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

All parties appeared now to contend to do honour to his memory: a public funeral and a monument in Westminster abbey, at the national expence, were immediately voted by parliament, and his majesty was addressed to settle upon his family “such a lasting provision as he in his wisdom and liberality should think fit, as a mark of the sense the nation entertains of the services done to this kingdom by that able statesman.” A pension of 4,000l. a-year was accordingly appointed by his majesty, out of the civil list revenue, and confirmed in perpetuity by parliament, to the heirs of the earl of Chatham, to whom the title should descend. The monument raised to his memory is highly worthy of the occasion, being perhaps the noblest effort of British sculpture. His figure appears upon it, at full length, in his parliamentary robes, and in the attitude of speaking; the accompaniments are grand and appropriate, and the inscription has a simple dignity, much more impressive than any pomp of words, announcing merely, that the king and parliament have paid this tribute to his merits.

, second son of the preceding, and his legitimate successor in political talents and celebrity, was born May 28, 1759. He was educated at home under the immediate eye of his father, who, as he found him very early capable of receiving, imparted to him many of the principles which had guided his own political conduct, and in other respects paid so much attention to his education that at the age of fourteen, he was found fully qualified for the university; and accordingly, was then entered of Pembroke-hall, Cambridge, where he was distinguished alike for the closeness of his application, and for the success of his efforts, in attaining those branches of knowledge to which his studies were particularly directed; nor have many young men of rank passed through the probation of an university with a higher character for morals, abilities, industry, and regularity. He was intended by his father for the bar and the senate, and his education was regulated so as to embrace both these objects. Soon after he quitted the university, he went to the continent, and passed a short time at Rheims, the capital of Champagne. The death of his illustrious father, while he was in his 19th year, could not fail to cast a cloud over the prospects of a younger son, but the foundation was laid of those qualities which would enable him to clear the path to eminence by his own exertions. He had already entered himself a student of Lincoln’s Inn, and as soon as he was of age, in 1780, he was called to the bar, went the western circuit once, and appeared in a few causes as a junior counsel. His success during this short experiment was thought to be such as was amply sufficient to encourage him to pursue his legal career, and to render him almost certain of obtaining a high rank in his profession. A seat in parliament, however, seems to have given his ambition its proper direction, and at once placed him where he was best qualified to shine and to excel. At the general election in 1780, he had been persuaded to offer himself as a candidate to represent the university of Cambridge, but finding that his interest would not be equal to carry the election, he declined the contest, and in the following year was, through the influence of sir James Lowther, returned for the borough of Appleby. This was during the most violent period of political opposition to the American war, to which Mr. Pitt, it may be supposed, had an hereditary aversion. He was also, as most young men are, captivated by certain theories on the subject of political reform, which were to operate as a remedy for all national disasters. Among others of the more practical kind, Mr. Burke had, at the commencement of the session, brought forward his bill for making great retrenchments in the civil list. On this occasion Mr. Pitt, on the 26th of February, 1781, made his first speech in the British senate. The attention of the house was naturally fixed on the son of the illustrious Chatham, but in a few moments the regards of the whole audience were directed to the youthful orator on his own account. Unembarrassed by the novelty of the situation in which he had been so lately placed, he delivered himself with an ease, a grace, a richness of expression, a soundness of judgment, a closeness of argument, and a classical accuracy of language, which not only answered, but exceeded, all the expectations which had been formed of him, and drew the applauses of both parties. During the same and the subsequent session, he occasionally rose to give his sentiments on public affairs, and particularly on parliamentary reform. This he urged with an enthusiasm which he had afterwards occasion to repent; for when more mature consideration of the subject, had convinced him that the expedient was neither safe nor useful, he was considered as an apostate from his early professions. As a public speaker, however, it was soon evident that he was destined to act a high part on the political stage; yet, although he seemed to go along generally with the party in opposition to lord North, he had not otherwise much associated with them, and therefore when, on the dissolution of lord North’s, a new one was formed, at the head of which was the marquis of Rockingham, Mr. Pitt’s name did not appear on the list. Some say he was not invited to take a share; others, that he was offered the place of a lord of the treasury, which he declined, either from a consciousness that he was destined for a higher station, or that he discerned the insecurity of the new ministers. Their first misfortune was the death of the marquis of Rockingham, which occasioned a fatal breach of union between them, respecting the choice of a new head. Of this the earl of Shelburne availed himself, and in July 1782, having, with a part of the former members, been appointed first lord of the treasury, associated Mr. Pitt, who had just completed his 23d year, as chancellor of the exchequer. A general peace with America, France, Spain, &c. soon followed, which was made a ground of censure by a very powerful opposition; and in April 1783, the famous coalition ministry took the places of those whom they had expelled. Mr. Pitt, during his continuance in office, had found little opportunity to distinguish himself, otherwise than as an able defender of the measures of administration, and a keen animadverter upon the principles and conduct of his antagonists; but a circumstance occurred which constitutes the first great æra in his life. This, indeed, was the eventual cause not only of his return to office, but of his possession of a degree of authority with the king, and of popularity with the nation, which has rarely been the lot of any minister, and which he preserved, without interruption, to the end of his life, although his character was supposed to vary in many respects from the opinion that had been formed of it, and although he was never known to stoop to the common tricks of popularity. The coalition administration, of which some notice has been taken in our accounts of Mr. Burke and Mr. Fox, was, in its formation, most revolting to the opinions of the people. Its composition was such as to afford no hopes of future benefit to the nation, and it was therefore narrowly watched as a combination for self-interest. While the public was indulging such suspicions, Mr. Fox introduced his famous bill for the regulation of the affairs of India, the leading provision of which was to vest the whole management of the affairs of the East India company, in seven commissioners named in the act, and to be appointed by the ministry. It was in vain that this was represented as a measure alike beneficial to the company and to the nation; the public considered it as trenching too much on the prerogative, as creating a mass of ministerial influence which would be irresistible, and as rendering the ministry too strong for the crown. Mr. Pitt, who, in this instance, had rather to follow than to guide the public opinion, unfolded the hidden mystery of the vast mass of patronage which this bill would give, painted in the most glowing colours its danger to the crown and people on one hand, and to the company on the other, whose chartered rights were thus forcibly violated. The alarm thus becoming general, although the bill passed the House of Commons by the influence which the ministers still possessed in that assembly, it was rejected in the House of Lords.

