married Mr. Conduitt; sir Isaac bought an estate of 70l. or 80l. a-year, and gave it to their daughter Miss Conduitt, then very young, who was afterwards married to the eldest son of lord Lymington, from whom the present earl of Portsmouth is descended. He was equally kind to his mother’s relations, the Ayscoughs, some of whom had been imprudent, and needed his help. To one he gave 800l. to another 200l. and many other sums, and frequently became security for them. He is said never to have sold the copies of any of his works, but gave them freely to the booksellers. Mr. Seward appears therefore to have been greatly mistaken in imputing a desire of gain to sir Isaac because he had some concern in the SouthSea bubble, and lost, according to his niece’s report, 20,000l. Even this loss made no alteration in his liberality, and in point of fact, it appears that the greatest instances of his kindness to his relations and friends occurred after the year 1720. The John Newton above mentioned, who inherited his real estate, died in 1737, at the age of thirty. He is said to have been illiterate and intemperate. With him the family of Newton became extinct.

The first life of this illustrious man which appeared was drawn up by Fontenelle, from materials furnished by sir Isaac’s nephew, and published in the memoirs of the French Academy. Why none of his countrymen executed such an undertaking we shall not inquire. This, however, is the life from which all succeeding biographers have extracted their materials, and it formed the ground-work of the long, but somewhat confused account, that has hitherto appeared in this dictionary. But, like almost all the eloges, published in the memoirs of the French Academy, it seems better calculated to display the abilities, and answer the private views of FonteneUe, than to convey accurate information. Mr. Edmund Tumor has lately favoured the world with the original life of Newton, drawn tip by Mr. Conduitt, for the information of FonteneUe, and with a most interesting letter of Dr. Stukely on the same subject, from the Mss. in the possession of the earl of Portsmouth. But although Mr. Tumor’s “Collections for the Town and Soke of Grantham,” the work to which we allude, was published in 1806, Dr. Thomson was the first who availed himself of it, to enrich his valuable “History of the Royal Society.” In the preceding account, therefore, we have generally followed Dr. Thomson, who has unquestionably the merit of giving the public the most accurate and elegant account of the personal history of sir Isaac, a man, said Dr. Johnson, who, had he flourished in ancient Greece, would have been worshipped as a divinity.

and commemorates him also in his “Encomia” in equally high terms. From this school Newton was first sent in his thirteenth year to Trinity-college, Oxford, but removed soon after to Queen’s college, Cambridge. In his return to his native country, he stopt at Oxford for a considerable time, and was re-admitted to Trinity-college, and took ordei-s. He was patronised by Robert earl of Essex, and, probably through his influence, was elected master of the grammar-school at Macclesfield. He likewise practised physic, and published some treatises on that subject. In 1583 he left Macclesfield, on being instituted to the rectory of Little Jlford in Essex, where he taught school, continued the practice of physic, and acquired considerable property. Here he died in 1607, and was buried in his church, to which he left a legacy for ornaments. At Cambridge he became eminent for Latin poetry, and was regarded by scholars as one of the best poets in that language, certainly one of the purest of that period.

His first appearance as a preacher was in St. George’s, Hanover-square, where he officiated for a short time as curate, and afterwards as assistant preacher to Dr. Trebeck, whose ill-health disabled him from performing his duty. His first regular employment was that of reader and afternoon preacher at Grosvenor-chapel in SouthAudley-street. By this appointment, be became well known in the parish, and was soon taken into lord Carpenter’s family to be tutor to his son, afterwards created earl of Tyrconnel. Of this family he speaks with much gratitude, as a situation in which he lived very much at his ease “with not so much as an unkind word, or even a cool look ever intervening;” and, he tells us, that living at no kind of expense, he was tempted to gratify and indulge his taste in the purchase of books, prints, and pictures, and made the beginnings of a collection which was continually receiving considerable additions and improvements. Here he remained, however, for some time, without any promotion; but in 1738, Dr. Pearce, afterwards fcishop of Rochester, but then vicar of St. Martin’s, with svhom he had no acquaintance, sent to him requesting he would preach on a certain day at the chapel in Spring-garden, and immediately after offered to appoint him morning preacher at this chapel. This he gladly accepted, and it became the means of a useful and valuable connection with Dr. Pearce.

In the spring of 1744, Mr. Newton, through the interest of his patron, the earl of Bath, was preferred to the rectory of St. Mary-le-Bow, Cheapside, “so that,” as he observes, “he was forty years old before he obtained any living.” Upon this preferment, he quitted the chapel in Spring-garden. His fellowship also became vacant, and at the commencement in 1745 he took his degree of doctor in divinity. The rebellion in Scotland breaking out soon sifter, he was in all his sermons and discourses so strenuous in the cause of his king and country, that he received some threatening letters, which lord Bath advised him to lay before the secretary of state. One or two of his sermons upon this occasion he published by desire, as well as that which was preached on the 18th December, in the same year, before the House of Commons. In the beginning of the following spring, 1746, he was honoured with additional proofs of the friendship and confidence of the earl of Bath, being intrusted by his lordship with the relation of some secret transactions at court, of which an account may be seen in his life. The king requested that lord Bath would avenge his cause on his servants who had deserted him, by writing a full account of the whole transaction, which he appears to have shown to his chaplain. His majesty also desired it might be printed, at a convenient season; but it perished among the other papers which lord Bath burnt after his son’s death. In the spring 1747, Dr. Newton was chosen lecturer of St. George’s, Hanover- square, in the room of Dr. Savage, deceased. In the month of August following he married his first wife, Jane, the eldest daughter of the rev. Dr. Trebeck; with this lady he lived very happily near seven years. As they had no children, they boarded in the parsonage-house with Dr. Trebeck; Dr. Newton had the best apartment for his pictures, and by the good management of Mrs. Trebeck was freed from the care and trouble of house-keeping, to which he seems to have always had an aversion.

In 1749 he published his edition of “Milton’s Paradise Lost,” which was so favourably received by the public as to go through, in his life-time, eight editions. The title of this work was, “Paradise Lost, a Poem, in twelve books. The author, John Milton: a new edition, with notes of various authors. By Thomas Newton, D. D.” 1749, 2 vols. 4to. The type of the text is remarkably large, and the whole printed with much elegance. It is dedicated to the earl of Bath, who, the editor states, was entitled to this mark of respect, as it was undertaken chiefly at his de sire, and in some measure carried on at his expence,“his lordship having contributed the engravings. The whole dedication is in a style of respect evidently dictated by gratitudes;t cannot be accused of direct flattery, or at least it is a flattery which we could wish there were oftener cause to imitate. His lordship is complimented” on his open profession of the truth of the Christian revelation; his regard for our established church, and regular attendance upon public worship.“Dr. Newton’s design in this edition was to publish the” Paradise Lost,“as the work of a classic author, cum notis variorum, and his first care was to print the text correctly, according to Milton’s own 'editions, that is, the two printed in his life-time. In his preface, he criticises with freedom, and generally, in our opinion, with justice, Milton’s annotators and editors, Patrick Hume, Dr. Bentley, Dr. Pearce, who, with the earl of Bath, first engaged him in this undertaking, and gave him much assistance; Richardson the painter, Warburton, and some anonymous commentators. He was assisted, of living authors, by Dr. Heylin, Dr. Jortin, Dr. Warburton, a copy of Bentley’s edition with Pope’s ms notes, Mr. Richardson, jun. Mr. Thyer of Manchester, and some others. The notes are of various kinds, critical and explanatory; some to correct the errors of former editions, to discuss the various readings, and to establish the genuine text; some to illustrate the sense and meaning, to point out the beauties and defects of sentiment and character, and to commend or censure the conduct of the poem; some to remark the peculiarities of style and language, to clear the syntax, and to explain the uncommon words, or common words used in an uncommon signification; some to consider and examine the numbers, an-d to display the versification, the variety of the pauses, and the adaptness of the sound to the sense; and some to show his imitations and allusions to other authors, sacred or profane, ancient or modern. The preface is followed by a life of Milton, compiled from the best authorities, and with a defence of Milton’s religious and political principles, as far as in Dr. Newton’s opinion they are capable of being defended. This is followed by Addison’s excellent papers on the” Paradise Lost,“taken from the Spectator, and a jnost copious list of nearly a thousand subscribers. The plates were designed by Hayman, and engraved by Grignion, &c. and have very considerable merit. What perhaps distinguishes this edition from all others, is an elaborate verbal index, which was compiled by the indefatigable Mr. Alexander Cruden, author of the Concorto the Bible, Sometime after, Dr. Newton was prevailed upon to publish the” Paradise Regained, and Milton’s smaller poems“upon the same plan, which accordingly appeared in one volume 4to, 1752, but this is not accompanied by a verbal index.” These things,“he says,” detained him too long from other more material studies, though he had the good fortune to gain more by them than Milton did by all his works together." He gained 735l. Among other advantages, he estimates very highly, their having procured him the friendship and intimacy of two such men as bishop Warburton and Dr. Jortin.

, an English divine of great learning and merit, was the son of John Nichols, of Donington, in Bucks, an eminent counsellor, and was born, in 1664. He was educated at St. Paul’s school, London, whence, in 1679, he went to Magdalen hall, Oxford. He removed afterwards to Wadham college, where he took the degree of B. A. Nov. 27, 1683; but being admitted probationer- fellow of Merton college in October 1684, he completed his degree of M. A. there on June 19, 1688. About that time he entered into holy orders, became chaplain to Ralph earl of Montague, and in September 1691, rector of Selsey, near Chichester, in Sussex. He was admitted B. D. July 2, 1692, and D. D. Nov. 29, 1695. After a life entirely devoted to piety and study, we find him, in the close of it, thus describing his situation, in a letter to Robert earl of Oxford:

That he deserved more attention, will appear from the following list of his useful publications. 1. “An Answer to an Heretical Book called `The naked Gospel,' which was condemned and ordered to be publicly burnt by the Convocation of the University of Oxon, Aug. 19, 1690, with some Reflections on Dr. Bury’s new edition of that book,” 1691, 4to. 2. “A short History of Socinianism,” printed with the answer before-mentioned; and dedicated to his patron the earl of Montague. 3, “A Practical Essay on the Contempt of the World,” 1694, 8vo, inscribed to “sir John Trevor, master of the rolls,” to whom the author acknowledges his obligations for “a considerable preferment, bestowed in a most obliging and generous manner.” 4. “The Advantages of a learned Education,” a sermon preached at a school-feast, 1698, 4to. 5. “The Duty of Inferiors towards their Superiors, in five practical discourses; shewing, I. The Duty of Subjects to their Princes. II. The Duty of Children to their Parents. III. The Duty of Servants to their Masters. IV. The Duty of Wives to their Husbands. V. The Duty of Parishioners and the Laity to their Pastors and Clergy. To which is prefixed a dissertation concerning the divine right of Princes,” 1701, 8vo. 6. “An Introduction to a Devout Life, by Francis Sales, bishop and prince of Geneva; translated and reformed from the Errors of the Romish edition. To which is prefixed, a Discourse of the Rise and Progress of the Spiritual Books in the Romish. Church,” 1701, 8vo. 7. “A Treatise of Consolation to Parents for the Death of theirChildren written upon the occasion of the Death of the Duke of Gloucester and addressed to the most illustrious Princess Anue of Denmark,” 1701, 8vo. 8. “God’s Blessing on Mineral Waters;” a Sermon preached at the chapel at Tunbridge Wells,“1702, 4to. 9.” A Conference with a Theist, in five parts; dedicated to the Queen’s most excellent Majesty,“1703, 8vo; of which a third edition, with the addition of two Conferences, the one with a Machiavelian, the other with an Atheist, all carefully revised and prepared for the pres$ by the author, was published in 1723, 2 vols. 8vo. This was particularly designed, says Leland, by the learned and ingenious author, in opposition to the” Oracles of Reason,“published by Blount; and he has not left any material part of that work unanswered. 10.” A Practical Essayon the Contempt of the World; to which is prefixed, a Preface to the Deists and vicious Libertines of the Age,“1704, 2d edit. 8vo. 11.” The Religion of a Princes shewing that the Precepts of the Holy Scriptures are the best maxims of Government,“1704, 8vo, in opposition to Machiavel, Hobbes, c. and written when the queen gave up the tenths and first fruits to the inferior clergy. 12.” Defensio Ecclesiae Anglicanae,“1707, 12mo. 13.” A Paraphrase on the Common Prayer, with Notes on the Sundays and Holidays,“1708, 8vo. 14.” Afflictions the lot of God’s children, a Sermon on the Death of Prince George,“1709, 8vo. 15.” A Comment on the Book of Common Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments,“&c. 1710, folio. This volume has the royal licence prefixed, and a list of more than 900 subscribers. In his dedication to the queen, he notices, as what never happened before, that all the copies were bespoke or paid for before the day of publication. It still continues to be printed in 8vo. The late sir James Stonhouse, in a letter to the rev. Thomas Stedman, dated 1793, says of this work,” I would have you recommend it to every family in your parish as it will shew them the use of the common prayer and psalms, as read in our churches, and be a standard book from father to son.“16.” A Supplement to the Commentary on the Book of Common Prayer,“1711, folio. In the preface to this supplement, Dr. Nichols mentions” a long fit of illness with which God had pleased to visit him, and a very unestablished state of health both before and after it.“This illness appears soon to have ended in his death. 17.” Historic Sacroe Libri VII. Ex Antonii Cocceii Sabellici Eneadibus concinnatum, in usum Scholarurn et Juventutis Christianae,“1711, 12mo. 18” A Commentary on the first fifteen, and part of the sixteenth Articles of the Church of England,“1712, fol. 39.” A Defence of the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England; first written in Latin, for the use of foreigners, by William Nichols, D. D. and translated into English by himself,“1715, 12mo. Dr. Nichols was reckoned a very excellent scholar, and was known abroad as well as at home by the learned correspondence he kept with foreigners of eminence. A volume of such correspondence with JaUlonski, Osterwald, Wetstein, &c. was presented by his widow Catharine Nichols to the archbishop of Canterbury, Oct. 28,* 1712, to be deposited either in Lambeth or St. Martin’s library, and is now among the valuable Mss. at Lambeth, No. 676. He died in the end of April 1712, and was buried in St. Swithin’s church May 5. It may not be improper to distinguish this pious divine from his name-sake William Nichols, M. A. and rector of Stockport, in Cheshire, who was a student of Christ church, Oxford, and. published, 1.” De Literis jnventis Libri sex ad illustrissinuum Principem Thomam, Herbertum, Pembrokiae Comitem,“&c. 1711, 8vo. 2.” Oratio corarn venerabili Spcietate promovenda Religione Christiana habita Londini, Dec. 29, 171.&,“12mo; and, 3.” Περι Αρχων Libri Septem. Accedunt Liturgica," 1717, 12mo.

, an artist of Antwerp, came and settled in England when young, and studied under Tillemans, and afterwards copied Watteau, and Panini; conversations, landscapes, and children’s amusements, were his chief works. Lord Cobham, at Stowe, and the earl of Tilney, employed him at their mansions. He died Jan. 21, 1748, leaving a son, who has long enjoyed the well-earned reputation of an admirable statuary.

, an ingenious artist, was the son of Robert Norgate, D. D. master of Bene‘t college, Cambridge, and in his youth shewed a great inclination to heraldry and limning, in both of which he became very eminent, but his talent in illuminating the initial letters of patents, was chiefly admired. His judgment in paintings also was considered very great, for which reason he was employed by the earl of Arundel, that celebrated collector of antiquities, to purchase pictures for him in Italy. Returning by Marseilles, and by some accident being disappointed of the remittances he expected, and totally unknown there, he was observed by a French gentleman, who, after inquiring into his circumstances, furnished him with the means of returning to his own country on foot. He was afterwards one of the clerks of the signet to ’Charles I. and as such attended his majesty to the North in 1640. He was also made Windsor herald for his great skill in heraldry, in which office he died, at the heralds’ college, Dec. 23, 1650, and was buried at St. Bennet’s, Paul’s Wharf, leaving the character of an honest, amiable, and accomplished man. Lloyd tells us that he left manuscripts to several of his friends to be published, but his intention in that point has not been executed. His letters, giving an account of the expedition against the Scotch in 1639, are among Dr. Birch’s “Historical Letters,” 3 vols. ms. in the British Museum, Ayscough’s catalogue. As an illuminator, the evidence of his abilities is a curious patent discovered some years ago. The late earl of Stirling received from a relation an old box of neglected writings, among which he found the original commission of Charles J. appointing his lordship’s predecessor, Alexander earl of Stirling, the celebrated poet, commander in chief of Nova Scotia, with the confirmation of the grant of that province made by James I. In the initial letter are the portraits of the king sitting on the throne, delivering the patent to the earl, and round the border representations in miniature of the customs, huntings, fishings, and productions, of the country, all in the highest preservation, and so admirably executed, that it was believed of the pencil of Vanclyck. But Mr. Walpole ascribes it to Norgate, who was allowed the best illuminator of that age.