He did not, however, live to witness that glorious and wonderful termination which was at last brought about by a continuance of the same system he all along pursued, and which finally ended in the conquest of France, the annihilation of her armies, and the banishment of her ruler. The last event of importance in Mr. Pitt’s life-time was the fatal battle of Austerlitz, and he was at this time in a state of health ill calculated to meet this stroke. He had, from an early period of life, given indications of inheriting his father’s gouty constitution, with his talents, and it had been thought necessary to make the liberal use of wine a part of his ordinary regimen, a stimulant which, added to the cares and exertions of office during his long and momentous administration, brought on a premature exhaustion of the vital powers. In December 1805, he was recommended to go to Bath, but the change afforded him no permanent relief. On the 11th of January he returned to his seat at Putney, in so debilitated a state, as to require four days for the performance of the journey. The physicians, even yet, saw no danger, and they said there was no disease, but great weakness, in consequence of an attack of the gout. On the following Sunday he appeared better, and entered upon some points of public business with his colleagues in office: the subject was supposed to relate to the dissolution of the new confederacy, by the peace of Presburgh, which greatly agitated him. On the 17th, at a consultation of his physicians, it was agreed, that though it was not advisable he should attend to business for the next two months, yet there was hope he would be able to take a part in the House of Commons in the course of the winter. On the 20th, however, he grew much worse, and his medical friends now saw that he was in the most imminent danger, and that, probably, he had not many hours to live. The bishop of Lincoln, who never left him during his illness, informed him of the opinion now entertained by sir Walter Farquhar, and requested to administer to him the consolations of religion. Mr. Pitt asked sir Walter, who stood near his bed, “How long do you think I have to live?” The physician answered that he could not say, at the same time he expressed a faint hope of his recovery. A half smile on the patient’s countenance shewed that he placed this language to its true account. In answer to the bishop’s request to pray with him, Mr. Pitt replied, “I fear I have, like too many other men, neglected prayer too much, to have any ground for hope that it can be efficacious on a death-bed—but,” making an effort to rise as he spoke, “I throw myself entirely on the mercy of God.” The bishop then read the prayers, and Mr. Pitt appeared to join in them with a calm and humble piety. He desired that the arrangement of his papers and the settlement of his affairs might be left to his brother and the bishop of Lincoln. Adverting to his nieces, the daughters of earl Stanhope by his elder sister, for whom he had manifested the sincerest affection, he said, “I could wish a thousand or fifteen hundred a-year to be given them; if the public should think my long services deserving of it.” He expressed also much anxiety respecting major Stanhope, that youthful hero, who fell a sacrifice to his valour at Corunna, in company with his friend and patron, general sir John Moore, and his brother, who was also at Corunna at the same time, and who has been engaged in all the great battles in the peninsula, and more than once severely wounded in his country’s service. Mr. Pitt died about four o'clock in the morning of the 23d of January 1806, in the 47th year of his age. A public funeral was decreed to his honour by parliament, and 40,000l. to pay those debts which he had incurred in his country’s service. Public monuments have been since erected to his memory in Westminster-Abbey, in the Guildhall of the city of London, and by many public bodies in different parts of the kingdom.

, eminent for being the first who formed a plan for a natural history of England, the son of Robert Plot, esq. captain of the militia, in the hundred of Milton, in Kent, was born in 1640, at Sutton Baron, in the parish of Borden, in that county, and educated at the free -school of Wye, in the same county. In March 1658, he went to Magdalen-hall, in Oxford, where Josiah Pullen was his tutor took a bachelor of arts degree in 1661, a master’s in 1664, and both the degrees in law in 1671. He removed afterwards to University-college, where he was at the expence of placing the statue of king Alfred over the hall-door. His general knowledge and acuteness, and particularly his attachment to natural history, procured his being chosen, in 1677, a fellow of the royal society and in 1682, elected one of the secretaries of that learned body. He published their “Philosophical Transactions,” from No. 143, to No. 166, inclusive. In 1683, Elias Ashmole, esq. appointed him the first keeper of his museum and about the same time he was nominated by the vicechancellor the first reader in chemistry in that university. In 1687, he was made secretary to the earl-marshal, or court of chivalry, which was then renewed, after it had lain dormant from the year 1641. In 1690, he resigned his professorship of chemistry, and also his place of keeper of the museum; which he then augmented by a very large collection of natural curiosities, being such as he had figured and described in his Histories of Oxfordshire and Staffordshire, and there distinguished by the names of “Scrinium Plotianum Oxoniense,” and “Scrinium Plotianum Staffordiense.” In 1688 he received the title of Historiographer to James II. which he could not long retain, as this was just before the abdication of that sovereign. In 1694-5, Henry Howard, earl-marshal, nominated him Mowbray herald extraordinary; and two days after, he was constituted registrar of the court of honour. He died of the stone, April 30, 1696, at his house in Borden, and was buried in the church there, where a monument was afterwards erected to his memory. He left two sons by his wife Rebecca, widow of Henry Burman, to whom he was married in August 1690.

Since his decease, there have been published two letters of his one “giving an Account of some Antiquities in the County of Kent,” in 1714, 8vo, and preserved in the “Bibliotheca Topographica,” No. VI. another to the earl of Arlington, “concerning Thetford,” printed at the end of “The History and Antiquities of Glastonbury,” published by Hearne, 1722, 8vo.

The above works contained but a small part of the productions of Plumier’s pencil. Vast treasures of his drawings, in outline, have remained in the French libraries, for the most part unpublished. The late earl of Bute obtained copies of a great number of these, which after his lordship’s death passed into the hands of sir Joseph Banks. Boerhaave had previously procured copies of above 500, done by the accurate Aubriet, under Vaillant’s inspection, which were, afterwards, in great part at least, published by John Burman at Amsterdam, between 1755 and 1760. These plates are executed with tolerable, but by no means infallible, accuracy, being far inferior in neatness and correctness to what Plumier himself published. The wellmeaning editor has overloaded the book with descriptions pf his own, necessarily made from the figures, and therefore entirely superfluous. They are indeed not unfrequently founded in misapprehension nor has he been very happy in the adaptation of his materials to Linnaean names and principles.

, D. D. who was distantly related to the preceding, but added the e to his name, was the son of Mr. Richard Pococke, sequestrator of the. church of All-saints in Southampton, and head master of the freeschool there, by the only daughter of the rev. Mr. Isaac Milles, minister of Highcleer in Hampshire, and was born at Southampton in 1704. He received his scbool-learning there, and his academical education at Corpns-Christi college, Oxford, where he took his degree of LL. B. May 5, 1731 and that of LL. D. (being then precentor of Lismore) June 28, 1733 together with Dr. Seeker, then rector of St. James’s, and afterwards archbishop of Canterbury. He began his travels into the East in 1737, and returned in 1742, and was made precentor of Waterford in 1744. In 1743, he published the first part of those travels, under the title of “A Description of the East, and of some other Countries, vol. I. Observations on Egypt.” In 1744 he was made precentor of Waterford, and in 1745 he printed the second volume under the same title, “Observations on Palestine, or the Holy Land, Syria, Mesopotamia, Cyprus, and Candia,” which he dedicated to the earl of Chesterfield, then made lord-lieutenant of Ireland attended his lordship thither as one of his domestic chaplains, and was soon after appointed by his lordship archdeacon of Dublin. In March 1756, he was promoted by the duke of Devonshire (then lord-lieutenant) to the bishopric of Ossory, vacant by the death of Dr. Edward Maurice. He was translated by the king’s letter from Ossory to Elphin, in June 1765, bishop Gore of Elphin bc'ing then promoted to Meath; but bishop Gore finding a great sum was to be paid to his predecessor’s executors for the house at Ardbracean, declined taking out his patent; and therefore bishop Pococke, in July, was translated by the duke of Northumberland directly to the see of Meath, and died in the month of September the same year, suddenly, of an apoplectic stroke, while he was in the course of his visitation. An eulogium of his Description of Egypt is given in a work entitled “Pauli Ernestt Jablonski Pantheon Ægyptiorum, Praetat. ad part, iii.” He penetrated no further up the Nile than to Philse, now Gieuret Ell Hiereff; whereas Mr. Norden, in 1737, went as far as Derri, between the two cataracts. The two travellers are supposed to have met on the Nile, in the neighbourhood of Esnay, in Jan. 1738. But the fact, as Dr. Pococke told some of his friends, was, that being on his return, not knowing that Mr. Norden was gone up, he passed by him in the night, without having the pleasure of seeing him. There was an admirable whole length of the bishop, in a Turkish dress, painted by Liotard, in the possession of the late Dr. Milles, dean of Exeter, his first cousin. He was a great traveller, and visited other places besides the East His description of a rock on the westside of Dunbar harbour in Scotland, resembling the GiantsCauseway, is in the Philos. Trans, vol. LII. art. 17; and in Archaeologia,vol. II. p. 32, his account of some antiquities found in Ireland. When travelling through Scotland (where he preached several times to crowded congregations), he stopped at Dingwal, and said he was much struck and pleased with its appearance for the situation of it brought Jerusalem to his remembrance, and he pointed out the hill which resembled Calvary. The same similitude was observed by him in regard to Dartmouth but a 4to volume of his letters, containing his travels ia England and Scotland, was lost. He preached a sermon in 1761 for the benefit of the Magdalen charity in London, and one in 1762 before the incorporated Society in Dublin.

a celebrated French cardinal, was born Oct. 11, 1661, at Puy, in Velay, and was the son of Louis Armand, viscount de Polignac, descended from one of the most ancient families in Languedoc. He was.sent early to Paris, where he distinguished himself as a student, and was soon noticed as a young man of elegant manners and accomplishments. In 1689, cardinal de Bouillon carried him to Rome, and employed him in several important negociations. It was at one of his interviews with pope Alexander VIII. that this pontiff said to him, “You seem always, sir, to be of my opinion, and yet it is your own which prevails at last.” We are likewise told that when, on his return to Paris, Louis XIV. granted him along audience, he said as he went out, <4 I have been conversing with a man, and a young man, who has contradicted me in every thing, yet pleased me in every thing.*' In 1693, he was sent as ambassador into Poland, where he procured the prince of Conti to be elected and proclaimed king in 1696; but, this election not having been supported, he was obliged to retire, and return to France, where he arrived in 1698, after losing all his equipage and furniture, which was seized by the Dantzickers. The king then banished him to his abbey at Bonport, but recalled him to court with great expressions of regard in 1702, and in 1706 appointed him auditor of the Rota. M. Polignac then set out again for Rome and cardinal de la Tremouille, who conducted the French affairs there, having the same opinion of him as cardinal de Bouillon had, employed him in several negociations. Going back to France three years after, his majesty sent him as plenipotentiary into Holland in 1710, with marechal d'Uxelles. He was also plenipotentiary at the conferences and peace of Utrecht, in 1712 and 1713. The king, satisfied with his services, obtained a cardinal’s hat for him the same year, and appointed him master of his chapel. During the regency, cardinal de Polignac was banished to his abbey of Anchin in 1718, and not recalled till 172L. In 1724, he went to Rome for the election of pope Benedict XIII. and remained there eight years, being entrusted with the affairs of France. In 1726, he was made archbishop of Auch, returned to his native country in 1732, and died at Paris, November 10, 1741, aged 80. He was a member of the French academy, the academy of sciences, and that of belles lettres. He is now chiefly remembered for his elegant Latin poem, entitled “Anti-Lucretius,” in which he refutes the system and doctrine of Epicurus, according to the principles of Descartes’ philosophy. This he left to a friend, Charles de Rothelin, who published it in 1747, 2 vols. 8vo. It has since been often reprinted, and elegantly translated by M. de Bougainville, secretary to the academy of belles lettres. His Life was published at Paris, 1777, 2 vols. 12mo, by F. Ghrysostom Faucher. The reviewer of this life very justly says, that the man who compiled the “Anti-Lucretius,” and proposed a plan for forming a new bed for the Tiber, in order to recover the statues, medals, basso-relievos, and other ancient monuments, which were buried there during the rage of civil factions, and the incursions of the barbarians, deserves an eminent place in literary biography. Few works have been more favourably received throughout Europe than the cardinal’s celebrated poem, although he was so much of a Cartesian. The first copy that appeared in England was one in the possession of the celebrated earl of Chesterfield, and such was its reputation abroad at that time, that this copy was conveyed by a trumpet from marshal Saxe to the Duke of Cumberland, directed for the earl of Chesterfield, It was sent to him both as a judge of the work, and a friend of the writer.

, an English lawyer and judge, was descended from a good family in Devonshire, where he probably was educated, as Prince intimates that he was of no university. He studied the law, however, at one of the inns of court, and acquired very considerable practice in the reign of Charles II. He was counsel for the earl of Danby in 1679, whom he advised to plead his pardon and the corporation of London afterwards engaged him to plead, with Treby, in behalf of their charter. Iti 1688 he sat as one of the members for the city of Exeter, and he was retained as one of the counsel for the bishops. After the revolution he was knighted, called a serjeant April 11, 1689, and appointed chief justice of the common pleas on May 5 following but he held this office a very short time, dying in 1692. Burnet calls him “an honest and learned, but perplexed lawyer.” In 1702 was published his “Arguments; and Reports in some special cases in the King’s Bench from 22 to 36 Car. II. with some cases in the Common Pleas and Exchequer, together with divers decrees in the High Court of Chancery, upon Limitations of Trusts of Terms for years,” fol. with two tables. The copies of these reports, Mr. Bridgman informs us, are very incorrect, varying in the pages, and in the dates. In the pages there is a chasm from 173 to 176, and from 181 to 184, with other errors.

After some farther exchange of altercation, in which the prevailing opinions of the lawyers and others of that day are decidedly against Mr. Bee’s monopoly of biblical criticism, the parties in 1668 agreed to refer to two of his majesty’s privy-council, the marquis of Dorchester and the earl of Anglesey, who determined in favour of Mr. Pool, and, as it would seem, even to the satisfaction of Mr. Bee, whose name appears, as a vender in the title-page of vol. I. published in 1669. Pool had previously obtained his majesty’s patent, expressed in the same terms as that granted to Bee for the “Critici Sacri,” forbidding the printing of the “Synopsis” either in whole or in part, without his leave, for the space of fourteen years, under penalty of confiscation, &c. This is dated Oct. 14, 1667.

The “Dunciad” first appeared in 1729; and two years after, Pope produced his “Epistle to Richard Earl of Burlington, occasioned by his publishing Palladio’s designs of the Baths, Arches, Theatres, &c. of ancient Rome, &c.” Of the merit of this highly-finished poern, there is no difference of opinion but it gave rise to an attack on Pope’s private character which was not easily repelled. Dr. Warton says, “The gang of scribblers immediately rose up together, and accused him of malevolence and ingratitude, in having ridiculed the house, gardens, chapel, and dinners, of the Duke of Chandos at Canons (who had lately, as they affirmed, been his benefactor) under the name of Timon. He peremptorily and positively denied the charge, and wrote an exculpatory letter to the Duke, with the asseverations of which letter, as the last Duke of Chandos told me, his ancestor was not perfectly satisfied.” It was not therefore the “gang of scribblers” who brought this accusation, but all the family and connections of the Duke of Chandos, and no defence has yet been advanced which can induce any impartial reader to think the accusation unjust. What seems to have injured Pope most at the time was, that the excuses he offered were of the same shuffling kind which he employed in the case of Aaron Hill, and which, wherever employed, have the effect of doubling the guilt of the convict. This was one of the circumstances which induce us to think that Pope greatly injured his personal character by the indiscriminate attacks in his “Dunciad,” and by the opinion he seems to have taken up that no man was out of his reach.

This transient notice of the Misses Blount leads to a remark that he was not always fortunate in his friendships. Martha Blount, to whom he was most attached, deserted him in his last illness and Bolingbroke, whom we have seen weeping over the dying bard, and pouring out the effusions of the warmest affection for the friend he was about to lose, soon employed the hireling Mallet to blacken Pope’s character in the very article for which he thought him most estimable, the purity and honour of his friendships. We have already noticed this affair in our account of Mallet, (vol. XXI. p. 195,) and shall now only briefly say that, on Pope’s death, it was disclosed to Lord Bolingbroke by Mallet, who had his information from a printer, that Pope had printed an edition of the Essay on a “Patriot King.” But, as there has been much misconception and misrepresentation respecting this affair, we are happy to bd able, in this place, to state the circumstances attending it on unquestionable authority, that of a gentleman to whom the following particulars were more than once related by the late earl of Marchmont, and who, besides the obliging communication of them, has conferred the additional favour of permitting us to use his name, the Right Hon. George Rose.