He usually attended the Norfolk circuit, and was soon employed as counsel in every important cause. When the great level of the fens was to be divided, he was appointed chairman in the commission, and directed the execution in such a manner as greatly to augment his fame. Dr. Lane, then bishop, likewise constituted him judge of the royal franchise of Ely; a creditable employment, which increased his business in the country. He was also appointed to assist the earl of Oxford, lord chief justice in eyre, in a formal iter, or justice-seat of the forests, which was of great pecuniary advantage to him, and gave him an idea of the ancient Jaw in the immediate practice of it He was promoted to be the king’s solicitor- general, in the room of sir Edward Turner, made lord chief baron, and was knighted the same day, May 23, 1671. He now dropt the circuit, and was chosen to represent the borough of Lynn, in the house of commons. In 1673 he was appointed attorney-general, on the promotion of sir Heneage Finch to the great seal. In former times, when he applied close to his studies, and spent his days in his chamber, he was subject to the spleen, and apprehensive of many imaginary diseases; and by way of prevention, wore warm cloathing, and leather skull-caps, and inclined much to quackery; but as business flowed in, his complaints vanished, and his skull-caps were destined to lie in a drawer, and receive hjs money. Though his profits were now very great, while the king approved his judgment and fidelity, and the chiefs of the law were mostly his friends, yet he soon grew weary of his post, and wished for another, though less profitable, in a calmer region. The court was sunk in pleasure and debauchery; averse to, and ignorant of all business. The great men were many of them corrupt, false, and treacherous; and were continually tormenting him with improper projects and unreasonable importunities. Among all the preferments of the law, his thoughts were most fixed upon that of lord chief justice of the common pleas; the business there being wholly matter of pure law, and having little to do in criminal causes, or court intrigues: and, on the death of lord chief justice Vaughan in 1674 he succeeded to his wishes. While he presided in this court, he was very attentive to regulate what was amiss in the law, arising either from the nature of things changing, or from the corruption of agents: when any abuse or necessity of regulation appeared, he noted it down, and afterwards digested his thought, and brought it into the form of a tract, from which he might prepare acts of parliament, as he had encouragement and opportunity. He had a great hand in “The Statute of Frauds and Perjuries,” of which the lord Nottingham said, that every line was worth a subsidy. In 1679, the king, being under great difficulties from the parliament, in order to bring them to better temper, and that it might not be said he wanted good counsellors, made a reform of his privy-council, dissolved the old, and constituted a new one, which took in the lord Shaftsbury as president, and the heads of the opposition in both houses; but that he might not be entirely at their mercy, he joined some of his friends, in whose fidelity and judgment he had an entire confidence, among whom lord chief justice North had the honour to be one. Not long after this, he was taken into the cabinet, that he might be assistant, not only in the formal proceedings of the privy-council, but also in the more private consultations of his majesty’s government. He was also often obliged to fill the office of speaker, and preside in the House of Lords, in the room of the chancellor Nottingham, who, towards the latter end of his time, was much afflicted with the gout and other infirmities. From his interest with the king he was considered as probable successor to Nottingham, and accordingly, on his death, in 1683, the great seal was committed to his custody, on which occasion he was created a peer, by the title of lord Guilford, barori of Guilford, in the county of Surrey, by patent bearing date Sept. 27th, 1683.

, more familiarly known as Lord North, was the eldest son of Francis, first earl of Guilford, and was born April 13, 1732. He commenced his education at Eton school, and completed it at Trinity college, Oxford, of which his father had been a member, and which the family have generally preferred, from their relationship to the founder, sir Thomas Pope. At school and college, where he took both his degrees in arts (that of M. A. in March 1750) he obtained considerable reputation for his proficiency in classical literature; and was not less respected for the vivacity of his conversation, and his amiable temper, qualities which he displayed during life, and for which his family is still distinguished. He afterwards made what used to be called the grand tour, and applied with much assiduity to the acquisition of diplomatic knowledge. He also studied with great success the Germanic constitution, under the celebrated Mascow, one of the professors of Leipsic, whose lectures on the droit publique were at that time much frequented by young Englishmen of fortune and political ambition; and this mode of education being much a favourite with George II. courtiers thought it a compliment to his majesty to adopt his sentiments in this branch of their sons’ accomplishments. Celebrated, however, as professor Mascow once was, when we came to his name we were not able to discover any biographical memoir of him, or any information, unless that he outlived his faculties for some years, and died about 1760.

On lord North’s return home, he commenced his parliamentary career in 1754, as representative for the family borough of Banbury, in Oxfordshire. On June 2, 175y, during the administration of Mr. Pitt, afterwards lord Chatham, he was appointed one of the commissioners of the treasury, and continued in that office until 1763, in which last year Mr. George Grenville succeeded the earl of Bute, as first lord. In the same year lord North began to contribute his more active services, as a statesman, by taking the management of the measures adopted in consequence of the publication of Mr. Wilkes’s “North Briton,” and other parts of that gentleman’s political conduct, to his final expulsion from the House of Commons. It must be confessed that these measures afford but an inauspicious commencement of his lordship’s political career, for without answering their purpose, or suppressing the spirit of faction, they served only to give that importance to Wilkes which he then could not otherwise have attained. In the same year lord North was a supporter of the right of taxing American commodities, and of the memorable stamp act. In 1765, on the dissolution of Mr. Grenville’s administration, which was succeeded by that of the marquis of Rockingham, lord North retired from office with his colleagues, but persisted in his sentiments respecting the taxation of the colonies, and divided with the minority against the repeal of the stamp act. The Rockingham administration scarcely survived this well-intentioned measure, and when succeeded by that of the duke of Grafton, lord North was, in August 1766, appointed joint receiver (with George Cooke, esq.) and paymaster of the forces; and in Dec. 1767, was appointed chancellor of the exchequer, and a lord of the treasury. The talents he had already displayed were thought to qualify him in an eminent degree for those situations, especially that of chancellor of the exchequer; and his abilities for debate were often displayed to advantage. During a period of considerable political turbulence, he was advanced Jan 28, 1770, to the place of first lord of the treasury, which he held with that of chancellor of the exchequer during the whole of his eventful administration, which finally terminated in March 1782.

In March 1756, he married Anne, daughter and co-heir of George Speke, of White Lackington, in the county of Somerset, esq. by whom he had a numerous issue. He was succeeded in titles and estate by his eldest son, George Augustus, who dying without male issue in 1794, was succeeded by his brother Francis, present and fourth earl of Guilford. Of the talents of lord North, much was said during his administration, and it is perhaps his highest praise, that against such a force of opposition, he could act so well upon the defensive. With many personal defects, he contrived to exhibit a species of eloquence which seemed easy and habitual, and always commanded attention. On subjects of finance, his abilities were generally acknowledged^ he reasoned closely and he replied with candour and temper, not unfrequently, however, availing himself of his wit. But as an orator, there were men of far more brilliant talents opposed to him; and as a statesman in general, he cannot be compared to his successor Pitt. He perhaps approaches the nearest to sir Robert Walpole, and like him seldom displayed the commanding energies of mind, but was content to follow the track of official duties, and to defend individual measures, arising out of temporary necessities, without professing any general system applicable to all occasions. But whatever were the errors or defects in lord North’s public conduct,' there lies no impeachment on his integrity. He neither enriched himself nor his family, nor was he ever accused of turning ministerial information. or influence to the purposes of pecuniary emolument. To the last moment of his life, he reviewed his conduct and his principles with satisfaction, and professed his readiness to defend them against any inquiry that could be instituted. What such inquiry can produce, must be the subject of future discovery. All we know at present is, that the moment he resigned, his public accusers became silent.

, an English antiquary, was the son of George North, citizen of London, and was born in 1710. He received his education at St. PauPs school, whence, in 1725, he went to Bene't college in Cambridge, where he took his degrees of B. A. in 1728, and M. A. in 1744. In 1729 he was admitted into deacon’s orders, and went to officiate as curate at Codicote, a small village near Welwyn, in Herts. In 1741 he published, without his name, “An Answer to a scandalous libel, entitled The Impertinence and Imposture of Modern Antiquaries displayed.” This “scandalous libel,” a quarto pamphlet, professed to be a “refutation of the *ev. Mr. Wise’s Letter to Dr. Mead, concerning the white horse, and other antiquities in Berkshire,” and was written by the rev. Will. Asplin, vicar of Banbury, and had a preface added to it by William Burnstead of Upton, co, Warwick, esq. formerly the supercargo of the prince Frederic, East Indiaman. Mr. North’s refutation and censure of the pert arrogance of Messrs. Asplin and Bumstead recommended him not only to the notice and esteem of the gentleman whose cause he had so generously espoused (to whom he was at that time a perfect stranger), but also of several dignified members of the Society of Antiquaries, into which he was elected early in 1742, and soon distinguished himself as a very useful member, and drew up in that year, a catalogue of the earl of Oxford’s coins, for the public sale of them.

Soon after this period he was afflicted with disease and melancholy, which seem to have interrupted his accustomed studies, as we hear no more of him until 1766, when he addressed to the earl of Morton, then president of the Royal Society, some valuable observations on the introduction of Arabic numerals into this kingdom. These were afterwards communicated to the Society of Antiqaaries by Mr. Gough, and are printed in the Archaeologia, vol. X. In 1769, when this society determined to publish their transactions, application was made to Mr. North for his materials towards compiling a history of its foundation. With this he complied, but the greater part of his collections for the purpose had been burnt, with his other papers, by himself, during a dangerous illness about four years before, “from a conviction,” he says, how ungenerously such things are commonly used after a person’s death."

, esq. an inhabitant, if not a native, of Sharpen haule, or Sharpenhoe, in Bedfordshire, was a barrister at law, and a zealous Calvinist in the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign, as appears by several tracts, printed together in 1569, 8vo. He was counsel to the Stationers’ company, in whose books we find accounts of the fees paid to him set down, the last of which was between 1583 and 1584, within which period we imagine he died. He was contemporary with Sternhold and Hopkins, and assistant to them in their noted version of the Psalms, twenty-seven of which he turned into English metre, and in all the editions of them, the initials of his name are prefixed. He also translated into English, an epistle from Peter Martyr to Somerset the protector, in 1550; and under the same patronage, Calvin’s Institutes. Being a close intimate and fellow-student with Thomas Sackville, esq. afterwards earl of Dorset, he is said to have joined with him in the composing one dramatic piece, of which Mr. Norton wrote the three first acts, entitled “Ferrex and Porrex;” afterwards reprinted, with considerable alterations, under the title of “Gorboduc;” but Mr. Warton seems to doubt his having any, or at least much share in this drama.

, a nobleman of poetical celebrity, was a descendant from the Nugents of Carlanstown, in the county of Westmeath, and was a younger son of Michael Nugent, by Mary, daughter of Robert lord Trimleston. He was chosen M. P. for St. Mawes, in Cornwall, in 1741; appointed comptroller of the household of Frederick, prince of Wales, in 1747; a lord of the treasury in 1754; one of the vice-treasurers of Ireland in 1759; and a lord of trade in 1766. In 1767 he was created baron Nugent and viscount Clare, and in 1776 earl Nugent, with remainder to his son-in-law, the late marquis of Buckingham. His lordship was thrice married; his second wife was Anne, sister and heiress to secretary Craggs, the friend of Pope and Addison, by whom he acquired a large fortune. She was at the time of her marriage to him, in 1736, in her second widowhood, having

Warwickshire, and secondly of John Knight, esq. of Bellowes, or Belhouse, or Gosfield-hall, in Essex. Much of Pope’s correspondence with this lady is inserted in the supplementary volume of the last edition of that poet’s works. Earl Nugent died Oct. 13, 1788.

Earl Nugent cultivated literature not unsuccessfully, had agreeable talents for poetry, but never rose to great eminence as a politician. Yet he was a steady friend to his country (Ireland), and always a powerful pleader for her interests. This he evinced rather whimsically on one occasion in 1775, by addressing “Verses to the Queen, with a New Year’s Gift of Irish Manufacture,” a 4to poem, accompanied by a present of Irish grogram. The wits of the time asserted that her majesty was graciously pleased to thank the noble author for both his pieces of stuff. Lord Orford says that Earl Nugent “was one of those men of parts whose dawn was the brightest moment of a long life; and who, though possessed of different talents, employed them in depreciating his own fame, and destroying all opinion of his judgment, except in the point of raising bimself to honours. He was first known by the noble ode on his own conversion from popery; yet, strong as was the energy and reasoning in it, his arguments operated but temporary conviction on himself, for he died a member of the church he had exposed so severely.” So much was this ode admired that, as he was known to associate with the wits of Pope’s circle, and those who adorned the court of Frederick prince of Wales, he was supposed to have been assisted by some of them; but for this there seems no reasonable ground. Many of his poetical productions are good, and he was certainly known to be capable of the best of them, while he could at the same time descend to the worst, inconscious of their inferiority. A volume of his poems was published anonymously by Dodsley, and entitled “Odes and Epistles,” Lond. 1739, 8vo, 2d. edit. This contains the ode above mentioned on his religion, which is addressed to William Pulteney, esq. There are also other pieces by him in Dodsley’s collection, and the *' New Foundling Hospital for Wit.“His” Verses to the Queen,“and his” Faith, a poem," were the only ones published separately, the latter in 1774, and the former in 1775. The latter was a strange attempt to overturn the Epicurean doctrine by that of the Trinity, and was certainly one of those productions by which, as lord Orford observes, he depreciated his own fame.

, an English nonconformist, was a native of Sussex, descended of a genteel family there, and born about 1596. After a proper foundation at the grammarschool, he was sent to Oxford, and entered a commoner of Brazen-nose college in 1615; whence he removed in a little time to Magdalen-hall, for the sake of a puritanical tutor to whom he was greatly attached. He took the degrees in arts in 1619 and 1622; about which time he entered into holy orders, and was, some time in 1620, admitted to officiate, it does not appear in what capacity, in St. Michael’s church, Cornhill, London. Here having disclosed some of those opinions which were hostile to the constitution of the Church of England, he became obnoxious to the censures of the episcopal court; to avoid which, he went, with others of his persuasion, to Holland, in 1633. He continued for the most part at Arnheim in Guelderland, till 1640; when, his party gaining the ascendancy, and he fancying that his services would not only be useful but safe, he returned home, and was soon after made minister of Kimbolton, in Huntingdonshire, by Edward earl of Manchester.

In the mean time, Ockley was one of those unfortunate persons, whom Pierius Valerianus would have recorded, in his book “Be infelicitate literatorum.” In his “Inaugural Oration,” printed in 1711, he calls fortune venefica and noverca, speaks of mordaces euro 1 as things long familiar to him; and, in Dec. 1717, we find him actually under confinement for debt. In the introduction to the second volume of his “Saracenical History,” he not only tells us so, but even stoically dates from Cambridge-castle. His biographer thus accounts for his unfortunate situation: Having married very young, he was encumbered with a family early in life; his preferment in the church was not answerable to his reputation as a scholar; his patron, the earl of Oxford, fell into disgrace when he wanted him most; and, lastly, he had some share of that common infirmity among the learned, which makes them negligent of oeconomy, and a prudential regard to outward things, without which, however, all the wit, and all the learning, in the world, will but serve to render a man the more miserable.

, or of Kent, so called because he was a native of that county in England, where he flourished in the twelfth century, was a Benedictine monk, of which order his learning and eloquence raised him to be prior and abbot, first of St. Saviour’s, and afterwards of Battleabbey. He died in March 1200. Thomas a Becket was his friend, and his panegyric was made by John of Salisbury. He composed several works, as “Commentaries upon the Pentateuch;” “Moral Reflections upon the Psalms, the Old Testament, and the Gospels;” a treatise entitled, “De onere Philistini;” another, “De raoribus ecclesiasticis” a third, “De vitiis & virtutibus animae,” &c. Besides these, a “Letter to a brother novitiate,” in the abbey of Igny, is printed by Mabillon in the first tome of “Analects;” and another “Letter to Philip earl of Flanders,” about 1171, upon the miracles of St. Thomas, is in the “Collectio amplissima veterum monumentorum,” p. 882, published by the fathers Martenne and Durand, Benedictines.

, a very industrious adventurer in literary speculations, was born in or near Edinburgh in November 1600. He was of an ancient family in that country; but his father, having spent the estate, became a prisoner in the King’s Bench, and could give his son but little education. The youth, however, being very industrious, acquired some little knowledge of Latin grammar; and afterwards got so much money, as not only to release his father from the gaol, but also to bind himself apprentice to one Draper, a dancing-master in London. He had not been long under this master before he made himself perfect in the art, and by his obliging behaviour to the scholars, acquired money enough from them to buy out the remainder of his time. He now began teaching on his own account, and being soon accounted one of the best masters in the profession, he was selected to dance in the duke of Buckingham’s great masque; in which, by an unlucky step in high capering, the mode of that time, he hurt the inside of his leg, which occasioned some degree of lameness, but did not prevent his teaching. Among others, he taught the sisters of sir Ralph, afterwards lord Hopton, at Wytham in Somersetshire and at leisure hours he learned of that accomplished knight how to handle the pike and musket. In 1633, when Wentworth earl of Stafford became lord deputy of Ireland, he took him into his family to teach his children; and Ogilby, writing an excellent hand, was frequently employed by the earl to transcribe papers for him.

A little before this time, she formed an illicit connection with Arthur May n waring, esq. who interested himself greatly in the figure she made upon the stage; and it was in some measure owing to the pains he took in improving her natural talents, that she became, as she soon did, the delight and chief ornament of it. After the death of this gentleman, which happened in Nov. 1712, she engaged in a like commerce with brigadier-gen. Charles Churchill, esq. She had one son by Maynwaring; and another by Churchill, who afterwards married the lady Anna Maria Walpole, natural daughter of the earl of Orford. About 1718, Savage, the poet, being reduced to extreme necessity, his very singular case so affected Mrs. Oldfield, that she settled on him a pension of 50L per annum, which was regularly paid as long as she lived. This, added to other generous actions, together with a distinguished taste in elegance of dress, conversation, and manners, have generally been spread as a veil over her failings; and such was her reputation, that upon her death, which happened Oct. 23, 1730, her corpse was carried from her house in Grosvenor-street to the Jerusalem Chamber, and after lying in state, was conveyed to Westminster abbey, the pall being supported by lord De la Warr, lord Hervey, the right hon* George Bubb Doddington, Charles Hedges, esq. Walter Carey, esq. and captain Elliot; her eldest son Arthur Maynwaring, esq. being chief mourner. She was interred towards the west end of the south aile, between the monumerits of Craggs and Congreve. At her own desire, she was elegantly dressed in her coffip, with a very fine Brussels laced head, a Holland shift, with a tucker and double ruffles of the same lace, a pair of new kid gloves, and her body wrapt up in a winding-sheet. On this account, Pope introduced her, in the character of Narcissa, in Epistle I. line 245,

But what turned to his greater advantage was, his being made known to the earl of Kingston, who became his patron, and entertained him with great respect at his seat at Holme-Pierpoint; apparently in the view of making him his chaplain, if he would qualify himself for it by entering into orders. But he had the utmost aversion for that office, as appears from his “Satire,” addressed to a friend, who was about to leave the university, and come abroad into the world; in which he lets him know, that he was deterred from the thought of such an office by the servility too often expected from it. He remained, however, an inmate in the earPs house, till his death, which was occasioned by the small-pox, Dec. 9, 1683, in his 30th year. He was buried in the church of Holme-Pierpoint, the earl attending as chief mourner, who soon after erected a monument to his memory, with an inscription expressing his eloge in Latin, to this effect: “No poet was more inspired with the sacred furor, none more sublime in sentiments, none more happily bold in expression, than he.” In his person, he was tall of stature, very thin, long-visaged, with a high nose and prominent; his aspect unpromising, but satire was in his eye. His constitution was tender, and inclined to a consumption; and not a little injured by apJication to learned authors, in whom he was well versed. His genius lay chiefly to satire, where, however, he did not always keep within the bounds of decency.