Thomas was educated at the school of Banbury, kept by Thomas Stanbridge, of Magdalen college, an eminent tutor, and was thence removed to Eton college, from which he is supposed to have gone to Gray’s Inn, where ie studied the law. Of his progress at the bar we have no account; but his talents must have discovered themselves at an early period, and have recommended him to the notice of his sovereign, as in October I 533, when he was only twenty-seven years old, he was constituted by letters-patent of Henry VIII. clerk of the briefs of the star-chamber at Westminster, and the same month received a reversionary grant of the office of clerk of the crown in Chancery. Of this last he soon after became possessed, with an annual fee of twenty pounds from the hanaper, and also a robe with fur at the feast of Christmas and Pentecost, from the king’s great wardrobe. Two years after, in November 1535, he was constituted warden of the mint, exchange, and coinage, in the Tower of London, which his biographer thinks he quitted about eight years after for some more valuable preferment. The same year he received a patent for a new coat of arms to be borne by him and his posterity, which are those of Trinity college. In October 1536, he received the honour of knighthood, at the same time with Henry Howard, afterwards the gallant and unfortunate earl of Surrey. In December, he was appointed to exercise, jointly with William Smythe, the office of clerk of all the briefs in the star-chamber at Westminster. In Feb. 1538, he obtained at his own instance, a new royal licence for exercising the office of clerk of the crown in conjunction with John Lucas, afterwards an eminent crown, lawyer in, the reign of Edward VI.

, an English lawyer of eminence, was the eldest son of Edward Popham, esq. of Huntworth in Somersetshire, and born in 1531. He was some time a student at Baliol college in Oxford, being then, as Wood says, given at leisure hours to manly sports and exercises. When he removed to the Middle Temple, he is said at first to have led a dissipated life, but applying diligently afterwards to the study of the law, he rose to some of its highest honours. He was made serjeant at law about 1570, solicitor-general in 1579, and attorney-general in 1581, when he also bore the office of treasurer of the Middle Temple. In 1592, he was promoted to the rank of chief justice of the court of king’s-bench; not of the common pleas, as, from some expressions of his own, has been erroneously supposed, and at the same time he was knighted. In 1601 he was one of the lawyers detained by the unfortunate earl of Essex, when he formed the absurd project of defending himself in his house; and on the earl’s trial gave evidence against him relative to their detention. He died in 1607, at the age of seventy-six, and was buried at Wellington in his native country, where he had always resided as much as his avocations would permit. He was esteemed a severe judge in the case of robbers; but his severity was welltimed, as it reduced the number of highwaymen, who before had greatly infested the country. If Aubrey may be credited, his general character was liable to many serious exceptions. His works are, 1. “Reports and Cases, adjudged in the time of queen Elizabeth,” London, 1656, fol. 2. “Resolutions and Judgements upon Cases and Matters agitated in all the Courts at Westminster in the latter end of queen Elizabeth,” London, 4to. Both lord Holt and chief justice Hyde considered the Reports as of no authority.

, an excellent classical scholar and translator, was born in 1721; but where, or of what family, we have not discovered. He was educated at Emmanuel college, Cambridge, and took his bachelor’s degree in 1741, but that of master not until 1788, according to the published list of Cambridge graduates, probably owing to his being then made a dignitary in Norwich cathedral. His first preferment was the vicarage of Seaming in Norfolk, in the gift of the Warner family; and, until he completed his translation of Sophocles, he held no higher preferment. In 1774, he published, in octavo, a volume of poems, some of which had appeared before separately: they consist of, “A Birth-day Thought;” “Cynthia;” “Verses to the same;” “Retirement, an epistle to Dr. Hurd” “A Fragment” “Verses to the painter of Mrs. Longe’s picture at Spixworth” “An Ode to Philoclea” “Verses to the same, exemplifying the absurdity of an affected alliteration in poetry” “Two Pieces in imitation of Spenser” “Holkham, inscribed to the earl of Leicester” “Kymber, to Sir A. Woodhouse” and a chorus from the “Hecuba” of Euripides, his intended translation of whose tragedies he announces in an advertisement. In most of these poems, particularly the “Holkham,” and “Kymber,” he shews himself a successful imitator of Pope. In the following year he published a very judicious tract, entitled “Observations on the Poor Laws, on the present state of the Poor, and on houses of Industry,” in which his principal object was, to recommend houses of industry, upon the plan of those already established in some parts of Norfolk and. Suffolk, particularly that at Bulcamp.

In March 1782, on an entire change of men and measures, in consequence of the failure of the American war, he was appointed president of the council, which, with the exception of a short secession during the coalition-administration, he held through life, and gave his support to the measures by which Mr. Pitt provided for the safety of the country, when the French revolution had let loose the disorganizing principles of bad men of all nations. In May 1786, lord Camden was advanced to the farther dignities of viscount Bayham and earl Camden, and lived to enjoy his well-earned honours to his death, April 18, 1794. High as his lordship’s character stood with the public, it was not superior to the esteem which his private virtues universally procured. In his relative duties he was affectionate, benevolent, and cheerful. His mind and manners threw an amiable colouring over every action. A pamphlet has been attributed to him, entitled “An Inquiry into the nature and etfect of the writ of Habeas Corpus, the great bulwark of English liberty, both at common law, and under the act of parliament and also into the propriety of explaining and extending that act,” Lond. 1753, 8vo. Another is mentioned by Mr. Park, which can scarcely be called his, although relating to him “Lord Camden’s argument in Doe, on the demise of Hindson, &c. versus Kersey; wherein Lord Mansfield’s argument in Wyndham versus Chetwynd, is considered and answered.” This is said to have been first printed in 4to, at London, and suppressed by an order of the court of Common Pleas, over which lord Camden at that time presided. It was, however, published at Dublin in 1766, 8vo.

His lordship married Elizabeth, daughter, and at length sole heiress, of Nicholas Jeffreys, esq. of the Priory in Breconshire, by whom he had a numerous issue. He was succeeded in titles and estate by his son John Jeffreys, the present earl Camden.

, in Latin Pricæus, a learned writer, originally of a Welsh family, was born in 1600 at London. He was brought up at Westminster-school, whence in, 1617 he was elected to Christ-church, Oxford. He made >grcat proficiency in learning, and was esteemed one of the ablest critics of his day, but espoused the Roman catholic religion which for some time he appears to have concealed. On leaving college he was entertained in the earl of Arundel’s family, with which he travelled into Italy, and there was made doctor of law?. On his return to England, he became acquainted with the earl of Strafford, who 'being pleased with his talents and learning, took him with him to Ireland, where he likewise became acquainted with archbishop Usher, and was one of his correspondents, their biblical studies forming a bond of union. When his noble patron was prosecuted, Dr. Price shared in his misfortunes, and returned to England in 1640. During the rebellion he endeavoured to support the royal cause by his pen, and wrote several pamphlets, for which he was imprisoned for a considerable time. After his release he went abroad, and took up his residence in Florence, where the grand duke made him superintendant of his museum, which was then One of the finest in Europe. By the interest of this prince, he was appointed Greek professor at Pisa, and filled that office with great reputation. Resigning it, however, probably owing to bad health, he went to Venice, with a view to publish Hesychius’s Lexicon, but not succeeding in the design, he went to Rome, and was entertained by cardinal Francis Barberini. When advanced in years, he retired to St. Augustine’s convent at Rome, where he died in 1676, aged seventy-six. His works are 1. “Notoe et observationes in apologiam L. Apuleii Madaurensis, philosophi Platonici,” Paris, 1635, 4to. These are to be found in the Gouda edition of Apuleius, 1650, 8vo, but the original is very scarce. 2. “Matthaeus, ex sacra pagina, sanctis patribus, &c. illustratus,” Paris, 1646, 8vo. 3. “Annotationes in epist. Jacobi,” Paris, 1646, 8vo. 4. “Acta Apostolorum, ex sacra pagina, sanctis patribus, &c. illustrata,” Paris, 1647, 8vo. 5. “Index Scriptorum, qui in Hesychii Graeco vocabulario laudantur, confectus et alphabetico ordine dispositus,” 1668. See Schrevelius’s Lexicon at the end. 6. “Comment, in varios Novi Test. Hbros,” inserted in the 5th vol. of the “Critici Sacri.” Dr. Price is praised by Sarravius, in his letters by archbishop Usher on St. Ignatius’s epistles by Heinsius, in an epistle to Carlo Dati by Selden more than once, in the second book “de Synedriis Ebraeorum” by Vossius, in his “Harmonia Evangelica” by Morus, in his notes on the New Testament by Redi, in his treatise on the Generation of Insects but especially by Axenius on Phaedrus.

While in this place, he occasionally officiated in different congregations, particularly at Dr. Chandler’s meetinghouse in the Old Jewry, where he seemed to acquire considerable popularity; but Dr. Chandler having advised him to be less energetic in his manner, and to deliver his discourses with more diffidence and modesty, Mr. Price ran into the opposite extreme of a cold and lifeless delivery, which naturally injured his popularity. During the latter end of his residence at Mr. Streatfield’s, he officiated principally at Edmonton, till he was chosen to be morning preacher at Newington Green. By the death of Mr. Streatfield, and also of his uncle, which happened in 1756, his circumstances were considerably improved; the former having bequeathed him a legacy in money, and the latter a house in Leadenhall-street, and some other property, but not so much as it was supposed he would have left him, if he had not offended him, as he had done his father, by the freedom of his sentiments on certain religious doctrines, particularly that of the Trinity. In 1757 he married Miss Sarah Blundell, and in 1758 removed to Newington Green, in order to be near his congregation. Previous to his leaving Hackney he published his “Review of the principal questions and difficulties in Morals,” of which he revised a third edition for the press in 1787. This gave him considerable reputation as a metaphysician. During the first years of his residence at Newington Green, he devoted himself almost wholly to the composition of sermons, and to his pastoral duties; but in 1762, as his hearers were few, he was induced, from the hope of being more extensively useful, to accept an invitation to succeed Dr. Benson as evening preacher in Poor Jewry-lane. Even here, however, he acquired no additional number of hearers, which discouraged him so much, that he had determined to give up preaching altogether, from an idea that his talents were totally unfit for the office of a public speaker. Regarding himself, therefore, as incapable of giving effect to his moral instructions by delivering them from the pulpit, he consoled himself with the hope of rendering them useful to the world by conveying them in another manner. With this view he formed the sermons which he had preached on private prayer into a dissertation on that subject, which he published in 1767, along with three other " Dissertations,' 7 on providence, miracles, and the junction of virtuous men in* a future state. These dissertations procured him the acquaintance of the first marquis of Lansdowne, then earl of Shelburne, which began in 1769, and continued for some time before Mr. Price had ever written on political subjectsbut was probably more firmly established in consequence of those publications.

, an eminent lawyer and judge, was the son of Thomas Price, esq of Geeler in Denbighshire, and born in the parish of Kerigy Druidion, Jan. 14, 1653. After an education at the grammar-school of Wrexham, he was admitted of St. John’s college, Cambridge; but, as usual with gentlemen destined for his profession, left the university without taking a degree, and entered himself a student of Lincoln’s Inn about 1673. In 1677 he made what was called the grand tour, in company with the earl of Lexington, and lady and sir John Meers. When at Florence, we are told that he was apprehended, and some law-books taken from him; and his copy of “Coke upon Littleton” being supposed, by some ignorant officer, to be an English heretical Bible, Mr. Price was carried before the pope where he not only satisfied his holiness as to this work, but made "him a present of it, and the pope ordered it to be deposited in the Vatican library. In 1679 he returned, and married a lady of fortune; from whom, after some years’ cohabitation, he found it necessary to be separated, on account of the violence of her temper. In 1682 he was chosen member of parliament for Weobly in Herefordshire, and gave nis hote against the bill of exclusion. The same year he was made attorney-general for South Wales, elected an alderman for the city of Hereford, and the year following was chosen recorder of Radnor. His high reputation for knowledge and integrity procured him the office of steward to the queen dowager (relict of Charles II.) in 1684; he was also chosen townclerk of the city of Gloucester; and, in 1686, king’s counsel at Ludlow. Being supposed to have a leaning towards the exiled family, he was, after the revolution, removed from tn*e offices of attorney-general for South Wales and town-clerk of Gloucester. In resentment for this affront, as his biographer insinuates, or from a more patriotic motive, he opposed king William’s grant of certain lands in Wales to his favourite, earl of Portland, and made a memorable speech on this occasion in the House of Commons; the consequence of which was, that the grant was rejected.

, a learned English divine, was born at Padstow, in Cornwall, May 3, 1648. He was the son of Edmund Prideaux, esq. of an ancient and honourable family in that county, and was equally well descended by his mother, the daughter of John Moyle, esq. of Bake, in Cornwall. After some elementary education at Liskard and Bodmin, he was placed under Dr. Busby, at Westminster-school, and in 1668 admitted a student of Christ Church, Oxford, by dean Fell. His attainments here must have distinguished him very early: for we find that in 1672, when he took his bachelor’s degree, Dr. Fell employed him to add some notes to an edition of Florus, then printing at the university press: and soon after, he was requested to be the editor of Malela, a Greek historian, from a ms. in the Bodleian library but having represented this as a work not worth the printing, being fabulous and trifling, the design was laid aside, until Dr. Hody, who was of a different opinion, undertook the task. Mr. Prideaux, about the same time, was employed in giving a history of the Arundelian marbles, with a comment, which was published in May 1676, under the title *' Marmora Oxoniensia,“folio. Such a work was well calculated to advance his reputation abroad, as well as at home; and there was such a demand for it, that within a few years it could not be procured but at a very high price. It suffered, however, very much from the carelessness and neglect of a Mr. Bennet, then corrector to the university press, and contained so many typographical errors, that Mr. Prideaux never could speak of it with complacency. A more correct edition was published by Maittaire, in 1732. In 1675 Mr. Prideaux took his degree of M. A. Having, by order, presented one of the copies of the” Marmora“to the lord chancellor Finch, this introduced him to his lordship’s patronage, who soon after placed one of his sons under him, as tutor at Christ Church and in 1679 presented him to the rectory of St. Clement’s, in the suburb of Oxford, where he officiated for several years. The same year he published two tracts out of Maimonides in Hebrew, with a Latin translation and notes, under the title ec De Jure pauperis et peregrini apud Judeos.” This he did in consequence of having been appointed Dr. Busby’s Hebrew lecturer in Christ Church, and with a view to teach students the rabbinical dialect, and to read it without points. In 1681, the lord chancellor Finch, then earl of Nottingham, presented him to a prebend in the cathedral of- Norwich. In Nov. 1682, he was admitted to the degree of bachelor in divinity, and on the death of lord Nottingham, found another patron in his successor sir Francis North; who, in February of the following year, gave him the rectory of Bladen, with Woodstock chapelry, in Oxfordshire; and as Mr. Prideaux had been appointed librarian to Christ Church, to which no salary belongs, he was allowed to hold this living with his student’s place.