His works have been frequently printed in one volume, 8vo; in 1722, in 2 vols. 12mo, with the “Author’s Life;” and lately, under the inspection of captain Thomson, in 3 vols. 12mo. They consist of no less than fifty pieces; the chief of which are, “The Four Satires upon the Jesuits,” written in 1679. In 1681 he published “Some new pieces” by the author of the Satires upon the Jesuits, 8vo. The fame he acquired by these satires procured him the title of the English Juvenal, and although his language is frequently harsh and coarse, there are many passages of vigour and elegance, and much vivacity of description. Pope used to say, “Oldham is a very indelicate writer; he has strong rage, but too much like Billingsgate. Lord Rochester had much more delicacy, and more knowledge of mankind. Oldham is too rough and coarse. Rochester is the medium between him and the earl of Dorset, who is the best.”

, a writer well known in the reigns of queen Anne and George I. but of whom little is remembered, unless the titles of some few of his literary productions. One of his names took the degree of M. A. at Hart-hall, Oxford, in 1670. He was one of the original authors of “The Examiner,” and continued to write in that paper as long as it was kept up. He published, “A Vindication of the Bishop of Exeter” (Dr. Blackall), against Mr. Hoadly. 2. A volume called “State Tracts” and another called “State and Miscellany Poems, by the author of the Examiner,” 1715, 8vo. He translated, 3. The “Odes, Epodes, and Carmen Seculare, of Horace;” wrote, 4. The “Life of Edmund Smith,” prefixed to his works, 1719; and, 5. “Timothy and Philatheus, in which the principles and projects of a late whimsical book, entitled The Rights of the Christian Church, &c. are fairly stated and answered in their kind, &c. By a Layman,” 1709, 1710, 3 vols. 8vo. This is the work to which Pope makes Lintot the bookseller allude, in their pleasant dialogue on a journey to Oxford, and which perhaps may also convey one of Pope’s delicate sneers at Oldisworth’s poetry . He also published a translation of “The Accomplished Senator,” from the Latin of Gozliski, bishop of Posnia, 1733, 4to. In the preface to this work he defends his own character as a writer for the prerogative and the ministry, and boldly asserts his independence, while he admits that he wrote under the earl of Oxford. He insinuates that some things have been published under his name, in which he had no hand, and probably the above-mentioned “State and Miscellany Poems” were of that number. His attachment to the Stuart family occasioned a report that he was killed at the battle of Preston in 1715; but it is certain that he survived this engagement many years, and died Sept. 15, 1734.

Mr. Oldmixon, though rigid to others, is far from unblameable himself, in the very particulars concerning which he is so free in his accusations, and that sometimes even without the least regard to truth; one remarkable instance of this kind was his infamous attempt to charge three eminent persons with interpolation in Lord Clarendon’s “History.” This, however, was fully and satisfactorily disproved by bp. Atterbury, the only survivor of them; and the pretended interpolation, after a space of almost ninety years, was produced in his lordship’s own hand-writing. Yet, notwithstanding Oldmixon’s indignation against this pretended crime, it is a fact that when employed by bishop Kennet in publishing the historians in his “Collection,” he made no scruple to pervert “Daniel’s Chronicle” in numberless places, which renders Rennet’s first edition of little value. His principal works were, the “History of the Stuarts,” folio, and “the Critical History of England;” besides which he wrote, 1. “Reflections on Dr. Swift’s Letter to the Earl of Oxford about the English Language,” 1712, 8vo. 2. “A volume of Poems,” 1714. 3. “The Life of Arthur Maynwaring, esq.” whose “Posthumous Works” were collected by Mr. Oldmixon in 1715, and whom he had considerably assisted in “The Medley.” 4. “The Life of Queen Anne.” 5. “A Review of Dr. Grey’s Defence of our ancient and modern Historians.” He wrote also a tragedy, an opera, and two pastorals; and his name is to one of Curll’s infamous publications, called “Court tales, or a History of the Amours of the present Nobility,” of which a second edition was published in 1731.

, M. A. president of Clare r haH in Cambridge, and vicar of Great Gransden in Huntingdonshire, was born at Thorp, near Wakefield in Yorkshire (of which place his father was vicar), and was proctor of the university in 1635. On the breaking out of the rebellion, he was very active in collecting the university-plate, and was intrusted in conveying it to the king at Nottingham in August, 1642; but for this, and other acts of loyalty, he was turned out of his fellowship by the earl of Manchester, April 8, 1644, and forced to quit his vicarage. After having suffered much during the usurpation, he was, in 1660, restored both to his fellowship and vicarage; and Sept. 4, that year, installed prebendary of Worcester; and bishop Gunning (to whom he had formerly been tutor), collated him to the archdeaconry of Ely, Nov. 8, into which he was inducted, by proxy, Nov. 17, 1679. This dignity, however, after a little more than a year’s possession, he voluntarily resigned, not thinking himself, in his great humility, sufficient to discharge the duty of it. He was a Jearned man, and no less eminent for his piety and charities. He published “Dr. Jackson’s works,” and Mr. Herbert’s “Country Parson,” to each of which he prefixed a preface. He dred Feb. 20, 1C 86, and was interred in Great Gransden church, where is an inscription to his memory, recording his various charities.

These errors, and others connected with and flowing from these, together with that “furor allegoricus,” above mentioned, which pushed him on to turn even the whole law and gospel into allegory, are the foundation of all that enmity which has been conceived against Origen, and of all those anathemas with which he has been loaded. His damnation has been often decreed in form; and it has been deemed heretical even to suppose him saved. John Picus, earl of Mirandula, having published at Rome, among his 900 propositions, that it is more reasonable to believe Origen saved than damned, the masters in divinity censured him for it; asserting, that his proposition was rash, blameable, savouring of heresy, and contrary to the determination of the catholic church. This is what Picus himself relates in his “Apolog. c. 7.” Stephen Binct, a Jesuit, published a book at Paris in 1629, concerning the salvation of Origen, in which he took the affirmative side of the question, but not without diffidence and fear. This work is written in the form of a trial; witnesses are introduced, and depositions taken; and the cause is fullypleaded pro and con. The witnesses for Origen are Merlin, Erasmus, Genebrard, and Picus of Mirandula: after this, cardinal Baronius, in the name of Bellarmine, and of all who are against Origen, makes a speech to demand the condemnation of the accused; on whose crimes and heresies having expatiated, “Must I,” says he, “at last be reduced to such an extremity as to be obliged to open the gates of hell, in order to shew that Origen is there otherwise men will not believe it. Would it not be enough to have laid before you his crime, his unfortunate end, the sentence of his condemnation delivered by the emperors, by the popes, by the saints, by the fifth general council, not to mention others, and almost by the mouth of God himself? Yet, since there is no other method left but descending into hell, and shewing there that reprobrate, that damned Origen; come, gentlemen, I am determined to do it, in order to carry this matter to the highest degree of evidence: let us, in God’s name, go down into hell, to see whether he really be there or not, and to decide the question at once.” The seventh general council has quoted a book, and by quoting it “has declared it to be of sufficient authority, to furnish us with good and lawful proofs to support the determination of the council with regard to images. Why should not we, after the example of that council, make use of the same book to determine this controversy, which besides is already but too much cleared up and decided? It is said there, that a man, being in great perplexity about the salvation of Origen, after the fervent prayers of an holy old man, saw plainly, as it were, a kind of hell open; and looking in, observed the heresiarchs, who were all named to him, one after another, by their own names: and in the midst of them he saw Origen, who was there damned among the others, loaded with horror, flames, and confusion.”

The next year he published “The Picture of a Papist,” in the same style, deducing the superstitions of the Romish church from the rites of paganism. In this work he denies himself to be the author of a book called “The double Pp. or the picture of a traiterous Jesuit:” as also of some other things, which the papists had fathered upon him. The work is dedicated to Robert earl of Salisbury, chancellor of the university, and both were reprinted together in 1606, 8vo.

, an English writer of considerable abilities, was born about 1589. He was descended from an ancient family, who had been long seated at Chicksand, near Shefford, in Bedfordshire, where his grandfather, and father, sir John Osborne, were men of fortune, and, according to Wood, puritans, who gave him what education he had at home, but never sent him to either school or university. This he appears to have afterwards much regretted, on comparing the advantages of public and private education. As soon, however, as he was of age, he commenced the life of a courtier, and being taken into the service of the Pembroke family, became master of the horse to William earl of Pembroke. Upon the breaking out of the civil wars, he sided with the parliament, but not in all their measures, nor all their principles; yet they conferred some public employments upon him; and, having married a sister of one of Oliver’s colonels, he was enabled to procure his son John a fellowship in All-souls’ college, Oxford, by the favour of the parliamentary visitors of that university, in 1648. After this he resided there himself, purposely to superintend his education; and also to print some books of his own composition. Accordingly, among others, he published there his “Advice to a Son,” the first part in 1656; which going through five editions within two years, he added a second, 1658, in 8vo. Though this had the usual fate of second parts, to be less relished than the first, yet both were eagerly bought and admired at Oxford, especially by the young students; which being observed by the “godly ministers,” as Wood calls them, they drew up a complaint against the said books, as instilling atheistical principles into the minds of the youth, and proposed to have them publicly burnt. Although this sentence was not carried into execution, there appeared so many objections to the volumes, that an order passed the 27th of July, 1658, forbidding all booksellers, or any other persons, to sell them. But our author did not long survive this order, dykig Feb. 11, 1659, aged about seventy. For the accusation of atheism there seems little foundation; but many of his sentiments are otherwise objectionable, and the quaintness of his style, and pedantry of his expression, have long ago consigned the work to oblivion. His other publications were, 1. “A seasonable Expostulation, with the Netherlands,” &c. 1652, 4to. 2. “Persuasive to mutual compliance under the present government.” 3. “Plea for a free State compared with Monarchy.” 4. “The private Christian’s non ultra,” &c. 1G56, 4to. 5. A volume in 8vo, containing, “The Turkish policy, &c. a Discourse upon Machiavel, &c. Observations upon the King of Sweden’s descent into Germany a Discourse upon Piso and Vindex, &c. a Discourse upon the greatness and corruption of the Court of Rome another upon the Election of Pope JLeo X. Political occasion for the defection from the Church of Rome a Discourse in vindication of Martin Luther.” Besides these were published, 1. “Historical Memoirs on the Reigns of Queen Elizabeth and King James.” 2. “A Miscellany of sundry Essays, &c. together with political deductions from the History of the Earl of Essex,” c. Other pieces have been ascribed to him on doubtful authority. A collection of his works was published in 1689, 8vo and again, 1722, in 2 vols. 12mo.

, a celebrated bishop of Salisbury, in the eleventh century, was born of a noble family in Normandy. He possessed great learning, joined to great prudence, and accompanied with talents for military affairs; and his life, says Butler, was that of a saint, in all the difficult states of a courtier, soldier, and magistrate. In his early years he succeeded his father in the earldom of Séez, but distributed the greatest part of his revenues to the church and poor, and followed William the Conqueror into England in 1066. This prince rewarded Osmund by making him earl of Dorset, then chancellor, and afterwards bishop of Salisbury. With a view of pleasing the king, he was weak enough to desert the cause of Anselm, his archbishop; but, repenting almost immediately, he requested absolution from him, and obtained it. He built, or rather completed, the first cathedral of Salisbury, begun by his predecessor, and dedicated it in 1092; and it being destroyed by lightning, he rebuilt it in 1099, and furnished it with a library. To regulate the divine service, he compiled for his church the breviary, missal, and ritual, since called “The Use of Sarum,” which was afterwards adopted in most dioceses in England, until queen Mary’s time, when several of the clergy obtained particular licences to say the Roman breviary, but many of them were printed even in her reign. The first Salisbury missal is dated 1494, and was printed abroad. The last was printed at London in 1557. Osmund died Dec. 3, 1099. In 1457, his remains were removed to our lady’s chapel in the present cathedral, where they are covered with a marble slab, with only the inscription of the year 1099. His sumptuous shrine was destroyed in the reign of Henry VIII.

Some exception, however, must be made. The earl of Plymouth, one of king Charles’s natural sons, procured for him a cornet’s commission in some troops then (in 1677) sent into Flanders. But Otway did not prosper in his military character: for he soon left his commission behind him, whatever was the reason, and came back to London, where he resumed his dramatic labours. His next tragedy, “Caius Marius,” was acted in 1680, and had some success, probably from the author’s availing himself of the clamour about the popish plot, and artfully applying the dissentions of Marius and Scylla to the factious in the reign of Charles II. But a higher degree of fame awaited him from his admirable tragedy, “The Orphan,” which appeared the same year, “one of the few pieces,” says Dr. Johnson, “that keep possession of the stage, and has pleased for almost (more than) a century, through all the vicissitudes of dramatic fashion. Of this play nothing new can easily be said. It is a domestic tragedy drawn from middle life. Its whole power is upon the affections; for it is not written with much comprehension of thought, or elegance of expression.” On a tragedy that has produced such effects for so great a length of time, minute criticism would be but idly employed. In this, too, some political allusions have been conjectured, but to us they appear too obscure for application, and were they otherwise, cannot now be felt.

In 1631, our author published, in a small octavo, “Arithmetics in numeris et speciebus institutio, quae turn logisticae turn analytics, atque totius mathematics clavis est.” About 1628, the earl of Arundel living then at West-Horsely, though he afterwards bought a house at Albury, sent for Oughtred to instruct his son lord William Howard in the mathematics; and this “Clavis” was first drawn up for the use of the young nobleman. In this little manual, although intended for a beginner, were found so many excellent theorems, several of which were entirely new, both in algebra and geometry, that it was universally esteemed, both at home and abroad, as a surprizingly-rich cabinet of mathematical treasures; and the general plan of it has been since followed by the very best authors upon the subject by sir Isaac Newton, in his “Arithmetica Universalis,” and in Mr. Maclaurin’s “Algebra,” printed 1748. There is in it, particularly, an. easy and general rule for the solution of quadratic equations, which is so complete as not to admit of being farther perfected; for which reason it has been transcribed, without any alteration, into the elementary treatises of algebra ever since, It is no wonder, therefore, that the “Clavis” became the standard -book with tutors for instructing their pupils in the universities, especially at Cambridge, where it was first introduced by Seth Ward, afterwards bishop of Salisbury. It underwent several editions, to which the author subjoined other things.

Soon after his arrival he contracted an intimacy with the infamous favourite of Jarnes I. Robert Carr, afterwards earl of Somerset. This man’s history is too well known to render it necessary to dwell upon it in this place. Intoxicated as he was with an advancement at court, of which he was so unworthy, he was not wholly insensible of his own ignorance and inexperience; and he found in sir Thomas Overbury a judicious and sincere adviser, who endeavoured to instill into him the principles of prudence and discretion; and so long as he was content to be ruled by Overbury’s friendly counsels, he enjoyed, what Hume says is rare, the highest favour of the prince, without being hated by the people. It is easy, therefore, to see what attached Carr to Overbury; and the latter, who could not but perceive the inferiority of the royal favourite, appears to have connected himself with him from motives of ambition, which, for a time, he had every prospect of gratifying. In 1608 he was knighted by the influence of Carr, and his father was appointed one of the judges for Wales. The year following, sir Tnornas made another tour on the continent, which is said to have produced “Observations upon the Provinces United; and on the State of France,” Lond. 1651, 12mo; but it is very doubtful whether he was the real author of this work.

His connection with Carr, now viscount Rochester, continued to be mutually agreeable until the latter engaged in an amour with the countess of Essex, the particulars of which reflect disgrace, not only on the parties immediately concerned, but on the reign in which such shameful transactions could be carried on with impunity. No sooner, says Hume, had James mounted the throne of England, than he remembered his friendship for the unfortunate families of Howard and Devereux, who had suffered for their attachment to the cause of Mary and to his own. Having restored young Essex to his blood and dignity, and conferred the.titles of Suffolk and Northampton on two brothers Of the house of Norfolk, he sought the farther pleasure of uniting those families by the marriage of the earl of Essex with lady Frances Howard, daughter of the earl of Suffolk. She was only thirteen, he fourteen years of age; and it was thought proper, till both should attain the age of puberty, that be should go abroad and pass some time in his travels. He returned into England after four years absence, and was pleased to find his countess in the full lustre of beauty, and possessed of the love and admiration of the whole court. But when he claimed the privileges of an husband, he met with nothing but symptoms of aversion and disgust; nor could his addresses, or the persuasions of her friends, overcome her obstinacy; and disgusted at last with her reiterated denials, he gave over the pursuit, and separating himself from her, thenceforth abandoned her to her own will, antS it is said that although he discovered her attachment to Rochester, he took little notice of it.

Rochester now procured a divorce by means which decency forbids to be recorded here; and the king, forgetting the dignity of his character, and his friendship for the family of Essex, not only assisted in this nefarious project, but, lest the lady should lose any rank by her newmarriage, bestowed on Rochester the title of earl of Somerset.

In the mean time, sir Thomas Overbury’s father came to town, and petitioned the king for his discharge. He likewise applied to Somerset, to whom several pressing letters were also written by sir Thomas himself; but all to no purpose. Sjr Thomas had no suspicion at first of the complicated villainy of Somerset in the affair of his refusing the embassy to Russia, nor that his imprisonment was his friend’s contrivance; but, discovering it at length by his delays to procure his liberty, he expostulated with him by letter in the severest manner, and even proceeded to threats. This terrified Somerset so much, that he charged the lieutenant of the Tower to look to Overbury well; for if ever he came out, it would be his ruin, or one of the two must die. During these delays many attempts were made to poison Overbury; none of which succeeded till a glyster was given him, Sept. the 14th, which, after operating in the most violent manner, put an end to his life, about five the next morning. His corpse, being exceedingly offensive, was interred about three the same day in the Tower chapel. Immediately after his death, some suspicion of the true cause of it was rumoured about; but the great persopages concerned prevailed so far as to make it be believed that he died of a disorder contracted before his imprisonment. The whole, however, was discovered about two years after, when the inferior agents were all apprehended, tried, and executed; but the earl of Somerset and his countess, although both tried and condemned, were pardoned by the king the following year, 1616, lest, as it has been said, he should make discoveries not very creditable to the private character of that monarch. The cpuntess died afterwards of a cancer, despised by all who knew her; and Somerset himself lived to share the just contempt of mankind.