After a residence at Leeds for six years, Dr. Priestley accepted the offer of the earl of Shelburne, afterwards marquis of Lansdowne, to reside with his lordship in the nominal capacity of librarian, but really as his literary companion. The terms were 2501. per annum, with a house for his family to live in, and an annuity for life of 150l. in the event of their being separated by his lordship’s dying, or changing his mind. He accordingly fixed his family in a house at Calne, in Wiltshire, near his lordship’s seat; and during seven years attended upon the noble earl in his winter’s residences at London, and occasionally in his excursions, one of which, in 1774, was a tour to the continent. This situation was useful, as affording Dr. Priestley advantages in improving his knowledge of the world, and in pursuing his scientific researches; and as he was perfectly free from restraint, this was the period of some of those exertions which increased his reputation as a philosopher, and some of those which brought the greatest obloquy upon him as a divine. In 1775, he published his “Examination of the doctrine of Common Sense, as held by Drs. Reid, Beattie, and Oswald,” in which he treated those gentlemen with a contemptuous arrogance, of which, we are told, he was afterwards ashamed. In his manner of treating his opponents, he always exhibited a striking contrast to the mild and placid temper of his friend Dr. Price. After this he became the illustrator of the Hartleian theory of the human mind. He had, previously to this, declared himself a believer in the doctrine of philosophical necessity and in a dissertation prefixed to his edition of Hartley, he expressed some doubts of the immateriality of the soul. The charge which these induced against him of infidelity and atheism, seems only to have provoked him to a more open avowal of the same obnoxious sentiments; and in 1777 he published “Disquisitions on Matter and Spirit,” in which he gave a history of the doctrines concerning the soul, and openly supported the system which, upon due investigation, he had adopted. It was followed by “A Defence of Unitarianism, or the simple Humanity of Christ, in opposition to his Pre-existence and of the Doctrine of Necessity.” It seems not improbable that these works produced a coolness in the behaviour of his noble patron, which about this time he began to remark, and which terminated in a separation, after a connection of seven years, without any alledged complaint. That the marquis of Lansdowne had changed his sentiments of Dr. Priestley appears from the evidence of the latter, who informs us, that when he came to London, he proposed to call on the noble lord; but the latter declined receiving his visits. Dr. Priestley adds, that during his connection with his lordship, he never once aided him in his political views, nor ever wrote a single political paragraph. The friends of both parties seem to think that there was no bond of union between them, and his lordship’s attention became gradually so much engaged by politics, that every other object of study lost its hold. According, however, to the articles of agreement, Dr. Priestley retained his annuity for life of 150l. which was honourably paid to the last; and it has been said, that when the bond securing to him this annuity was burnt at the riots of Birmingham, his lordship in the handsomest manner presented him with another.

, baronet, president of the Royal Society, was born at Stichel-house, in the county of Roxburgh, North Britain, April 10, 1707. His father was sir John Pringle, of Stichel, bart. and his mother, whose name was Magdalen Eliott, was sister to sir Gilbert Eliott of Stobs, bart. Both the families from which he descended were very ancient and honourable in the south of Scotland, and were in great esteem for their attachment to the religion, and liberties of their country, and for their piety and virtue in private life. He was the youngest of several sons, three of whom, besides himself, arrived to years of maturity. His grammatical education be received at home, under a private tutor and after having made such a progress as qualified him for academical studies, he was removed to the university of St. Andrew’s, where he was put under the immediate care of Mr. Francis Pringle, professor of Greek in the college, and a near relation of his father. Having continued there some years, he went to Edinburgh in Oct. 1727, for the purpose of studying physic, that being the profession which he now determined to follow. At Edinburgh, however, he stayed only one year, the reason, of which was, that he was desirous of going to Leyden, at that time the most celebrated school of medicine in Europe. Boerhaave, who had brought that university into reputation, was considerably advanced in years, and Mr. Pringle was unwilling, by delay, to expose himself to the danger of losing the benefit of that great man’s lectures. For Boerhaave he had a high and just respect but it was not his disposition and character to become the implicit and systematic follower of any man, however able aod distinguished. While he studied at Leyden, be contracted an intimate friendship with Van Swieten, who afterwards became so famous at Vienna, both by his practice and writings. Van Swieten was not only Pringle’s acquaintance and fellow-student at the university, but also his physician when he happened to be seized there with a fit of sickness; yet on this occasion he did not owe his recovery to his friend’s advice; for Van Swieten having refused to give him the bark, another person prescribed it, and he was cured. When he had gone through his proper course of studies at Leyden, he was admitted, July 20, 1730, to his doctor of physic’s degree. His inaugural dissertation, “De marcore senili,” was printed. Upon quitting LeyIen, Dr. Pringle settled as a physician at Edinburgh, where he gained the esteem of the magistrates of the city, and of the professors of the college, by his abilities and good conduct and, such was his known acquaintance with ethical subjects, that, March 28, 1734, he was appointed, by the magistrates and council of the city of Edinburgh, to be joint professor of pneumatics and moral philosophy with Mr. Scott, during that gentleman’s life, and sole professor after his decease and, in consequence of this appointment, Dr. Pringle was admitted, on the same day, a member of the university. In discharging the duties of this new employment, his text-book was “Puffendorff de Officio Hominis et Civis,” agreeably to the method he pursued through life, of making fact and experiment the basis of science. Dr. Pringle continued in the practice of physic at Edinburgh, and in performing the obligations of his professorship, till 1742, when he was appointed physician to the earl of Stair, who then commanded the British army. For this appointment he was chiefly indebted to his friend Dr. Stevenson, an eminent physician at Edinburgh, who had an intimate acquaintance with lord Stair. By the interest of this nobleman, Dr. Pringle was constituted, Aug. 24, 1742, physician to the military hospital in Flanders; and it was provided in the commission, that he should receive a salary of twenty shillings a-day, and be entitled to half-pay for life. He did not, on this occasion, resign his professorship of moral philosophy; the university permitted him to retain it, and Messrs. Muirhead and Cleghorn were allowed to teach in his absence, us long as he continued to request it. The exemplary attention which Dr. Pringle paid to his duty as an army physician is apparent from every page of his “Treatise on the Diseases of the Army.” One thing, however, deserves particularly to be mentioned, as it is highly probable that it was owing to his suggestion. It had hitherto been usual, for the security of the sick, when the enemy was near, to remove them a great way from the camp the consequence of which was, that many were lost before they came under the care of the physicians. The earl of Stair, being sensible of this evil, proposed to the duke de Noailles, when the army was encamped at Aschaffenburg, in 1743, that the hospitals on both sides should be considered as sanctuaries for the sick, and mutually protected. The French general, who was distinguished for his humanity, readily agreed to the pro posal, and took the first opportunity of shewing a proper regard to his engagement. At the hattle of Dettingen, Dr. Pringle was in a coach with lord Carteret during the whole time of the engagement, and the situation they were placed in was dangerous. They had been taken unawares, and were kept betwixt the fire of the line in front, a French battery on the left, and a wood full of hussars on the right. The coach was occasionally shifted, to avoid being in the eye of the battery. Soon after this event, Dr. Pringle met with no small affliction in the retirement of his great friend, the earl of Stair, from the army. He offered to resign with his noble patron, but was not permitted. He, therefore, contented himself with testifying his respect and gratitude to his lordship, by accompanying him forty miles on his return to England; after which he took leave of him with the utmost regret.

By the death of his father, the care of him devolved upon an uncle, Samuel Prior, who kept the Rummer tavern, near Charing-cross, and who discharged the trust Imposed in him with a tenderness truly paternal, and at a proper a<re sent him to Westminster school, where he was admitted a scholar in 1681, and distinguished himself to great advantage. After remaining here for a short time, he was taken home by his uncle, in order to be bred to his trade. At leisure hours, however, he pursued the study of the classics, on which account he was soon noticed by the polite company who resorted to his uncle’s house. It happened, one day, that the earl of Dorset and other gentlemen being at this tavern, the discourse turned upon a passage in an ode of Horace, who was Prior’s favourite author: and the company being divided in their sentiments, one of the gentlemen said, “I find we are not like to agree in our criticisms; but, if I am not mistaken, there is a young fellow in the house who is able to set us all right.” Upon which he named Matt. Prior, who being called in, gave the company the satisfaction they wanted.