Upon a report that the sequestered incumbent of Fordham was dead, the patron, who had no kindness for Mr. Owen, presented another to the living; on which the people at Coggeshall, a market-town about five miles from thence, earnestly invited him to be their minister; and the earl of Warwick, the patron, very readily gave him the living; and here he taught a more numerous congregation, seldom fewer than two thousand, consisting of persons generally sober, religious, and discreet, who contracted an uncommon and very steady regard for their pastor. Hitherto Mr. Owen had been a presbyterian in matters of church government; but after diligent inquiry into the nature of church government and discipline, he became convinced that the congregational way, or the mode of independency, was most agreeable to the rule of the New Testament; and he published his opinion, with the several reasons for it, in two quartos. Several ministers of the presbyterian denomination were dissatisfied with this change of Mr. Owen’s judgment, and particularly Mr. Gawdry reproached him very unhandsomely, to whom he returned, as he generally did, a much more civil answer. He had formed a church at Coggeshall upon these congregational principles, which continued long; but his reputation as a divine and preacher was not coofined to this spot. He was soon sent for to preach before the parliament: this sermon is entitled “A Vision of free Mercy, &c.” on Acts xvi. 11. April 29, 1646. He pleads for liberty of conscience and moderation towards men of different persuasions, &c. in an “Essay for the practice of Churchgovernment in the Country,” which he subjoins to that sermon. In 1643 he published his book, entitled “Salus electorum, sanguis Jesu:” or, “The Death of Death in the Death of Christ.” He dedicated this book to Robert earl of Warwick, where he pays his tribute of thanks to his lordship for that privilege of opening the door for his preaching the gospel at Goggeshall; and in his preface to the reader he tells us, “That this performance was the result of more than seven years serious inquiry into the mind of God about these things, with a perusal of all which he could attain, that the wit of men in former or later days hath published in opposition to the truth.” He had indeed such an opinion of this work, that although generally modest in speaking of himself, he scrupled not to declare, that “He did not believe he should live to see a solid answer given to it.” During the siege of Colchester, he became acquainted with general Fairfax, who was quartered at Coggeshall for some days; and when Colchester surrendered, he preached a sermon on the day of thanksgiving, and another to the parliamentary committee that had been imprisoned by the enemy, but were now released. These two sermons are entitled “Ebenezer, a Memorial of the Deliverance of Essex County and Committee.” He was again required to preach before the House of Commons, Jan. 31, 1648-9, the very next day after the murder of king Charles: much was expected from this sermon, and an apology for the bloody deed of the preceding day would infallibly have led to preferment; but we are told “his discourse was so modest and inoffensive, that his friends could make no just exception, nor his enemies take an advantage of his words another day.” After this he frequently was appointed to preach before the parliament, and, on Feb. 1649, had Cromwell, for the first time, as one of his hearers, who was highly pleased with the discourse. Cromwell was at this time preparing to go to Ireland, and meeting with Mr. Owen a few days afterwards, at general Fairfax’s house, he came directly up to him, and laying his hand on his shoulder in a familiar way, said, “Sir, you are the person I must be acquainted with.” JMr. Owen modestly replied, “That will be more to my advantage than yours;” to which Cromwell rejoined, “We shall soon see that,” and taking him by the hand led him into lord Fairfax’s garden; and from this time contracted an intimate friendship with him, which continued to his death. He acquainted Mr. Owen with his intended expedition into Ireland, and desired his company there to reside in the college at Dublin; but he answered that the charge of the church at Coggeshall would not permit him to comply with his request. Cromwell, however, would have no denial, and after some altercation, told the congregation at Coggeshall, that their pastor must and should go. He did not, however, travel with the army, but arrived privately at Dublin, and took up his lodgings in the college. Here he frequently preached, and superintended the affairs of the college, for about half a year, when he obtained Cromwell’s leave to return to Coggeshall, where he was joyfully x received.

On the death of the rev. Joseph Caryl, in 1673, Dr. Owen was invited to succeed him in the charge of a very numerous congregation in Leadenhall- street, and as he had already a charge of the sme kind, the congregations agreed to unite. In the following year he published “A Discourse concerning the Holy Spirit;” in 1677, his “Doctrine of Justification by Faith;” and in 1679, his “Glorious Mystery of the Person of Christ;” all which, at least the genuine editions of them, are still in considerable request. Dr. Owen was in most of his works rather prolix, which has given rise to abridgments of some of them, but as these are executed sometimes by men not exactly according in his principles, little reliance can be placed on their accuracy. In his own days, we are told that his works procured him. the admiration and friendship of many persons of rank, who took great delight in his conversation. Among these are enumerated the earl of Orrery, the earl ofAnglesea, lord Willoughby of Parham, lord Wharton, lord Berkley, sir John Trevor, one of the principal secretaries of state, &c. Even Charles II. and the duke of York paid particular respect to him. It is said that when he was at Tunbridge, drinking the waters, the duke sent for him to his tent, and entered into a long conversation on the subject of nonconformity. The king went yet farther; for, after his return to London, his majesty conversed with him for the space of two hours together, and after assuring him of his favour and respect, told him he might have access to his person as often as he pleased; said that he was sensible of the wrong he had done to the dissenters; declared himself a friend to liberty of conscience, and concluded all by giving Dr. Owen a thousand guineas to distribute among those who had suffered most by the late severities. Whether the professions of the king and the duke were sincere or not, or whether this was an act of policy, or an involuntary respect paid to the talents and amiable private character of Dr. Owen, it appears that he was not afterwards molested in the exercise of his ministry.

His first engagement in Philadelphia was with a bookseller, who employed him as editor of the Philadelphia Magazine, for which he had an annual salary of fifty pounds currency. When Dr. Rush of that city suggested to Paine the propriety of preparing the Americans lor a separation from Great Britain, he seized with avidity the idea, and immediately beg^n the above mentioned pamphlet, which, when finished, was shewn in manuscript to Dr. Franklin and Mr. Samuel Adams, and entitled, after some discussion, “Common Sense,” at the suggestion of Dr. Rush. For this he received from the legislature of Pennsylvania, the sum of 500l.; and soon after this, although devoid of every thing that could be called literature, he was honoured with a degree of M. A. from the university of Pennsylvania, and vvas chosen a member of the American Philosophical Society. In the title-page of his “Rights of Man,” he styled himself “Secretary for foreign affairs to the Congress of the United States, in the late war.” To this title*, however, he had no pretensions, and so thorough a republican ought at least to have avoided assuming what he condemned so vehemently in others. He was merely a clerk, at a very low salary, to a committee of the congress; and his business was to copy papers, and number and file them. From this office, however, insignificant as it was, he was dismissed for a scandalous breach of trust, and then hired himself as a clerk to Mr. Owen Biddle of Philadelphia; and early in \1&0, the assembly of Pennsylvania chose hiii) as cierk. fn 1782 he printed at Philadelphia, a letter to the abbé Raynal on the affairs of North Amer ca, in which he undertook to clear up the mistakes in Raynal’s account of the revolution; and in the same yer he also printed a letter to the earl of Shelburne, on his speech in parliament, July 10, 1782, in which that nobleman had prophesied that, “When Great Britain shall acknowledge American independence, the sun of Britain’s glory is set for ever.” It could not be difficult to answer such a prediction as this, which affords indeed a humiliating instance of want of political foresight. Great Britain did acknowledge American independence, and what is Great Britain now? In 1785, as a compensation for his revolutionary writings, congress granted him three thousand dollars, after having rejected with great indignation a motion for appointing him historiographer to the United States, with a salary. Two only of the states noticed by gratuities his revolutionary writings. Pennsylvania gave him, as we have mentioned, 500l. currency; and NewYork gave him an estate of more than three hundred acres, in high cultivation, which was perhaps the more agreeable to him, as it was the confiscated property of a royalist. lu 1787 he came to London, and before the end of that year published a pamphlet on the recent transactions’ between Great Britain and Holland, entitled “Prospects on the Rubicon.” In this, as may be expected, he censured the Cneasures of the English administration.

, a learned and pious divine, was the second son of sir Thomas Palmer, knt. of Wingham, in Kent, where he was born in 1601. He was educated at St. John’s college, Cambridge, but was afterwards chosen fellow of Queen’s. In 1626 archbishop Abbot licensed him to preach a lecture at St. Alphage’s church in Canterbury, every Sunday afternoon; but three years after, he was silenced, on a charge of nonconformity, for a time, but was again restored, the accusation being found trifling. Although a puritan, his character appeared so amiable that bishop Laud presented him in 1632 with the vicarage of Ashwell, in Hertfordshire, and when the unfortunate prelate was brought to his tri,.l, he cited this as an instance of his impartiality. At Ashwell Mr. Palmer became no less popular than he had been at Canterbury. In the same year he was chosen one of the preachers to the university of Cambridge, and afterwards one of the clerks in convocation. In 1643, when the depression of the hierarchy had made great progress, he was chosen one of the assembly of divines, in which he was distinguished for his moderation, and his aversion to the civil war. He preached also at various places in London until the following year, when the earl of Manchester appointed him master of Queen’s college, Cambridge. He preached several times before the parliament, and appears to have entered into their views in most respects, although his sermons were generally of the practical kind. He did not live, however, to see the issue of their proceedings, as he died in 1647, aged fortysix. Granger gives him the character of a man of uncommon learning, generosity, and politeness, and adds, that he spoke the French language with as much facility as his own. Clark enters more fully into his character as a divine. His works are not numerous. Some of his parliamentary sermons are in print, and he had a considerable share in the “Sabbatum Redivivum,” with Cawdry; but his principal work, entitled “Memorials of Godliness,” acquired great popularity. The thirteenth edition was printed in 1708, 12mo.

He left a son named Philip, who wrote the life of his father. Although Pareus was a great enemy to innovations, yet his “Irenicum” proves that he was a friend to conciliation, and his services in promoting the reformed religion were very extensive. His exegeticai works were published by his son at Francfort in 1647, in 3 vols. folio. Among these are his “Commentary upon St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans,” in 1617, which gave such offence to James I. of England, as containing some anti-monarchical principles, that he caused it to be burnt by the common hangman; and the university of Oxford also condemned it. It was refuted by David Owen, who was D. D. and chaplain to John Ramsay, viscount Haddington and earl of Holderness, in a piece entitled “Anti-Paraeus, sive determinatio de jure regio habita Cantabrigiae in scholis theologicis, 19 April, 1619, contra Davidem Paroeum, caeterosque reformats religionis antimonarchos,” Cantab. 1632, 8vo. He had before published “The Concord of a Papist and Puritan, for the coercion, deposition, and killing of kings,” Camb. 161O, 4to.

In the same year, 1545, the society presented him to the rectory of Land-Beach; but to his great mortification, he was obliged to resign his beloved college of Stoke in 1547, although he laboured as much as possible to prevent its dissolution. To preserve, however, as far as he could, the memory of its founder Edmund Mortimer, earl of March, he brought away with him his arms painted on glass, and placed them in a window of the master’s lodge; and secured the books of history and antiquities, which made part of that invaluable collection with which he afterwards enriched his college. The same year, and in the forty-third of his age, he married Margaret the daughter of Robert Harlstone, gent. of Mattishall in Norfolk, and sister of Simon Harlstone, who had lived some time at Mendlesham in Suffolk, where he was distinguished for his piety and sufferings in the reign of queen Mary. Dr. Parker had been attached to this lady for about seven years, but they were prevented from marrying by the statute of Henry VIII. which made the marriage of the clergy felony. Mr. Masters conjectures that it was about this time he drew up, in his defence, a short treatise still preserved in the college library “De conjugio Sacerdotum,” and another against alienation of the revenues of the church, which Strype has printed in his Appendix, No. VII. It is also probable that, on the increase of his family, he added the long gallery to the master’s lodge. The lady he married proved a most affectionate wife, and had so much sweetness of temper and amiable disposition, that bishop Ridley is said to have asked, “If Mrs. Parker had a sister?” intimating that he would have been glad to have married one who came near her in excellence of character.

It might have been expected that these ordinances would have pleased the queen, as being in conformity with her wishes, and, in fact, in answer to her orders; but the opponents of the habits, who began to be called Puritans, applied to their friends at court, and especially to her great favourite Robert Dudley, earl of Leicester, who prevailed so far with her majesty, that all her former resolution disappeared, and she refused to sanction the ordinances with her authority, telling the archbishop, that the oath of canonical obedience was sufficient to bind the inferior clergy to their duty, without the interposition of the crown. The archbishop, hurt at such capricious conduct, and at being placed in such a situation between the court and the church, told Cecil, that if the ministry persisted in their indifference, he would “no more strive against the stream, fume or chide who would;” and it is most probable his remonstrances prevailed, for the above ordinances were a few days after published, under the name of Advertisements; and he then proceeded upon them with that zeal which procured him from one party the reproach of being a persecutor, and from the other the honour of being a firm friend and supporter of the church-establishment. The particular steps he took, the trials he instituted, and the punishments he inflicted, are detailed at length by Strype and other church-historians; but on the merit of his conduct there is great diversity of opinion. It has been said, both in excuse and in reproach of his measures, that he was too subservient to the queen. To us it appears, that he took as much liberty in advising the queen, and in contending with her humours, as any prelate or statesman of her reign, and that what he did to promote uniformity in the church arose from a sincere, however mistaken opinion, that uniformity was necessary to the advancement of the reformation, and in itself practicable. All that is wrong in this opinion must be referred to the times in which he lived, when no man conceived that an established church could flourish if surrounded by sectaries, and when toleration was not at all understood in its present sense.

It seems probable that he had an ambition to rise by political interest. When the Whigs were ejected, in the end of queen Anne’s reign, he was persuaded to change his party, not without much censure from those whom he forsook, and was received by the earl of Oxford and the new ministry as a valuable reinforcement. When Oxford was told that Dr. Parnell waited among the crowd in the outer room, he went, by the persuasion of Swift, with his treasurer’s staff in his hand, to inquire for him, and to bid him welcome; and, as may be interred from Pope’s dedication, admitted him as a favourite companion to his convivial hours; but it does not appear that all this was followed by preferment. Parnell also, conceiving himself qualified to become a popular preacher, displayed his elocution with great success in the pulpits of London; but the queen’s death putting an end. to his expectations, abated his diligence, and from that time he fell into a habit of intemperance, which greatly injured his health. The death of his wife is said to have first driven him to this miserable resource.

, another learned and amiable physician, though less known as an author, the son of major Parsons, of the dragoons, was horn in Yorkshire, in 1742. He was educated at Westminster school, whence in 17:. 9 he was elected to a studentship in Christ Church, Oxford. Having made choice of medicine as a profession, he prosecuted the study of it with uncommon assiduity, not only at Oxford, but also at London and Edinburgh. But while he bestowed much attention on every branch of medical knowledge, he at first showed a particular predilection for natural history and botany, and in the latter branch made a very distinguished figure during his stay at Edinburgh. In 1766 he had the honour of obtaining the prize medal given by Dr. Hope for the most extensive and elegant hortus siccus, and the same year took his degree of M. A. This, however, was only a prelude to more distinguished honours. In 1769, when he took his degree of M. B. he was appointed to the anatomy lecture at Oxford, and was also the first reader in anatomy at Christ Church, on the institution of John Freind and Matthew Lee, M. D. and students of that house. In consequence of this appointment, his attention, it may naturally be supposed, was more particularly directed to anatomy, and under his direction a very commodious anatomical theatre was built; and for the instruction of his pupils he provided a set of anatomical preparations, which for neatness and elegance have seldom been surpassed. From the time of his appointment he read two courses of anatomical lectures every year; and although they were calculated rather for the general philosopher than the medical practitioner, yet they were not only highly instructive to all his audience, but afforded incontestable evidence of his genius and abilities. He was soon after elected one of the physicians to the Radcliffe infirmary, and in June 1772 proceeded M. D. He had a considerable share also of private practice, and from his attention and success his reputation with the public kept pace with the esteem in which he was held by the university. In 1780 he was elected the first clinical professor on the foundation instituted in 1772 by George Henry, earl of Lichfield, late chancellor of the university. In this department also he read lectures during the winter months with much credit to himself. But it is not improbable that the various active employments in which he was engaged, and which necessarily exposed him to fatigue and danger, had some share in overthrowing a constitution naturally strong. He was not, however, cut off by any tedious or painful ailment, but died of a fever April 3, 1785, in the forty-fourth year of his age, and was buried in the north transept of the cathedral, where four of his children were buried before him.

, an English divine, and miscellaneous writer, was born at Dedham, in Essex, in 1729. His family was ancient, and settled at Hadleigh, in Suffolk, as early as the reign of HenryV1I. where some of their descendants still reside. He lost his father when veryyoung, and owed the care of his education to his maternal uncle, the rev. Thomas Smythies, master of the grammar school at Lavenham, in Suffolk, with whom he continued till he went to Cambridge, where he was entered of Sidney Sussex college, and took his degrees there of B. A. in 1752, and M. A. in 1776. After he had taken orders he was appointed to the free school of Oakham in Rutlandshire, and remained there till 1761, when he was presented to the school and curacy of Wye by Daniel earl of Winchelsea and Nottingham. In the sedulous discharge of the twofold duties of this preferment he was engaged upwards of half a century, and was distinguished by his urbanity, diligence, and classical talents, nor was he less esteemed in his clerical character. He was also presented to the rectory of Eastwell, in 1767, by the same patron, and to the small rectory of Snave in 1776, by archbishop Cornwallis, who enhanced the value of this preferment by a very kind letter, in which his grace testified his high respect for the character and talents of the new incumbent. Mr. Parsons was the author of several publications, among which were, The nine first papers in the second volume of the “Student,” published in 1750; “On advertising for Curates;” a paper in The World; “The inefficacy of Satire, a poem,” 176G, 4to; “Newmarket, or an Essay on the Turf,” 1774, 2 vols.; “Astronomic Doubts, a pamphlet,” 1774; “A volume of Essays,” 1775; “Dialogues of the Dead with the Living,” 1782; “Simplicity,” a poem, 1784; and “Monuments and Painted Glass in upwards of 100 churches, chiefly in the eastern part of Kent,” 1794, 4to. This work, which is interspersed with judicious remarks and interesting anecdotes by the compiler, is become scarce, owing to the fire in Mr. Nichols’s premises, but is highly valuable to the antiquary and lover of such researches. Mr. Parsons also established a Sunday school at Wye; and recommended and contributed much to their establishment in the county of Kent by a sermon and some letters which he published on this occasion. The last years of his life were passed in great retirement; alternately engaged in the discharge of his ministerial functions, and in literary pursuits and correspondence, which, however, were interrupted by the loss of his sight about a year before his death, and at the same time by a very painful disorder. He bore these trials with exemplary patience and resignation. It was his frequent practice, when on his bed, and free from the more excruciating pains of his disorder, to compose moral, lively, and religious pieces, which he afterwards dictated to a faithful amanuensis, who wrote them down. He died at Wye, June 12, 1812, in the eighty-third year of his age.