Lord Dorset, exceedingly struck with his ingenuity and learning, from that moment determined to remove him“from the station he was in, to one more suitable to his talents and genius and accordingly procured him to be sent, in 1682, to St. John’s coiiege in Cambridge, where he proceeded B. A. in 1686, and was shortly after chosen fellow. In 1688, he wrote a poem called” The Deity." It is the established practice of that college, to send every year to the earl of Exeter some poems upon sacred subjects, in acknowledgment of a benefaction enjoyed by them from the bounty of his ancestor: on this occasion were those verses written; which, though nothing is said of their success, seem to have recommended him to some notice; for his praise of the countess’s music, and his lines on the famous picture of Seneca, afford reason to suppose that he was more or less conversant in that family.

He was in the following year at Loo with the king; from whom, after a long audience, he carried orders to England, and upon his arrival became under-seeretary of state in the earl of Jersey’s office; a post which he did not retain long, because Jersey was removed; but he was soon made commissioner of trade. In 1700, at which time he was created M.A. he produced one of his longest and most splendid compositions, the “Carmen Seculare,” in which he exhausts all his powers in celebrating the glories of king William’s reign, and it is supposed with great sincerity. In the parliament which met in 1701, he was chosen representative for East Grinstead, and now voted for the impeachment of those lords who had persuaded the king to the partition -treaty, a treaty in which he had himself been officially employed, but which it is thought he never approved.

Upon the success of the war with France, after the accession of queen Anne, Prior exerted his poetical talent in honour of his country first, in his “Letter to Boileau, on the victory at Blenheim, in 1704;” and again, in his Ode on the glorious success of her majesty’s arms in 1706, at the battle of Ramilies and Dr. Johnson thinrks this is the only composition produced by that event which is now remembered. About this time Prior published a volume of his poems, with the encomiastic character of his deceased patron, the earl of Dorset. It began with the “College Exercise,” and ended with the “Nut-brown Maid.” Prior now, whatever were his reasons, began to join the party who were for bringing the war to a conclusion, who were to expatiate on past abuses, the waste of, public money, the unreasonable “Conduct of the Allies,” the avarice of generals, and other topics, which might render the war and the conductors of it unpopular. Among other writings, the “Examiner” was published by the wits of this party, particularly Swift. One paper, in ridicule of* Garth’s verses to Godolphin upon the loss of his place, was written by Prior, and answered by Addison, who appears to have known the author either by conjecture or intelligence.

He had now his liberty, but had nothing else. Whatever the profit of his employments might have been, he had always spent it; and at the age of fifty-three was, with all his abilities, in danger of penury, having yet no solid revenue but from the fellowship of his college, which, when in his exaltation he was censured for retaining it, he said “he could live upon it at last.” Being, however, generally known and esteemed, he was encouraged to add other poems to those which he had printed, and to publish them by subscription. The expedient succeeded by the industry of many friends, who circulated the proposals, and the care of some, who, it is said, withheld the money from him lest he should squander it. The price of the volume was two guineas the whole collection was four thousand to which lord Harley, the son of the earl of Oxford, to whom he had invariably adhered, added an equal sum, for the purchase of Down-hall, which Prior was to enjoy during life, and Harley after his decease. He had now, what wits and philosophers have often wished, the power of passing the day in contemplative tranquillity. But it seems, says Johnson, that busy men seldom live long in a state of quiet. It is not unlikely that his health declined. He complains of deafness “for,” says he, “I took little care of my ears while I was not sure if my head was my own.” He had formed a design of writing an “History of his own Time;” but had made very little progress in it, when a lingering fever carried him off, Sept. 18, 1721, in his fifty-eighth year. He died at Wimple, a seat of the earl of Oxford, not far from Cambridge and his corpse was interred in Westminster-abbey, where a monument was erected at his own charge, 500l. having been set apart by him for that purpose, and an inscription for it was written by Robert Freind, master of Westminster-school. After his death, more of his poems were published; and there appeared, in 1740, “The History of his own Time, compiled from his original manuscripts;” a composition little worthy of him, and undoubtedly, for the most part, if not entirely, spurious. To make his college some amends for retaining his fellowship, he left them books to the value of 2001. to be chosen by them out of his library and also his picture painted by La Belle, in France, which had been a present to him from Lewis XIV.

“Of Prior,” says Johnson, " eminent as he was, both by his abilities and station, very few memorials have been left by his contemporaries; the account therefore must now be destitute of his private character and familiar practices. He lived at a time when the rage of party detected all which it was any man’s interest to hide; and, as little ill is heard of Prior, it is certain that not much was known. He was not afraid of provoking censure; for, when he forsook the whigs, under whose patronage he first entered the world, he became a tory so ardent and determinate, that he did not willingly consort with m'en of different opinions. He was one of the sixteen tories who met weekly, and agreed to address each other by the title of brother; and seems to have adhered, not only by concurrence of political designs, but by peculiar affection, to the earl of Oxford and his family. With how much confidence he was trusted has been already told.

Prynne has been thought an honest man, for opposing equally Charles, the army, and Cromwell, when he thought they were betrayers of the country; and after having accurately observed, and sensibly felt, in his own person, the violation of law occasioned by each of them, he gave his most strenuous support to the legal and established government of his country, effected by the restoration of Charles II. The earl of Clarendon calls him learned in the law, as far as mere reading of books could make him learned. His works are all in English; and, “by the generality of scholars,” says Wood, “are looked upon to be rather rhapsodical and confused, than any way polite or concise: yet for antiquaries, critics, and sometimes for divines, they are useful. In most of them he shews greatindustry, but little judgment, especially in his large folios against the pope’s usurpations. He may be well entitled ‘voluminous Prynne,’ as Tostatus Abulensis was, two hundred years before his time, called ‘ voluminous Tostatus;’ for I verily believe, that, if rightly computed, he wrote a sheet for every day of his life, reckoning from the time when he came to the use of reason and the state of man.” Many of his works have lately been in request, and have been purchased at high prices. Whether they are more read than before, is not so certain; but much curious matter might be extracted by a patient and laborious reader, which would throw light on the controversies and characters of the times. He was himself perhaps one of the most indefatigable students. He read or wrote during the whole clay, and that he might not be interrupted, had no regular meals, but took, as he wanted it, the humble refreshment of bread, cheese, and ale, which were at his elbow.

Soon afterwards, Dr. Pulteney was acknowledged as a relation by the earl of Bath, who had imbibed a favourable opinion of his talents which circumstances induced him to attach himself to that nobleman as travelling physician. His lordship unfortunately died soon after, on which the subject of our memoir, becoming at a loss for a situation, hesitated whether to settle at London or elsewhere but he soon, decided in favour of Blandford, in Dorsetshire, where there happened to be a vacancy. Here he continued in great reputation, and extensive practice, till his death, which happened on the 13th of October 1801, to the deep regret of all who knew him, in the 72d year of his age. His disease was an inflammation in the lungs, of only a week’s duration.

, Earl Of Bath, an eminent English statesman, was descended from an ancient family, who took their surname from a place of that appellation in Leicestershire. His grandfather, sir William Pulteney, was member of parliament for the city of Westminster, and highly distinguished himself in the House of Commons by his manly and spirited eloquence. Of his father, little is upon record. He was born in 1682, and educated at Westminster school and Christ-church, Oxford, where his talents and industry became so conspicuous, that dean Aldrich appointed him to make the congratulatory speech to queen Anne, on her visit to the college. Having travelled through various parts of Europe, he returned to his riative country with a mind highly improved, and came into parliament for the borough of Heydon in Yorkshire, by the interest of Mr. Guy, his protector and great benefactor, who left him 40,000l. and an estate of 500l. a year.