After the defeat of the armada in 1588, he used every means in his power to persuade the Spanish monarch to a second invasion; and when he failed in this, he endeavoured to raise a rebellion in England, urging the earl of Derby to appear at the head of it, who is said to have been poisoned, at his instigation, for refusing to acquiesce. Nor did he stop here. We find sir Ralph Winwood informing secretary Cecil from Paris, in 1602, of an attempt to assassinate the queen that year by another English Jesuit, at the instigation of father Parsons; and when all these plans proved abortive, he endeavoured to prevent the succession of king James by several means; one of which was, exciting the people to set up a democratic form of government, for which he had furnished them with principles in several of his books. Another was, to persuade the pope to make his kinsman the duke of Parma king of England, by joining with the lady Arabella, and marrying her to the duke’s brother, cardinal Farnese. Cardinal d'Ossat gives the king of France a large account of both these projects in one of his letters; and in another mentions a third contrivance which Parsons had communicated to him, and whose object was, that the pope, the king of France, and the king of Spain, should first appoint by common consent a successor for England, who should be a catholic; and then should form an armed confederacy to establish him on the throne.

In 1661, he was elected, by a majority of the fellows, master of Queen’s college, in opposition to a royal mandamus, appointing Mr. Anthony Sparrow for that place; but the affair being brought before the king and council, was soon decided in favour of Mr. Sparrow; and some of the fellows, if not all, who had sided with Patrick, were ejected. His next preferment was the rectory of St. Paul’s, Covent- Garden, London, *in room of the celebrated nonconformist, Dr. Manton. This was given him by William earl of Bedford, in 1662. He endeared himself much to the parishioners by instruction and example, and particularly by continuing all the while among them during the plague in 1665. It is said further, that, out of a special regard to them, he refused the archdeaconry of Huntingdon. His remaining in London, however, during the plague was an instance of pious heroism which ought not to be slightly passed over. He was not indeed the only clergyman who remained at his post on this occasion; but their number was not great. We shall now present our readers with a few extracts from some letters which he wrote to his friends who importuned him to leave London, as they give a more faithful and pleasing picture of his real character than is elsewhere to be found.

During the reign of James II. Dr. Patrick wag one of those able champions, who defended the protestant religion against the designs of the court, and published some pieces, which were afterwards reprinted in the collection- of “Controversial Tracts,” 3 vols. fol. But his most remarkable service in this way was his conference with two Romish priests, of which we have the following account “Great endeavours were used to bring Laurence Hyde, earl of Rochester, lord high treasurer in king James’i reign, to embrace popery; but in vain. At length his lordship being pressed and fatigued by the king’s intreaties, told his majesty, that to let him see it was not through any prejudice of education, or obstinacy, that he persevered ia liis religion, he would freely consent to hear some protestant divides dispute with some popish priests, and promised to side with the conquerors. On this the king appointed a conference to be held at Whitehall, at which his majesty and several persons of rank were present. The protestant champions were Dr. Patrick and Dr. William Jane, the two chaplains then in waiting. Those on the popish side were Gifford, a doctor of the Sorbonne, probably the same whom king James wished to obtrude upon Magdalen-college, and a Mr. Tilden, who, having turned papist at Lisbon, went by the name of Dr. Godden. The subject of their dispute was the ‘ rule of faith,’ and ‘ the proper judge in controversies.’ The conference was very long; and at last the Romish doctors were pressed with so much strength of reason and authority against them, that they were really put to silence. On this the earl of Rochester declared ‘ that the victory the protestant divines had gained made no alteration in his mind, being beforehand convinced of the truth of his religion, and firmly resolved never to forsake it.’ The king, going off abruptly, was heard to say, he never saw a bad cause so well, nor a good one so ill maintained.”

Such is the account given of this debate by Kennet in his “Complete History of England:” bishop Burnet’s account is somewhat different. He says, “That the king desired of the earl, he would suffer himself to be instructed in religion. He answered, he was fully satisfied about his religion; but, upon the king’s pressing it that he would hear his priests, he said he desired then to have some of the English clergy present, to which the king consented; only he excepted to Tillotson and Stillingfleet. Lord Rochester said he would take those who should happen to be in waiting; for the forms of the chapel were still kept up. And Drs. Patrick and Jane were the men.” “Patrick,” adds Burnet, “told me, that at the conference there was no occasion for them to say much. The priests began the attack. And when they had done, the earl said, if they had nothing stronger to urge, he would not trouble those learned gentlemen to say any thing; for he was sure he could answer all that he had heard. And so answered all with much heat and spirit, not without some scorn, saying, Were these grounds to persuade men to change their religion? This he urged over and over again with great vehemence. The king, seeing in what temper he was, broke off the conference, charging all that were present to say nothing of it.” The king had often taken pains to gain over Patrick, sent for him, treated him kindly, desired him to abate his zeal against his church, and quietly enjoy his own religion: but the dean replied, with proper courage, “That he could not give up a religion so well proved as that of the Protestants.” Conformably to this principle, he opposed the reading of his majesty’s declaration for liberty of conscience; and assisted Dr. Tenison in setting up a school at St. Martin’s, in opposition to the popish one, opened at the Savoy, in order to seduce the youth of the town into popery; and this was the origin of the ward and parish schools of London. He had also a great share in the comprehension projected by archbishop SanCroft, in order to bring over the dissenters, which, it is well known, was unsuccessful.

, an unfortunate poet, was born at Peasmarsh, in the county of Sussex, in 1706, and was the son of a farmer at that place, who rented a considerable estate of the earl of Thanet. He discovered excellent parts, with a strong propensity to learning and his father, not being in circumstances to give him a proper education, applied to his noble landlord, who took him under his protection, and placed him at Appleby school in Westmoreland. Here he became acquainted with Mr. Noble, a clergyman of great learning and fine taste, who promoted his studies and directed his taste. Upon his leaving Appleby, he went to Sidney college in Cambridge, where he pursued the plan Mr. Noble had given him, and went through the classics, as well as all our English poets, with great advantage. Of these last, Spenser’s “Fairy Queen” and Brown’s “( Britannia’s Pastorals” are said to have given him the greatest delight. He had, however, unfortunately contracted a habit of desultory reading, and had no relish for academical studies. His temper could not brook restraint; and his tutor, he thought, treated him with great rigour. A quarrel ensued; and, to avoid the scandal of expulsion, with which he was threatened, he took his name out of the college book, and went to London. Even now his friends would have forgiven him, and procured his readmission; but the pleasures of the town, the desire of being known, and his romantic expectations of meeting with 0u,e generous patron to reward his merit, rendered him deaf to all advice. He led a pleasurable life, frequented Button’s, and became acquainted with some of the most eminent wits of the time. As he had no fortune, nor any means of subsistence, but what arose from the subscriptions for the poems he proposed to publish; and, as he wanted even common prudence to manage this precarious income, he was soon involved in the deepest distress and most deplorable wretchedness. In a poem, entitled “Effigies Authons,” addressed to lord Burlington, he describes himself as destitute of friends, of money; a prey to hunger; and passing his nights on a bench in St. James’s park. In a private letter to a gentleman, he thus expressed himself: “Spare my blushes; I have not enjoyed the common necessaries of life these two days, and can hardly hold to subscribe myself,” &c. Curll, the bookseller, finding some of his compositions well received, And going through several impression>, took him into his house; and, as Pope affirms in one of his letters, starved him to death. But this does not appear to be strictly true; and his death is more justly attributed to the small-pox, which carried him off in 1727, in his 21st year. His biographer says, that he had a surprising genius, and had raised hopes in all that knew him, that he would become one of the most eminent poets of the age; but surh of his poems as we find in the collection published in 2 vols. 8vo, in 1728, would not in our days be thought calculated to Support such high expectations.

He informs us also of his skill in painting; that he could take likenesses, and on one occasion took his majesty’s (James I.) as he sat at dinner. He also made, perhaps engraved, a map of Cambridge. Lord Orford mentions his engraving of a good print, after Holbein, of sir Thomas Cromwell, knight, afterwards earl of Essex. From his “Gentleman’s Exercise” we learn that he either kept school, or had private pupils. Lord Orford says that he was tutor to the children of the earl of Arunde), whom he accompanied to the Low Countries. In the same work, Peacham says he translated king James’s “Basilicon Doron” into Latin verse, and presented it to prince Henry, to whom he also dedicated his “Minerva Britannica” in 1612. He also published in 1615, “Prince Henry revived; or a poem upon the birth of prince H. Frederick, heir apparent to Frederick Count Palatine of the Rhine.” The only other particulars we derive from his own hints are, that he lived for some time in St. Martin’s in the Fields, and was addicted to melancholy. It is said that he was reduced to poverty in his old age, and wrote penny pamphlets for bread. This last is asserted in a ms note by John Gibbon, Bluemantle, on a copy of one of Peacham’s tracts sold at Mr. West’s sale. It is entitled ' A Dialogue between the cross in Cheap and Charing crosse. Comforting each other, as fearing their fall, in these uncertain times. By Ryhen Pameach" (Henry Peacham). The chief merit of this, Mr. Gough says, is that its wooden frontispiece exhibits the ruined shaft of Charing Cross, and the entire cross of Cheap. It has no date. Cheapside cross, we know, was taken down in 1640.

He was elected to Trinity college, Cambridge, in 1710, and during his first year’s residence, amused himself occasionally with the lighter species of composition. Among these were a letter in the Guardian, No. 121, signed Aw Mum; and two Spectators, No. 572, and 633; specimens of that easy humour which characterizes these periodical works. In 1716 the first fruits of his philological studies appeared at the university press, in an excellent edition of Cicero “De Oratore,” with very judicious notes and emendations. This volume, at the desire of a friend, he dedicated to lord chief justice Parker, afterwards earl of Macclesfield, to whom he was then a stranger, but who became his patron. The first favour he bestowed on Mr. Pearce, was to apply to Dr. Bentley for his interest in the election of a fellowship, for which he was a candidate, and which he accordingly obtained. Soon after this he paid a visit to the chief justice, who received him in the kindest manner, invited him to dinner at Kensington, and gave him a purse of fifty guineas. From that time an intimacy commenced, which was dissolved only by his lordship'i death.

S‘. Martin’s church, and gradually in the heuie of lords as carl of Ba’.h, ld, I shall come to his estate, being his eldest son, which will enable me to resign my vicarage; and the profits of the deanry alone, with my father’s estate, will make me quite contented.' The archbishop smiled, and said, " Well, if you will not help yourself, your friends must do it for you.' Accordingly he spoke to the earl of Bath, and they two agreed to try what they could do to make the dean of Winchester a bishop.

Being now disengaged from his deanry, bishop Pearce seemed to consider himself as freed from half his burthen, and with such vigour as time had left him, and such alacrity as hope continued to supply, he prosecuted his episcopal functions and private studies. It redounds greatly to his honour, that in the disposal of ecclesiastical preferments, he never gave occasion to censure, except in the single instance of a young man*, on whom he bestowed the valuable rectory of Stone, in consideration of his being great grandson of his first patron, the earl of Macclesfield, whose favours, conferred forty years before, his gratitude did not suffer him to forget.

Wood and Winstanley, misguided by former catalogues, have also attributed to him another tragedy, called “Alphonsus, emperor of Germany.” But this, Langbaine assures us, was written by Chapman, he himself having the play in his possession, with that author’s name to it. About 1593 Peele seems to have been taken into the patronage of the earl of Northumberland, to whom he dedicated in that year, “The Honour of the Garter, a poem gratulatorie, the Firstling, consecrated to his noble name.” He was almost as famous for his tricks and merry pranks as Scoggan, Skelton, or Dick Tarleton; and as there are books of theirs in print, so there is one of his called “Merrie conceited Jests of George Peele, gent, sometime student in Oxford; wherein is shewed the course of his life, how he lived,” &c. 1627, 4to. These jests, as they are called, might with more propriety he termed the tricks pf a sharper. Peele died before 1598, of the consequences of his debaucheries. Oldys says he left behind him a wife and a daughter. He seems to have been a person of a very irregular life; and Mr. Steevens, with great probability, supposes, that the character of George Pieboard, in “The Puritan,” was designed as a representative of George Peele. See a note on that comedy, as published by Mr. Malone.

Dr. Pegge left many Mss. a considerable part of which are in the possession of his grandson. While vicar of Godmersham, he collected a good deal relative to the college at Wye, in that neighbourhood, which he thought of publishing, and engraved the seal, before engraved in Lewis’s seals. He had “Extracts from the rental of the royal manor of Wye, made about 1430, in the hands of Daniel earl of Winchelsea;” and “Copy of a survey and rental of the college, in the possession of sir Windham Knatchbull, 1739.” He possessed also a ms “Lexicon Xenophonticum” by himself; a Greek Lexicon in ms.; an “English Historical Dictionary,” in 6 vols. foi. a French and Italian, a Latin, a British and Saxon one, in one volume each all corrected by his notes a “Glossarium Generate” two volumes of collections in English history; collections for the city and church of Lincoln, now in Mr. Gough’s library at Oxford; a “Monasticon Cantianuin,” 2 vols. folio; and various other ms collections, which afford striking proofs of unwearied industry, zeal, and judgment.

After his return from France, he was admitted of Lincoln’s Inn, with the view of studying the law, and continued there till the memorable year 1665, when the plague raged in London. In 1666, his father committed to him the care of a considerable estate in Ireland, which occasioned him, for a time, to reside in that kingdom. At Cork he was informed, by one of the people called Quakers, that Thomas Loe, whose preaching had affected him so early in life, was shortly to be at a meeting in that city. To this meeting he went. It is said that Loe, who preached in the meeting, began his declaration with these words: “There is a faith that overcomes the world, and there is a faith that is overcome by the world.” The manner in which Loe enlarged upon this exordium is not known; but the effect was the conviction of young Penn, who afterwards constantly attended the meetings of the Quakers, notwithstanding all obstacles. The year after his arrival in Ireland he was, with many others, taken from a meeting at Cork, and carried before the mayor, by whom he was committed to prison; but was soon released, on application to the earl of Orrery. This was his first imprisonment, at which time he was about twenty-three years of age; and it tended to strengthen the ties of his union with a people whom he believed to suffer innocently. His father, understanding his attachment to the Quakers, remanded him home; and though there was yet no great alteration in his dress, yet his serious deportment evincing the religious state of his mind, confirmed the fears of his father, and gave occasion to a species of conflict between them not easily described. The father felt great affection for an accomplished and dutiful son, and ardently desired the promotion of his temporal interests, which he feared would be obstructed by the way of life he had embraced. The son was sensible of the duty he owed to his parent, and afflicted in believing that he could not obey him but at the risk of his eternal welfare. At length the father would have compounded with the son, and suffered him to retain the simplicity of his manners to all others, if he would consent to be uncovered before the king, the duke (afterwards James II.), and himself. Penn desired time to consider of this requisition; and having employed it in fasting and supplication, in order, as he conceived, to know the divine will, he humbly signified to his father that he could not comply with it. After this, the father being utterly disappointed in his expectations, could no longer endure the sight of his son, and a second time drove him from his family. In this seclusion he comforted himself with the promise of Christ, to those who leave house or parents for his sake. His support, outwardly, was the charity of his friends, and some supplies privately sent him by his mother; but, by degrees, his father, becoming convinced of his integrity by his perseverance, permitted him to return to the family; and, though he did not give him open countenance, he privately used his interest to get him released, when imprisoned for his attendance at the Quakers’ meetings.

, secretary to the admiralty in the reigns of Charles II. and James II. and an eminent benefactor to the literature of his country, was a descendant of the ancient family -of the Pepys’s of Cottenham in Cambridgeshire, and probably the son of liichard Pepys, who was lord chief justice in Ireland in 1654. He was born, according to Collier, in London; but Knight, in this particular a better authority, says he was born at Brampton in Huntingdonshire, and educated at St. Paul’s school. Thence he was removed to Magdalen-college, Cambridge. How long he remained here, we are not told, but it appears by the college-books, that on June 26, 1660, he was created M. A. by proxy, he being then on board of ship as secretary to the navy. He appears to have been related to general Montague, afterwards earl of Sandwich, who first introduced him into public business, and employed him first in various secret services for Charles II. and then as secretary in the expedition for bringing his majesty from Holland. His majesty being thus restored, Mr. Pepys was immediately appointed one of the principal officers of the navy, by the title of clerk of the acts. In this employment he continued until 1673; and during those great events, the plague, the fire of London, and the Dutch war, the care of the navy in a great measure rested on him alone.

, fifth baronet of the family, and first earl of Egmont, was born at Barton, in the county of York, July 12, 1683, and received his education at Magdalen college, Oxford. On quitting the university, in June 1701, he made the tour of England, and was admitted F. R. S. at the age of nineteen. Upon the death of king William, and the calling of a new parliament in Ireland, he went over with the duke of Ormorid, and though not of age, was elected for the county of Cork, and soon after appointed a privy-counsellor. In July 1705, he began the tour of Europe, which he finished in October 1707; and returning to Ireland in May 1708, was again, representative for the county of Cork. In 1713, he erected a lasting monument of his charity, in a free-school at Burton. On the accession of George I. he was advanced to the peerage of Ireland by the title of baron Perceval, in 1715, and viscount in 1722. In the parliament of 1722 and 1727, he was member for Harwich, in Essex, and in 1728 was chosen recorder of that borough. Observing, by the decay of a beneficial commerce, that multitudes incapable of finding employment at home, mightbe rendered serviceable to their country abroad, he and a few others applied to the crown for the grant of a district of land in America, since called Georgia, which they proposed to people with emigrants from England, or persecuted Protestants from other parts of Europe, by means of private contribution and parliamentary aid. The charter being granted, in June 1732, Lord Perceval was appointed first president; and the king having long experienced his fidelity to his person and government, created him earl of Egmont in. Nov. 1733. Worn out by a paralytic decay, he died May 1, 1748. His lordship married Catherine, daughter of sir Philip Parker a Morley, by whom he had seven children, who all died before him, except his eldest son and successor, of whom we shall take some notice.

The first earl of Egmont, according to Mr. Lodge, appears to have been a man of an exemplary character, both in public and private life, and a writer of considerable elegance and acuteness. He published, 1. “A Dialogue between a member of the church of England and a Protestant Dissenter, concerning a repeal of the Test Act,” 1732. 2. “The Question of the Precedency of the Peers of Ireland in England,” 1739. Part only of this book was written by the earl of Egmont; which was in consequence of a memorial presented by his lordship to his majesty Nov. 2, 1733, upon occasion of the solemnity of the marriage of the princess-royal with the prince of Orange. 3. “Remarks upon a scandalous piece, entitled A brief account of the causes that have retarded the progress of the colony of Georgia,” 1743. His lordship published several other tracts about that time, relating to the colony; and many letters and essays upon moral subjects, in a paper called “The Weekly Miscellany.” His Lordship also formed a collection of the “Lives and Characters of eminent men in England, from very ancient to very modern times.” Dr. Kippis appears to have had the use of this collection, when employed on the Biographia. It is in the possession of lord Arden. The earl of Egmont wrote a considerable part of a genealogical history of his own family, which was afterwards enlarged and methodized by Anderson, author of the Royal Genealogies; and by Mr. W r histon, of the Tally Court. This book, which was printed by the second carl of Egmont, is entitled “A genealogical History of the house of I very,” and is illustrated by a great number of portraits and plates. It was not intended for sale; but a few copies are got abroad, and sell at a very high price. Lord Orford, in the first edition of his “Royal and Noble Authors,” attributed “The great Importance of a religious Life,” to this nobleman, which, however, was soon discovered to be from the pen of Mr. Melmoth.

, second earl of Egmont, and son to the preceding, was born at Westminster, Feb. 24, 1711; and after a learned education at home, and the advantages of travelling, was chosen in 1731 (though then under age) a burgess for Harwich; and on Dec. 31, 174T, unanimously elected representative for the city of Westminster; as he was in 1747 for Weobly in Herefordshire. In March 1747, he was appointed one of the lords of the bedchamber to Frederick prince of Wales, in which station he continued till the death of that prince. In 1754, he was elected a member of parliament for the borough of Bridgwater, in the county of Somerset; and on January 9, 1755, was sworn one of the lords of his majesty’s most honourable privy-council. He was likewise appointed one of the privy-council upon the accession of his present majesty to the throne; and was again elected in April 1761, for the borough of II­chester, in the county of Somerset, but was next day rechosen for the borough of Bridgwater, for which place he made his election. On May 7, 1762, his lordship was called up to the house of peers in Great Britain, by the title of lord Lovel and Holland, baron Lovel and Holland, of Enmore, in the county of Somerset, two of those baronies which were forfeited by attainder of Francis viscount Lovel, in the 1st of Henry VII. On Nov. 27, 1762, the king was pleased to appoint, him one of the postmastersgeneral, in the room of the earl of Besborough; but this he resigned on Sept. 10, 1763, in consequence of being appointed first lord of the admiralty, which office he resigned also in Sept. 1766. His Lordship died at his house in Pall Mall, Dec. 4, 1770, and was buried at Charlton, in Kent.

, a late learned prelate, a descendant of the ancient earls of Northumberland, was born at Bridgenorth in Shropshire, in 1728, and educated at Christ church, Oxford. In July 1753 he took the degree of M.A.; and in 1756 he was presented by that college to the vicarage of Easton Mauduit, in Northamptonshire, which he held with the rectory of Wilbye, in the same county, given him by the earl of Sussex. In 1761 he began his literary career, by publishing “Han Kiou Chouan,” a translation from the Chinese; which was followed, in 1762, by a collection of “Chinese Miscellanies,” and in 1763 by “Five Pieces of Runic Poetry,” translated from the Icelandic language. In 1764 he published a new version of the “Song of Solomon,” with a commentary and annotations. The year following he published the “Reliques of Antient English Poetry,” a work which constitutes an aera in the history of English literature in the eighteenth century. Perhaps the perusal of a folio volume of ancient manuscripts given to the bishop by a friend, in early life (from which he afterwards made large extracts in the “Reliques,”) led his mind to those studies in which he so eminently distinguished himself. It appears likewise that Shenstone encouraged him in publishing the “Reliques.” The same year he published “A Key to the New Testament,” a concise manual for Students of Sacred Literature, which has been adopted in the universities, and often reprinted. After the publication of the “Reliques,” he was invited by the late duke and duchess of Northumberland to reside with them as their domestic chaplain. In 1769 he published “A Sermon preached before the Sons of the Clergy at St. Paul’s.” In 1770 he conducted “The Northumberland Household Book” through the press; the same year he published “The Hermit of Wark worth,”' and a translation of Mallet’s “Northern Antiquities,” with notes. A second edition of the “Reliques of Ancient Poetry” was published in 1775, a third in 1794, and a fourth in 1814. In 1769 he was nominated chaplain in ordinary to his majesty; in 1778 he was promoted to the deanery of Carlisle; and in 1782 to the bishopric of Dromore in Ireland, where he constantly resided, promoting the instruction and comfort of the poor with unremitting attention, and superintending the sacred and civil interests of the diocese, with vigilance and assiduity; revered and beloved for his piety, liberality, benevolence, and hospitality, by persons of every rank and religious denomination. Under the loss of sight, of which he was gradually deprived some years before his death, he steadily maintained his habitual cheerfulness; and in his last painful illness he displayed such fortitude and strength of mind, such patience and resignation to the divine will, and expressed such heartfelt thankfulness for the goodness and mercy shewn to him in the course of a long and happy life, as were truly impressive and worthy of that pure Christian spirit, in him so eminently conspicuous. His only son died in 1783. Two daughters survive him; the eldest is married to Sarruiel Isted, esq. of Ecton, in Northamptonshire; and the youngest to the hon. and reV. Pierce Meade, archdeacon of Dromore. In 1777 the rev. John Bowie addressed a printed letter to Dr. Percy, announcing a new and classical edition of “Don Quixote.” In 1780 Mr. Nichols was indebted to him for many useful communications for the “Select Collection of Miscellany Poems.” When elevated to the mitre, Mr. Nichols was also under further obligations in the “History of Hinckley,” 1782. In 1786 the edition of the Tatler, in six volumes, small 8vo, was benefited by the hints suggested by bishop Percy to the rev. Dr. Calder, the learned and industrious annotator and editor of those volumes. The subsequent editions of the Spectator and Guardian were also improved by some of his lordship’s notes. Between 1760 and 1764, Dr. Percy had proceededvery far at the press with an admirable edition of “Surrey’s Poems,” and also with a good edition of the Works of Villiers duke of Buckingham; both which, from a variety of causes, remained many years unfinished in the warehouse of Mr. Tonson in the Savoy; but were resumed in 1795, and nearly brought to a conclusion, when the whole impression of both works was unfortunately consumed by the fire in Red Lion Passage in 1808. His lordship died at his episcopal palace, Dromore, on Sept. 30, 1811, in his eighty-third year. So much of his life had passed in the literary world, strictly so called, that authentic memoirs of his life would form an interesting addition to our literary history, but nothing has yet appeared from the parties most able to contribute such information. The preceding particulars we believe to be correct, as far as they go, but we cannot offer them as satisfactory.

, member of the academies of Nancy, of Amiens, of Kouen, and Angers, was born at Paris on the 9th of July, 1712, of a reputable family. In his early youth his progress in his studies was rapid. His assiduous application, 'his lively genius, and mild demeanour, conciliated the esteem of his master, and gained the friendship of his juvenile companions. His taste for poetry was apparent at a very earl) period; but the designs of his parents for the advancement of his fortune would not permit him to resign himself entirely to his favourite pursuits, and he sacrificed in some degree his propensity to their wishes. He was placed tinder M. Holland, an advocate, and constantly attended to the regular discharge of business. His leisure hours were devoted to the Muse; and J.e gave up that time to poetry, which by many, at his age, is sacrificed to pleasure. In 1738 his “Ecole du Temps,” a comedy in verse, was represented with applause on the Italian theatre. Encouraged by this success, and with the approbation of M. Rolland, he produced, in the following year, at the French theatre, his “Esope au Parnasse,” a comedy in verse. The reputation of the young poet, and his character for probity, recommended him to M. Lailemand of Bety, a farmer-general, who was at that time forming a system of finance, and who felicitated himself in procuring such an assistant, and in attaching him to his interest. The occupations incident to this new department were probably the causes which prevented Pesselier from producing any other pieces for the stage. Poetry was, however, still the amusement of the time that could be spared from business. In 1748, he published his fables, and among his dramatic works appears a comedy, “La Mascarade du Parnasse,” in verse, and in one act, which was never performed.

, a man of learning, a patron of learning, and a distinguished statesman, in the four discordant reigns of Henry VIII. Edward VI. queen Mary, and queen Elizabeth, was the son of John Petre, of Tornewton, in the parish of Tor-brian, in Devonshire, and born either at Exeter or Tor-newton. After some elementary education, probably at his native place, he was entered of Exeter college, Oxford; and when he had studied there for a while with diligence and success, he was, in 1523, elected a fellow of All Souls. We may suppose that he became sensible of the importance of learning, and of the value of such seminaries, as he afterwards proved a liberal benefactor to both these colleges. His intention being to practise in the civil law courts, he took his bachelor’s degree in that faculty in July 1526, ant) his doctor’s in 1532, and the following year was admitted into the college of Advocates. It does not appear, however, that he left Oxford on this account, but was made principal of Peckwater Inn, now part of Christ Church; and he became soon after tutor to the son of Thomas Boleyn, earl of Wiltshire.

In 1666, sir William drew up his treatise, called “Verbum Sapienti,” containing an account of the wealth and expences of England, and the method of raising taxes in the most equal manner; shewing likewise, that England can bear the charge of four millions per annum, when the occasions of the government require it! The same year, 1666, he suffered a considerable loss by the fire of London; having purchased, several years before, the earl of Arunders house and gardens, and erected buildings in the garden, called Token-house, which were for the most part destroyed by that dreadful conflagration. In 1667, he married Elizabeth, daughter to sir Hardresse Waller, knight, and relict of sir Maurice Fenton, bart. and afterwards set up iron works, and a pilchard-fishery, opened lead- mines, and commenced a timber trade in Kerry, which turned to very good account; and with all these employments he found time to consider other subjects of general utility, which he communicated to the Royal Society, He composed a piece of Latin poetry, and published it at London in 1679, in two folio sheets, under the name of ' Cassid. Aureus Manutius,“with the title of” Colloquium Davidis cum anima sua.“His patriotism had before led him to use his endeavours to support the expence of the war against the Dutch, and he felt it necessary also to expose the sinister practices of the French, who were at this time endeavouring to raise disturbances in England, increase our divisions, and corrupt the parliament at this time. With this vievr he published, in 1680, a piece called” The Politician Discovered,“&c. and afterwards wrote several essays in political arithmetic; in which, from a view of the natural strength both of England and Ireland, he suggests a method of improving each by industry and frugality, so as to be a match for, or even superior to, either of her neighbours. Upon the first meeting of the Philosophical Society at Dublin, after the plan of that at London, every thing was submitted to his direction; and, when it was formed into a regular society, he was chosen president, Nov. 1684. UpoiKthis occasion he drew up a” Catalogue of mean, vulgar, cheap, and simple Experiments,“proper for the infant state of the society, and presented it to them; as he did also his” Supellex Philosophica," consisting of fortyfive instruments requisite to carry on the design of their institution. But, a few years after, all his pursuits were determined by the effects of a gangrene in his foot, occasioned by the swelling of the gout, which put a period to his life, at his house in Piccadilly, Westminster, Dec. 16, 1687, in his sixty-fifth year. His body was carried to Rumsey, and there interred, near those of his parents. There was laid over his grave only a flat stone on the pavement, with this short inscription, cut by an illiterate workman:

This singular composition bears date May 2, 1685, and runs thus: “In the name of God, Amen. I, sir William. Petty, knt. born at Rumsey, in Hantshire, do, revoking all other and former wills, make this my last will and testament, premising the ensuing preface to the same, whereby to express my condition, design, intentions, and desires, concerning the persons and things contained in, and relating to, my said will, for the better expounding any thing which may hereafter seem doubtful therein, and also for justifying, on behalf of my children, the manner and means of getting and acquiring the estate, which I hereby bequeath unto them; exhorting them to improve the same by no worse negociations. In the first place I declare and affirm, that at the full age of fifteen years I had obtained the Latin, Greek, and French tongues, the whole body of common Arithmetic, the practical Geometry and Astronomy conducing to Navigation, Dialling, &c. with the knowledge of several mathematical trades, all which, and having been at the university of Caen, preferred me to the king’s navy; where, at the age of twenty years, I had gotten up about threescore pounds, with as much mathematics as any of my age was known to have had. With this provision, anno 1643, when the civil wars between the king and parliament grew hot, I went into the Netherlands and France for three years, and having vigorously followed my studies, especially that of medicine, at Utrecht, Leyden, Amsterdam, and Paris, I returned to Rumsey, where I was born, bringing back with me my brother Anthony, whom I had bred, with about 10l. more than I had carried out of England. With this 70l. and my endeavours, in less than four years more, I obtained my degree of M. D. in Oxford, and forthwith thereupon to be admitted into the College of Physicians, London, and into several clubs of the Virtuous (Virtuosi); after all which expence defrayed, I had left 28l. and in the next two years being made Fellow of Brazen -Nose, and Anatomy Professor in Oxford, and also Reader at Gresham-college, I advanced my said stock to about 400l. and with 100l. more advanced and given me to go for Ireland, unto full 500l. Upon the 10th of September, 1652, I landed, at Waterford in Ireland, Physician to the army who had suppressed the rebellion begun in the year 1641, and to the general of the same, and the head quarters, at the rate of 20^. per diem, at which I continued till June 1659, gaining, by my practice, about 400l. a year above the said salary. About Sept. 1654, I perceiving that the admeasurement of the lands, furfrited by the aforementioned rebellion, and intended to regulate the satisfaction of the soldiers who hadsuppressed the same, was most insufficiently and absurdly managed; I obtained a contract, dated llth December, 1654, for making the said admeasurement, and, by God’s blessing, so performed the same, as that I gained about 9,000l. thereby, which, with the 500l. abovementioned, and my salary of 20s. per diem, the benefit of my practice, together with 600l. given me for directing an after survey of the adventurer’s lands, and 800l. more for two years’ salary as clerk of the council, raised me an estate of about 13,000l. in ready and real money, at a time when, without art, interest, or authority, men bought as much lands for ten shillings in real money, as in this year, 1685, yields 10s. per annum rent, above his majesty’s quit-rents. Now I bestowed part of the said 13,000l. in soldier’s debentures, part in purchasing the earl of Arundel’s house and garden in Lothbury, London, and part I kept in cash to answer emergencies. Hereupon I. purchased lands inIreland, with soldiers’ debentures , bought at the above market-rates, a great part whereof I lost by the Court of Innocents, anno 1663; and built the said garden, called Tokenhouse Yard, in Lothbury, which was for the most part destroyed by the dreadful fire, anno 1666. Afterwards, anno 1667, I married Elizabeth, the relict of sir Maurice Fenton, bart. I set up iron-works and pilchard-fishing in Kerry, and opened the lead -mines and timber-trade in Kerry: by all which, and some advantageous bargains, and with living under my income, I have, at the making this my will, the real and personal estate following: viz. a large house and four tenements in Rumsey, with four acres of meadow upon the causeway, and four acres of arable in the fields, called Marks and Woollsworths, in all about 30A per ann.; houses in Token-house Yard, near Lothbury, London, with a lease in Piccadilly, and the Seven Stars and Blazing Star in Birching-lane, London, worth about 500l. per annum, besides mortgages upon certain houses in Hoglane, near Shoreditch, in London, and in Erith, in Kent, worth about 20l. per annum. I have three fourth parts of the ship Charles, whereof Derych Paine is master, which I value at 80l. per annum, as also the copper-plates for the maps of Ireland with the king’s privilege, which I rate at lOOl. per annum, in all 730l. per annum. I have in Ireland, without the county of Kerry, in lands, remainders, and reversions, about 3,100l. per annum. I have of neat profits, out of the lands and woods of Kerry, above 1,100l. per annum, besides iron-works, fishing, and leadmines, and marble-quarries, worth 600l. per annum; in all 4,800l. I have, as my wife’s jointure, during her life, about 850l. per annum; and for fourteen years after her death about 2001. per ann. I have, by 3,300l. money at interest, 20l. per annum; in all about 6,700l. per annum. The personal estate is as follows, viz. in chest, 6,600l.; in the hands of Adam Loftus, 1,296l.; of Mr. John Cogs, goldsmith, of London, 1,2 5 1l.; in silver, plate, and jewels, about 3,000l.; in furniture, goods, pictures, coach-horses, books, and watches, 1,1 So/.; per estimate in all 12,000l. I value my three chests of original map and field -books, the copies of the Downe-survey, with the Barony-maps, and chest of distribution-books, with two chests of loose papers relating to the survey, the two great barony-books, and the book of the History of the Survey, altogether at 2,000l. I have due out of Kerry, for arrears of my rent and iron, before 24th June, 1685, the sum of 1,912l. for the next half year’s rent out of my lands in Ireland, my wife’s jointure, and England, on or before 24th June next, 2,000l. Moreover, by arrears due 30th April, 1685, out of all my estate, by estimate, and interest of money, 1,800l. By other good debts, due upon bonds and bills at this time, per estimate, 900l. By debts which I call bad 4000l. worth perhaps 800l. By debts which I call doubtful, 50,0007. worth, perhaps, 25,000l. In all, 34,4 12l. and the total of the whole personal estate, 46,412l.: so as my present income for the year 1685 may be 6,700l. the profits of the personal estate may be 4,64 \l. and the demonstrable improvement of my Irish estate may be 3,659l. per ann. to make in all I5,000l. per ann. in and by all manner of effects, abating for bad debts about 28,000l.; whereupon I say in gross, that my real estate or income may be 6,600l. per ann. my personal estate about 45,000l. my bad and desperate debts 30,000l. and the improvements may be 4,000 /. per ann. in all 15,000l. per ann. ut supra. Now my opinion and desire is (if I could effect it, and if I were clear from the law, custom, and other impediments) to add to my wife’s jointure three fourths of what it now is computed at, viz. 637l. per ann. to make the whole 1,487l. per ann. which addition of 637l. and 850l. being deducted out of the aforementioned 6,600l. leaves 5,113l. for my two sons whereof I would my eldest son should have two-thirds, or 3,408l. and the younger 1,705l. and that, after their mother’s death, the aforesaid addition of 637l. should be added in like proportion, making for the eldest 3,S32l. and for the youngest 1,916l. and I would that the improvement of the estate should be equally divided between my two sons; and that the personal estate (taking out 10,000l. for my only daughter) that the rest should be equally divided between my wife and three children; by which method my wife would have 1,587l. per ann. and 9,000l. in personal effects; my daughter would have 10,000l. of the Crame, and 9,000l. more, with less certainty: my eldest son would have 3,800l. per ann. and half the expected improvement, with 9,000l. in hopeful effects, over and above his wife’s portion: and my youngest son would have the same within 1,900l. per ann. I would advise my wife, in this case, to spend her whole l,587l. per ann. that is to say, on her own entertainment, charity, and munificence, without care of increasing her children’s fortunes: and I would she would give away one-third of the above mentioned 9,000l. at her death, even from her children, upon any worthy object, and dispose of the other two-thirds to such of her children and grand-children as pleased her best, without regard to any other rule or proportion. In case of either of my three children’s death under age, I advise as follows; viz. If my eldest, Charles, die without issue, I would that Henry should have three-fourths of what he leaves; and my daughter Anne the rest. If Henry die, I would that what he leaves may be equally divided between Charles and Anne: and if Anne die, that her share be equally divided between Charles and Henry. Memorandum, That I think fit to rate the 30,000l. desperate debts at 1,1 Ooj. only, and to give it my daughter, to make her abovementioned 10,000l. and 9,000l. to be full 20,000l. which is much short of what I have given her younger brother; and the elder brother may have 3,800 per ann. and 9,000l. in money, worth 900l. more, 2,0001. by improvements, and 1,300l. by marriage, to make up the whole to 8,000l. per ann. which is very well for the eldest son, as 20,000l. for the daughter.” He then leaves his wife executrix and guardian during her widowhood, and, in case of her marriage, her brother James Waller, and Thomas Dame: recommending to them two, and his children, to use the same servants and instruments for management of the estate, as were in his life- time, at certain salaries to continue during their lives, or until his youngest child should be twenty-one years, which would be the 22d of October, 1696, after which his children might put the management of their respective concerns into what hands they pleased. He then proceeds:

His family, at his death, consisted of his widow and three children, Charles, Henry, and Anne; of whom Charles was created baron of Shelbourne, in the county of Waterford, in Ireland, by king William III.; but dying without issue, was succeeded by his younger brother Henry, who was created viscount Dunkeron, in the county of Kerry in that kingdom, and earl of Shelbourne, Feb. 11, 1718. He married the lady Arabella Boyle, sister to Charles earl of Cork, who brought him several children. He was member of parliament for Great Marlow in Buckinghamshire, a fellow of the royal society; and died April 17, 1751. Anne was married to Thomas Fitz-Morris, baron of Kerry and Lixnaw, and died in Ireland, anno 1737. The descent to the present marquis of Lansdown may be seen in the peerage.

The variety of pursuits in which sir William Petty was engaged, shews him to have had a genius capable of any thing to which he chose to apply it; and it is very extraordinary, that a man of so active and busy a spirit could find time to write so many things, as it appears he did by the following catalogue 1. “Advice to Mr. S. Hartlib,” &c. 1648, 4to. 2. “A brief of Proceedings between sir Hierom Sankey and the author,” &c. 1659, fol. 3. “Reflections upon some Persons and Things in Ireland,” &c. 1660, 8vo. 4.' “A Treatise of Taxes and Contribution,” &c. 1662, 1667, 1685, 4to, all without the author’s name. This last was republished in 1690, with two other anonymous pieces, “The Privileges and Practice of Parliaments,” and “The Politician discovered” with a new tide-page, where they are all said to be written by sir William, which, as to the first, is a mistake. 5. “Apparatus to the hjstory of the common practice of Dyeing,” printed in Sprat’s History of the R. S. 1667. 6. “A Discourse concerning the use of Duplicate Proportion, together with a new hypothesis of springing or elastic Motions,” 1674, i 2mo. See an account of it in “Phil. Trans.” No. cix. and a censure of it in Dr. Barlow’s “Genuine Remains,” p. 151. 1693, -8vo. 7.“Colloquium Davidis cum aniina sua,” &c. 1679, fol. 8. “.The Politician discovered,” &c. 1681, 4to. 9. “An Essay in Political Arithmetic,” &c. 1682, 8vo. 10. “Observations upon the Dublin Bills of Mortality in 1681,” &c. 1683, 8vo. II. “An account of some Experiments relating to Land-carriage,” Phil. Trans. No. clxi. 12. “Some Queries, whereby to examine Mineral Waters,” ibid. No. clxvi. 13. “A Catalogue of mean, vulgar, cheap, and simple Experiments,” &c. ibid. No. clxvii. 14. “Maps of Ireland, being an actual Survey of the whole kingdom,” &c. 1685, folio. This contained thirty-six accurate maps viz. a general map the province of Leinster, consisting of eleven counties, each in a distinct map that of Munster of six Ulster nine; and Connaught five. Another edition was afterwards made from the same plates. Sir William’s surveys, says Mr. Gough, as far as they go are tolerably exact as to distances and situations, but neither the latitudes nor roads are expressed, nor is the sea-coast exactly laid down; his design being only to take an account of the forfeited lands; many other tracts are left blank, and from such a survey his maps are formed. 15. “An Essay concerning the Multiplication of Mankind,” 1686, 8vo. N. B. The Essay is not printed here, but only the substance of it. 16. “A further assertion, concerning the Magnitude of London, vindicating it from the objections of the French,” Phil. Trans, clxxxv. 17, “Two Essays in Political Arithmetic,” c. 1687, 8vo. An extract of these is in Phil. Trans. No. clxxxiii. 18. “Five Essays in Political Arithmetic,” &c. 1687, 8vo, printed in French and English on opposite pages. 19. “Observations upon London and Rome,” 1687, 8vo, three leaves. His posthumous pieces are, 1. “Political Arithmetic,” &c. 1690, 8vo, and 1755, with his Life prefixed; and a Letter of his never before printed. 2. “The Political Anatomy of Ireland,” to which is added, “Verbum Sapienti,” 1691, 1719. In the title-page of the second edition this treatise is called “Sir William Petty’s Political Survey of Ireland.” This latter was criticized in “A Letter from a gentleman,” &cr. 1692, 4to. 3. “A treatise of Naval Philosophy, in three parts,” &c. printed at the end of “An account of several new Inventions, &c. in a discourse by way of letter to the earl of Marlborougb,” &c. 1691, 12mo. Wood suspects this may be the same with the discourse about the building of ships, mentioned above to be many years in the hands of lord Brounker. 4. “What a complete Treatise of Navigation should contain,” Phil. Trans. No. cxcviii. This was drawn up in 1685. Besides these, the following are printed in Birch’s History of the H. S. 1. “A discourse of making Cloth and Sheep’s Wool.” This contains the history of the clothing trade, as No. 5. above, does that of dyeing; and he purposed to have done the like in other trades; in which design some other members of the society engaged also at that time. 2. “Supellex Philosophica.”

, descendant of the preceding, second lord Wycombe, and first marquis of Lansdown, was born in May 1737, and succeeded his father as lord Wycombe, earl of Shelburne, in the month of May 1761. In February 1765 he was married to lady Sophia Carteret, daughter of the late earl Granvitle, by whom he became possessed of large estates, particularly that beautiful spot Lansdown Hill, Bath, from which he took his last title. By this lady, who died in 1771, he had a son, John Henry, who succeeded him in his titles, and who is since dead, leaving no male heir. The marquis married, secondly, lady Louisa Fiizpatrick, by whom, who died in 1789, he had another son, lord Henry, the present marquis of Lansdown. His lordship being intended for the army, he, at a fit a^e, obta tied a commission in the guards, and served wuh the British troops in Germany under prince Ferdinand, and gave signal proofs of great personal courage at the battles of Campen and Minden. In December 1760 he was appointed aid-de-camp to the king, George III. with the rank of colonel. As a political man, he joined the party of the earl of Bute; and in 1762 he eagerly defended the court on the question respecting the preliminaries of peace. In the following year he was sworn of the privy council, and appointed first lord of the board of trade, which he soon quitted, and with it his connexion with the court and ministry, and aiUiched himself in a short time to lords Chatham and Camden. When the Rockingham administration was displaced in 1766, and lord Chatham was called upon to form a new administration, he appointed lord Sheiburne secretary of state of the southern department, to which was annexed the department of the colonies. But this he resigned when lord Chatham withdrew in 1768, and from this; period, continued in strong opposition to all the measures of government during the American war till the termination of lord North’s ministry, in the spring of 1782. He was then appointed secretary of state for the foreign department in the Rockingham administration, and upon the death of that nobleman he succeeded to the office of minister. This measure gave great offence to Mr. Fox and his friends, but his lordship did not quit his post. His first object was to make peace; but when the treaty was brought before the parliament, lord North and Mr. Fox had united in a most disgraceful coalition, which, however, for a time was irresistible, and early in 1783 lord Shelburne resigned. When at the end of that year Mr. Pitt overthrew the coalition administration, it was expected that lord Shelburne would have been at the head of the new government. He formed, however, no part of the arrangement, and appeared to have been satisfied wirh being created marquis of Lansdown. He now retired to a private life; but on the breaking out of the French revolution, came forward again in constant and decisive opposition to the measures of administration, in which he continued to the day of his death, May 7, 1805. His lordship always had the reputation of a man of considerable political knowledge, improved by a most extensive foreign correspondence, and a study of foreign affairs and foreign relations, which was very uncommon, and gave his speeches in parliament, while in opposition, very great weight. Many of his ablest efforts in this way, however, were rather historical than argumentative, excellent matter of information, but seldom ending in those results which shew a capacity for the formation of able and beneficial plans. It was his misfortune, throughout almost the whole of his political career, to have few personal adherents, and to possess little of the confidence of either of the great parties who divided the parliament in the memorable contests respecting the policy of the American war, and the propriety of our interfering in the continental effort to suppress the consequences of the French revolution. His lordship was possessed of perhaps the most valuable and complete library of history and political documents, both primed and manuscript, that ever was accumulated by any individual or family. The printed part was dispersed by auction after his lordship’s death, but the manuscripts were rescued Irom this—shall we say, disgrace by the interference of the trustees of the British Museum, at whose representation the whole was purchased by a parliamentary grant for the sum of 4925l. It is remarkable that this was the average valuation of three parties who had no connection with the other in the inspection of the Mss. They are now deposited in the above great national collection, and besides their importance as a miscellaneous collection of historical, biographical, and literary matter, they must be considered as highly interesting to future politicians and statesmen when we add that they were scarcely, if at all known, to those able antiquaries and inquirers into political history, Collins, Murdin, Jones, or Birch.

, an English poet, was descended from an ancient family in Leicestershire, and educated at St. John’s-college, in Cambridge, where he took his degrees of A.B. in 1696, and A.M. in 1700, at which time he obtained a fellowship. ' While at college also he is supposed to have written his “Pastorals,” which involved him so seriously with the wits and critics of the age. When he quitted the university, and repaired to the metropolis, he became, as Jacob expresses himself, “one of the wits at Button’s; n and there contracted an acquaintance with the gentlemen of the belles lettres, who frequented it. Sir Richard Steele was his particular friend, and inserted in his Tatler, N. 12, a little poem of his, called” A Winter Piece,“dated from Copenhagen, the 9th of May, 1709, and addressed to the earl of Dorset. Sir Richard thus mentions it with honour:” This is as fine a piece as we ever had from any of the schools of the most learned painters. Such images as these give us a new pleasure in our sight, and fix upon our minds traces of reflection, which accompany us wherever the like objects occur.“Pope, too, who had a confirmed aversion to Philips, while he affected to despise his other works, always excepted this out of the number, and mentioned it as the production of a man” who could write very nobly."

, an English lady once highly praised for her wit and accomplishments, was the daughter of Mr. Fowler, a merchant of London, and born there Jan. 1, 1631. She was educated at a boarding-school at Hackney; where she distinguished herself early for her skill in poetry. When very young, she became the wife of James Philips, of the priory of Cardigan, esq. and afterwards went with the viscountess of Dungannon into Ireland. At the request of the earl of Orrery, she translated from the French, and dedicated to the countess of Cork, “Corneille’s tragedy of Pompey” which was several times acted at the new theatre there in 1663 and 1664, in which last year it was published. She translated also the four first acts of “Horace,” another tragedy of Corneille; the fifth being done by sir John Denham. She died of the small pox in London, the 22d of June, 1664, to the regret of all the beau-monde, in the thirty-third year of her age “having not left,” says Langbaine, “any of her sex her equal in poetry.” “She not only equalled,” adds he, “alt that is reported of the poetesses of antiquity, the Lesbian Sappho and the Roman Sulpitia, but justly found her admirers among the greatest poets of our age:” and then he mentions the earls of Orrery and Roscommon, Cowley, and others. Cowley wrote an ode upon her death. Dr. Jeremy Taylor had addressed to her his “Measures and Offices of Friendship:” the second edition of which was printed in 1,657, 12mo. She assumed the name of Orinda, and gave that of Anten'or to her husband; she had likewise a female friend Anne Owen, who was Lucasia. In 1667, were printed, in folio, “Poems by the most deservedly admired Mrs. Catherine Philips, the matchless Orinda. To which is added, Monsieur Corneille’s Pompey and Horace, tragedies. With several other translations from the French;” and her portrait before them, engraven by Fait born. There was likewise another edition in 1678, folio; in the preface of which we are told, that “she wrote her familiar letters with great facility, in a very fair hand, and perfect orthography; and if they were collected with those excellent discourses she wrote on several subjects, they would make a volume much larger than that of her poems.” In 1705, a small volume of her letters to sir Charles Cotterell was printed under the title of “Letters from Orinda to Poliarchus:” the editor of which tells us, that “they were the effect of an happy intimacy between herself and the late-famous Poliarchus, and are an admirable pattern for the pleasing correspondence of a virtuous friendship. They will sufficiently instruct us, how an intercourse of writing between persons of different sexes ought to be managed with delight and innocence; and teach the world not to load such a commerce with censure and detraction, when it is removed at such a distance from even the appearance of guilt.” All the praise of her contemporaries, however, has not been sufficient to preserve her works from oblivion.

From school, where he became acquainted with the poets ancient and modern, and fixed his attention particularly on Milton, he was, in 1694, removed to Christ church, Oxford, where he performed all his university exercises with applause. Following, however, the natural bent of his genius to poetry, he continued the study of his favourite Milton, so intensely, that it is said there was not an allusion in “Paradise Lost,” drawn from any hint in either Homer or Virgii, to which he could not immediately refer. Yet he was not so much in love with poetry, as to neglect other branches of learning, and, having some intention to apply to physic as a profession, he took much delight in natural history, particularly botany; but he appears to have relinquished these pursuits when he had begun to acquire poetical fame. While he was at Oxford, he was honoured with the acquaintance of the best and politest men in it; and had a particular intimacy with Mr. Edmund Smith, author of the tragedy of Phaedra and Hippolitus. The first poem which distinguished him, in 1703, was his “Splendid Shilling;” his next, entitled “Blenheim,' 1 he wrote, as a rival to Addison’s on the same subject, at the request of the earl of Oxford, and Mr. Henry St. John, afterwards lord Bolingbroke, on occasion of the victory obtained at that place by the duke of Marlborough in 1704. It was published in 1705; and the year after he finished a third poem, upon” Cyder,“the first book of which had been written at Oxford. It is founded upon the model of Virgil’s” Georgics.“All that we have more by Philips is, a Latin” Ode to Henry St. John, esq.;“which is also esteemed a master-piece. He was meditating a poem on the” Last Day," when illness obliged him to relinquish all pursuits, except the care of his health. His disorder, however, became a lingering consumption, attended with an asthma, of which he died at Hereford, Feb. 15, 1708, when he ha'd not reached his thirty-third year. He was interred in the cathedral there, with an inscription over his grave; and had a monument erected to his memory, in Westminster- abbey, by sir Simon Harcourt, afterwards lord chancellor, with an epiuipli upon it, written by Dr. Atterbury, though commonly ascribed to Dr. Freind. Philips was one of those few poets, whose Muse and manners were equally excellent and amiable; and both were so in a very eminent degree.

It is remarkable, that there were two poets of both the names of this author, who flourished in his time: one the nephew to Milton, already mentioned. The other was the author of two political farces, both printed in 1716; 1. “The Earl of Marr marred, with the Humours of Jocky the Highlander.” 2. “The Pretender’s Flight: or, a Mock Coronation, with the Humours of the facetious Harry St. John.”

Mr. Phillips, after he entered into holy orders, obtained a dispensation to quit the Jesuits; and this step is said to have been taken in consequence of some dissatisfaction and difference with his superiors and professors, by whom, he would not submit to be guided and controlled in his theological studies. From Liege, where he took his dismission, he went to Rome, and there obtained, by the interest of the Pretender, a prebend in the collegiate church of Tongres, but was dispensed from residence on condition of serving the English mission, and for many years lived in the family of the late earl of Shrewsbury, and afterwards in that of Mrs. Berkeley, of Spetchley, near Worcester. In the decline of life he retired to the English college at Liege, with the design, which he could not effect, of reentering into the society he had withdrawn himself from, for which he retained a tender regard and affection. During the last four or five years of his life he was afflicted with epileptic fits, and, as his temper was naturally eager, his friends were cautious not to engage him in conversation upon his past studies or literary subjects, by which they observed his infirmity was increased. He was, we are told, a man of eminent piety, and always appeared strongly affected with the idea of the presence of God, particularly in his last illness, which happened at Liege in 1774.

His eldest son, Thomas Philipott, or Philpot, M. A. was educated at Clare-hall, and published the “Villare Cantianum,” London, 1659, folio; a book which is written in an affected style, yet is a very valuable performance, as an early history of property, and continues to be highly and justly prized. Though the son takes the credit, there can be little doubt but that much of it was written by the father. The, son, however, was a man of good abilities, a tolerable poet, and well versed in divinity and antiquities. He published a whimsical, mystical, heraldic book, entitled “A brief Historical Discourse of the original and growth of Heraldry, demonstrating upon what rational foundations that noble and heroic science is established,” London, 1672, 8vo, dedicated to John earl of Bridgewater. There are some verses of his prefixed to the “Monasticon Favershamiensis,” 1671, 12mo; also an appendix to it by him of the descent of king Stephen. The book was written by his friend Thomas Southouse, of Gray’s Inn, esq. His*' Poems,“Lond. 1646, vo, is a volume of rare occurrence. The elder Ptiilipot is supposed to have been the author of” The Citie’s great concern in this case, or question of Honour and Arms, whether Apprenticeship extinguisheth Gentry? discoursed; with a clear refutation of the pernicious error that it doth,“1674, 12mo. Another production of John Philipot was,” A perfect Collection or Catalogue of all Knights Bachelours made by king James,“&c. 1660, 8vo. Mr. Lysons gives an extract from the parish register of Greenwich, which has been supposed to relate to him:” Mr. Thomas Philipott, buried September 30, 1682;“adding,” that besides the above works, he wrote on the origin and growth of the Spanish Monarchy, and a Life of jsop," and remarking, that Anthony Wood attributes to him some theological works; but Mr. Lysons thinks it is more probable that they were the production of his contemporary, Thomas Philipott, D. D. rector of Turveston and Akeley, Bucks. Wood places his death in 1684-.

, or Freas, an English writer, celebrated by Leland as one of those who were the first to raise their country from barbarism, was born in London, towards the close of the fourteenth or the beginning of the fifteenth century. He was educated at Oxford, and became fellow of Baliol -college. After taking holy orders, he settled as minister of St. Mary’s church on the Mount, in the city of Bristol; where he pursued the studies for which he had made himself famous at the university. Many merchants being at that time going from Bristol to Italy, his curiosity was excited by the learning which he was told abounded in that country, and particularly by the fame of Guarini, an old philosopher and orator, who taught at Ferrara. To him he went, attended his lectures, studied under him the knowledge of medical herbs, and, by an odd assortment, the civil law, and gained the esteem of many of the learned there; so as with great applause to read medical lectures, first at Ferrara, and afterwards at Florence and Padua; in which latter place he obtained the degree of doctor. He also visited Rome, and there met with John Tiptoft, earl of Worcester, then absent from his country, on account of the civil wars prevailing between the houses of York and Lancaster. Phreas wrote “Epistles,” and “Poems;” some of which he dedicated to his patron Tiptoft. To him also he dedicated a Latin translation of “Synesius de laude Calvitii.” Basil, 1521, and translated into English by Abraham Flemming, Loud. 1579. Phreas translated also into Latin, the history of “Diodorus Siculus,” which was by some falsely attributed to Poggius. Leland mentions that he had seen a copy, in the Brst leaf of which a later pen had written, “Paul (II). the Roman pontiff, on account of this translation, which was dedicated to him by Phreas, gave him the bishopric of Bath, which presentation he survived only one month, and died at Rome in 1465, before he was consecrated.' 7 Leland adds, that some supposed him to have been poisoned by a person who was a competitor for that appointment. The same author subjoins, that he had seen a book,” de rebus Geographicis," which he, from various circumstances, collected to have been written by Phreas. He speaks also of an elegant epitaph composed by him for the tomb of Petrarch. He was much praised by Omnibonus Leonicenus, and Rhenanus, particularly for his version of Synesius, and in general for his great learning. According to Leland, he was reported to have made a great deal of money by practising physic in Italy, and to have died rich. Some epistles of Phreas are still extant in ms. in the Bodleian and in Baliol college libraries, which, Warton says, discover an uncommon terseness and facility of expression.

During this prelate’s time, not only the cause of religion, but also political matters, called the queen’s attention towards Scotland, and the borders were frequently the scene of military operations. During these commotions, the queen having seized the earl of Westmoreland’s estates within the bishopric of Durham, our prelate instituted his suit, in which it was determined, that “where he hath jura regalia (regal rights) he shall have forfeiture of high treason.” This being a case, says the historian of Durham, after the statute for restoring liberties to the crown, is materially worth the reader’s attention. By an act of Parliament, made in the 13th year of Elizabeth, 1570,c. 16. “The convictions, outlawries, and attainders of Charles Earl of. Westmoreland, and fifty -seven others, attainted of treason, for open rebellion in the north parts, were confirmed;” and it was enacted, “That the queen, her heirs, and successors, should have, Jor that time, all the lands and goods which any of the said persons attainted within the bishopric of Durham had, against the bishop and his successors, though be claimeth jura regalia, and challenged! all the said forfeitures in right of his church.” So that the see was deprived of the greatest acquisition it had been entitled to for many centuries. Fuller says, that the reason for parliament taking the forfeited estates from the bishopric of Durham, was the great expence sustained by the state in defending the bishop’s family, and his see, in that rebellion. It is certain that he being the first protestant bishop that held the see of Durham, was obliged to keep out of the way of the insurgents, to whom a man of his principles must have been particularly obnoxious. Another reason assigned, that the bishop gave ten thousand pounds with one of his daughters in marriage, appears to have less foundation. Ten thousand pounds was sufficient for the dowry of a princess, and queen Elizabeth is said to have been olfended that a subject should bestow such a sum. Fuller, who has been quoted on this subject, has not been quoted fairly: he gives the story, but in his index calls it false, and refers to another part of his history, where we are told that the bishop gave only four thousand pounds with his daughter. There is some probability, however, that the revenues of Durham, augmented as they must have been by these forfeited estates, became an object of jealousy with the crown.

The year 1564 was remarkable for a contest about the ecclesiastical habits, and about various irregularities which had taken place in the service of the church. Bishop Pilkington, who had adopted the notions of the Geneva reformers on such subjects, entertained some scruples in his own mind about the habits, and particularly disliked the cap and surplice, though not so as to refuse to wear them. He was, however, very averse to forcing compliance upon others; and when he observed that this matter was about to be urged by the court, he wrote a long and earnest letter, dated from Auckland, Get 25, 1564, to the earl of Leicester, entreating him to use his interest to oppose it, and at the same time justified his own practice as we'aring the habits for the sake of peace, but not forcing others whose consciences prevented their compliance. In all other respects our prelate was a true friend to church and state, as appears by many of his writings, and was very assiduous in ecclesiastical duties.

, an Italian by birth, but the author of many compositions in French prose and verse, was born at Venice about 1363, being the daughter of Thomas Pisan, of Bologna, much celebrated at that time as an astrologer. When she was five years old, her father settled with her in France, and her extraordinary beauty and wit procured her an excellent husband by the time she was fifteen. After ten years she lost this husband, Stephen Castel, by whom she was most tenderly beloved, and found her chief resource for comfort and subsistence in her pen; her husband’s fortune being entangled in several law-suits. Charles VI. of France, and other princes, noticed and assisted her on account of her talents, and provided for her children. When she died is uncertain. Some of her poems, which are full of tenderness, were printed at Paris in 1529, others remain in manuscript in the royal library. “The Life of Charles V.” written by desire of Philip the Good, duke of Burgundy, is considered as her best performance in prose. It is preserved in ms. in the library of the king of France, but a transcript was published by the abbé Le Beuf in the third volume of “Dissertations on the Ecclesiastical History of Paris,” where he gives a Life of Cnristina. She wrote also “An hundred Stories of Troy,” in rhyme “The Treasure of the City of Dames,” Paris, 1497 “The Long Way,” translated by John Chaperon, 1549, under the title of “Le Chemin de long etendue.” In the Harleian collection of Mss. (No. 219, 5) is a piece by Christina entitled “Epistre d'Otnea deese de Prudence a Hector, &c. Mis en vers Francois, et dedie a Charles V. de France.” Anthony WidviSle, earl Rivers, translated a work of hers, we know not whether included in any of the above, entitled “The Moral Proverbs of Christian of Pyse,” printed by Caxton. Lord Orford, who has noticed this work in his account of WidviUe, has also introduced an account of Christina, which, although written in his flippant and sarcastic manner, contains some interesting particulars of her history.

, an eminent Scotch physician of the mechanical sect, was descended from an ancient family in the county of Fife, and born at Edinburgh Dec. 25, 1652. After some classical education at the school of Dalkeith, he was removed in 1668 to the university of Edinburgh; where, having gone through a course of philosophy, he obtained in 1671 his degree of M. A. and studied first divinity, which does not appear to have been to his taste, and then the civil law, which was more seriously the object of his choice, and he pursued it with so much intenseness as to impair his health. He was then, advised to travel to Montpelier in France, but found himself recovered by the time he reached Paris. He determined to pursue the study of the law in the university there; but there being no able professor of it, and meeting with some of his countrymen, who were students in physic, he went with them to the lectures and hospitals. A few months after, he was called home by his father; and now, having laid in the first elements of all the three professions, he found himself absolutely undetermined which to follow. In the mean time he applied himself to the mathematics, in which he made a very great progress; and an acquaintance which he formed with Dr. David Gregory, the celebrated mathematical professor, probably conduced to cherish his natural aptitude for this study. At length, struck with the charms of mathematical truth which been lately introduced into the philosophy of medicine, and hoping to reduce the healing art to geometrical method, he unalterably determined in favour of medicine as a profession. As there was however at this time no medical school in Edinburgh, no hospital, nor opportunity of improvement but the chamber and the shop, he returned to Paris about 1675, and cultivated the object of his pursuit with diligence and steadiness. Among his various occupations, the study of the ancient physicians seems to have had a principal share. This appears from a treatise which he published some time after his return, “Solutio problematis de inventoribus,” which shews that he wisely determined to know the progress of medicine from its earliest periods, before he attempted to reform and improve that science. In August 1680 he received from the faculty of llheims the degree of Doctor, which in 1699 was likewise conferred on him by the university of Aberdeen, and he was likewise appointed a member of the college of surgeons of Edinburgh in 1701. He was before chosen a member of the royal college of physicians of Edinburgh from the time it was established by charter in 1681. On his return to Edinburgh, which was about the time of the revolution, he presently came into good business, and acquired an extensive reputation. Such, however, was his attachment to the exiled James II. that he became excluded from public honours and promotion at home, and therefore, Laving in 1692 received an invitation from the curators of the university of Leyden, to be professor of physic there, he accepted it, and went and made his inauguration speech the 26th of April that year, entitled “Oratio qua ostenditur meclicinam ab omni philosophorum secta esse Jiberam.” He continued there little more than a year; during which short space he published several dissertations, chiefly with a view of shewing the usefulness of mathematics to physic. Pitcairne was the first who introduced the mechanic principles into that art, now so generally exploded, but they do not appear to have influenced his practice, which did not differ essentially from the present. He returned to Scotland in 1693, to discharge an engagement to a young lady, who became his second wife, the daughter of sir Archibald Stephenson, an eminent physician in Edinburgh; and, being soon after married to her, was fully resolved to set out again for Holland; but, the lady’s parents being unwilling to part with her, he settled at Edinburgh, and wrote a valedictory letter to the university of Leyden. His lady did not survive her marriage many years; yet she brought him a daughter, who was in 1731 married to the earl of Kelly.

, earl of Chatham, one of the most illustrious statesmen whom this country has produced, was the son of Robert Pitt, esq. of Boconnock in Cornwall, and grandson of Thomas Pitt, governor of Madras, who was purchaser of the celebrated diamond, afterwards called the Regent. The family was originally of Dorsetshire, where it had been long and respectably established. William Pitt was born Nov. 15, 1708, and educated at Eton; whence, in January 1726, he went as a gentleman-commoner to Trinity-college, Oxford. It has been said, that he was not devoid of poetical talents, of which a few specimens have been produced; but they do not amount to much, and of his Latin verses on the death of George the First, it is natural to suspect that the whole merit was not his own. When he quitted the university, Pitt was for a time in the army, and served as a cornet; but his talents leading him more decisively to another field of action, he quitted the life of a soldier for that of a statesman, and became a member of parliament for the borough of Old Sarum, in February 1735. In this situation his abilities were soon distinguished, and he spoke with great eloquence against the Spanish convention in 1738. It was on the occasion of the bill for registring seamen in 1740, which he opposed as arbitrary and unjustifiable, that he is said to have made his celebrated reply to Mr. Horatio Walpole, who had attacked him on account of his youth (though then thirty-two), adding, that the discovery of truth is little promoted by pompous diction and theatrical emotion. Mr. Pitt retorted, with great severity, “I will not undertake to determine whether youth can justly be imputed to any man as a reproach; but I will affirm, that the wretch who, after having seen the consequences of repeated errors, continues still to blunder, and whose age has only added obstinacy to stupidity, is surely the object of either abhorrence or contempt, and deserves not that his grey head should secure him from insults. Much more is he to be abhorred, who, as he has advanced in age, has receded from virtue, and becomes more wicked with less temptation; who prostitutes himself for money which he cannot enjoy; and spends the remains of his life in the ruin of his country.” Something like this Mr. Pitt might have said, but the language is that of Dr. Johnson, who then reported the debates for the Gentleman’s Magazine.

Though he held no place immediately from the crown, Mr. Pitt had for some time enjoyed that of groom of the bedchamber to Frederick prince of Wales, but resigned it in 1745; and continuing steady in his opposition to the measures of the ministry, experienced about the same time that fortune, which more than once attended him, of having his public services repaid by private zeal. The dowager duchess of Marlborough left him by will 10,000l. expressly for defending the laws of his country, and endeavouring to prevent its ruin. It was thought soon after an object of importance to obtain his co-operation with government, and in 1746 he was made joint vice-treasurer of Ireland; and in the same year treasurer, and pay-master-general of the army, and a privy-counsellor. In 1755, thinking it necessary to make a strong opposition to the continental connections then formed by the ministry, he resigned his places, and remained for some time out of office. But in December 1756, he was called to a higher situation, being appointed secretary of state for the southern department. In this high office he was more successful in obtaining the confidence of the public, than that of the king, some of whose wishes he thought himself bound to oppose. In consequence of this he was soon removed, with Mr. Legge, and some others of his friends. The nation, however, was not disposed to be deprived of the services of Mr. Pitt. The most exalted idea of him had been taken up throughout the kingdom: not only of his abilities, which were evinced by his consummate eloquence, but of his exalted, judicious, and disinterested patriotism. This general opinion of him, and in some degree of his colleagues, was so strongly expressed, not merely by personal honours conferred on them, but by addresses to the throne in their favour, that the king thought it prudent to restore them to their employments. On June 29, 1757, Mr. Pitt was again made secretary of state, and Mr. Legge chancellor of the exchequer, with other arrangements according to their wishes. Mr. Pitt was now considered as prime minister, and to the extraordinary ability of his measures, and the vigour of his whole administration, is attributed the great change which quickly appeared in the state of public affairs. It was completely shewn how much the spirit of one man may animate a whole nation. The activity of the minister pervaded every department. His plans, which were ably conceived, were executed with the utmost promptitude; and the depression which had arisen from torpor and ill success, was followed by exertion, triumph, and confidence. The whole fortune of the war was changed; in every quarter of the world we were triumphant; the boldest attempts were made by sea and land, and almost every attempt was fortunate. In America the French lost Quebec; in Africa their principal settlements fell; in the East-Indies their power was abridged, and in Europe their armies defeated; while their navy, their commerce, and their finances, were little less than ruined. Amidst this career of success king George the Second died, Oct. 25, 1760. His present majesty ascended the throne at a time when the policy of the French court had just succeeded in obtaining the co-operation of Spain. The family compact had been secretly concluded; and the English minister, indubitably informed of the hostile intentions of Spain, with his usual vigour of mind, had determined on striking the first blow, before the intended enemy should be fully prepared for action. He proposed in the privy council an immediate declaration of war against Spain, urging, with great energy, that this was the favourable moment, perhaps never to be regained, for humbling the whole house of Bourbon. In this measure he was not supported, and the nation attributed the opposition he encountered to the growing influence of the earl of Bute. Mr. Pitt, of much too high a spirit to remain as the nominal head of a cabinet which he was no longer able to direct, resigned his places on the 5th of October, 1761; when, as some reward for his eminent services, his wife was created baroness of Chatham in her own right, and a pension of three thousand pounds was settled on the lives of himself, his lady, and his eldest son.

The Rockingham ministry proving unable to maintain its ground, a new administration was formed, and Mr. Pitt, in 1766, was made lord privy seal. At the same time he was created a peer, by the titles of viscount Pitt, of Burton Pynsent, in the county of Somerset, and earl of Chatham, in the county of Kent. Whatever might be his motives for accepting this elevation, he certainly sunk by it in popularity, at least as much as he rose in nominal dignity. The great commoner, as he was sometimes styled, had formed a rank to himself, on the sole basis of his talents and exertions, for which the titular honours, which he was now to participate with many others, could not in the public opinion compensate. Still it must be owned that the high and hereditary distinction of the peerage is a just and honourable object of ambition to a British commoner; which, if he attains it, as Mr. Pitt appears to have done, without any improper concession or stipulation, may be considered as the fair reward of past services, and the most permanent monument of public gratitude. Lord Chatham, whatever might be the cause, did not long continue in office; he resigned the place of lord privy seal on the 2d of November, 1768, and it was the last public employment which he ever accepted. He does not indeed appear to have been desirous of returning to office. He was now sixty; and the gout, by which he had been long afflicted, had become too frequent and violent in its attacks, to allow of close or regular application to business. In the intervals of his disorder he continued occasionally to exert himself, on questions of great magnitude, and was particularly strenuous in 1775, and the ensuing years, against the measures pursued by the ministers in the contest with America. Nevertheless, in all things he maintained his native spirit. When France began to interfere in the contest, he fired with indignation at the insult; and when, in 1778, it was thought necessary, after the repeated misfortunes of the war, to acknowledge the independence of America, he summoned up all the strength that remained within him, to pour out his disapprobation of a measure so inglorious. He did so in a speech of considerable energy, and being answered in the course of the debate by the duke of Richmond, seemed agitated with a desire to reply: but when he attempted to rise, the effort proved too violent for his debilitated constitution, and he sunk, in a kind of fit, into the arms of those who were near him. This extraordinary scene of a great statesman, almost dying in the last exertion of his talents, has been perpetuated by the pencil, and will live for ever in the memory of his countrymen. He did not long survive this effort. This debate happened on the 8th of April, 1778, and he died on the 11th of May ensuing.