On the prosecution of Walpole for high breach of trust and corruption, Pulteney warmly vindicated his friend, for such he then was; and, on his commitment to the Tower, was amongst those who paid frequent visits to the prisoner, whom he, with the rest of the whigs, considered as a martyr to their cause. He also engaged with Walpole in defending the whig administration, and wrote the ironical dedication to the earl of Oxford, prefixed to Walpole' s account of the parliament. On the accession of George I. Mr. Pulteney was appointed privy-counsellor and secretary at war, in opposition to the inclination of the duke of Marlborough, who, as commander in chief, thought himself entitled to recommend to that post. He was chosen a member of the committee of secrecy, nominated, by the House of Commons, to examine and report the substance of the papers relating to the negociation for peace; and on. the suppression of the rebellion of 1715, he moved for the impeachment of lord Widrington, and opposed the motion to address the king for a proclamation, offering a general pardon to all who were in arms in Scotland, who should lay down their arms within a certain time. He was at this period so much connected with Stanhope and Walpole, that, in allusion to the triple alliance between Great Britain, France, and Holland, which was then negociating by general Stanhope, secretary of state, they were called the three “grand allies;” and a proverbial saying was current, “Are you come into the triple alliance?” But when Stanhope and Walpole took different sides, on the schism between the whigs, when Townsend was dismissed and Walpole resigned, Pulteney followed his friend’s example, and gave up his place of secretary at war. When Walpole made a reconciliation between the king and the prince of Wales, and negociated with Sunderland to form a new administration, in which he and lord Townsend bore the most conspicuous part, then were first sown those seeds of disgust and discontent which afterwards burst forth. The causes of this unfortunate misunderstanding may be traced from the authority of the parties themselves, or their particular friends. Pulteney was offended because Walpole had negociated with the prince of Wales and Sunderland, without communicating the progress to him, although he had told it to Mr. Edgcumbe, who indiscreetly gave a daily account to Pulteney. Another cause of disgust was, that Pulteney, who had hitherto invariably proved his attachment to Townsend and Walpole, expected to receive some important employment, whereas he was only offered a peerage; and, when he declined it, more than two years elapsed before any farther overtures were made; and though Pulteney, at length, solicited and obtained the office of cofferer of the household, he deemed that place far below his just expectations. Although, therefore, he continued to support the measures of administration for some time, the disdainful manner in which he conceived he had been treated by Walpole had made too deep an impression on his mind to be eradicated. Finding that he did not possess the full confidence of administration, or disapproving those measures which tended, in his opinion, to raise the power of France on the ruins of the house of Austria, and which, in his opinion, sacrificed the interests of Great Britain to those of Hanover, topics on which he afterwards expatiated with great energy and unusual eloquence in parliament, he became more and more estranged from his former friends, and expressed his disapprobation of their measures both in public and private. At length his dissontent arrived at so great a height, that he declared his resolution of attacking the minister in parliament.

In this manner he continued inflexibly severe, attacking the measures of the minister with a degree of eloquence and sarcasm that worsted every antagonist; and sir Robert was often heard to say, that he dreaded his tongue more than another man’s sword. In 1738, when opposition ran so high, that several members openly left the House, as finding that party, and not reason, carried it in every motion, Pulteney thought proper to vindicate the extraordinary step which they had taken; and, when a motion was made for removing sir Robert Walpole, he warmly supported it. What a single session could not effect, was at length brought about by time; and, in 1741, when sir Robert found his place of prime minister no longer tenable, he wisely resigned all his employments, and was created earl of Orford. His opposers also were assured of being provided for; and, among other promotions, Pulteney himself was sworn of the privy-council, and soon afterwards created earl of Bath. He had long lived in the very focus of popularity, and was respected as the chief bulwark against the encroachments of the crown; but, from, the moment he accepted a title, all his favour with the people was at an end, and the rest of his life was spent in contemning that applause which he no longer could secure. What can be said in his favour has been candidly stated by the biographer of his great antagonist. Dying without issue, June 8, 1764, his title became extinct; and his only son, having died some time before in Portugal, the paternal estate devolved to his brother, the late lieutenantgeneral Pulteney. Besides the great part he bore in “The Craftsman,” he was the author of many political pamphlets; in the drawing up and composing of which no man of his time was supposed to exceed him. Lord Orford, who has introduced him among his Royal and Noble Authors, says, that his writings will be better known bv his name, than his name will be by his writings, though his prose had much effect, and his verses (for he was a poet) were easy and graceful. " Both were occasional, and not dedicated to the love of fame. Good-humour, and the spirit of society, dictated his poetry ambition and acrimony his political writings. The latter made Pope say,

, an English poet and poetical critic, flourished in the reign of queen Elizabeth. Very little is known of his life, and for that little- we are indebted to Mr. Haslewood, whose researches, equally accurate and judicious, have so frequently contributed to illustrate the history of old English poetry. By Ames, Puttenham was called Webster, but his late editor has brought sufficient proof that his name was George. He appears to have been born some time between 1529 and 1535. As his education was liberal, it may be presumed that his parents were not of the lowest class. He was educated at Oxford, but in what college, how long he resided, or whether he took a degree, remain unascertained. Wood had made none of these discoveries when he wrote his “Athense.” His career at court might commence at the age of eighteen, when he sought to gain the attention of the youthful king Edward VI. by an P^clogue, entitled “Elpine.” He made one or two tours on the continent, and proved himself neither an idle nor inattentive observer. He visited successively the courts of France, Spain, and Italy, and was at the Spa nearly about the year 1570. It is not improbable that he had a diplomatic appointment under Henry earl of Arundel, an old courtier, who, with the queen’s licence, visited Italy as he describes himself a beholder of the feast given by the duchess of Parma, to this nobleman, at the court of Brussels. His return was probably early after the above period, but nothing can be stated with certainty. It may however be inferred from his numerous adulatory verses addressed to queen Elizabeth, before the time of publishing his “Art of Poesie,” that he must have been a courtier of long standing, and was then one of her gentlemen pensioners.

, a noted republican in the time of Charles I. was descended of a good family in Somersetshire, and born in 1584. In his fifteenth year he entered as a gentleman-commoner of Broadgate’s-hall, now Pembroke-college, Oxford, where he had for his tutor Degory Wheare, but appears to have left the university without taking a degree, and, as Wood supposes, went to one of the inns of court. He appears, indeed, to have been intended for public business, as he was very early placed as a clerk in the office of the exchequer. He was likewise not far advanced when he was elected member of parliament for Tavistock, in the reign of James I. He uniformly distinguished himself by his opposition to the measures of the court, both in the reign of that king and of his successor. In 1626 he was one of the managers of the articles of impeachment against the duke of Buckingham, and in 1628 brought into the House of Commons a. charge against Dr. Main waring, who held some doctrines which he conceived to be equally injurious to the king and the kingdom. He was likewise a great opponent of Arnainianism, being himself attached to Calvinistic principles. In 1639, he, with several other cominoners and lords, held a very close correspondence with the commissioners sent to London by the Scotch covenanters; and in the parliament which met April 13, 1640, was one of the most active and leading members. On the meeting of the next, which is called the Long Parliament, he made an elaborate speech concerning the grievances of the nation, and impeached the earl of Strafford of high treason, at whose trial he was one of the managers of the House of Commons. His uncommon violence led the king to the unhappy measure of coming to the parliament in person, to seize him and four other members. Pym, however, continued firm to the interests of the parliament, but thought it necessary, some time before his death, to draw up a vindication of his conduct, which leaves it doubtful what part he would have taken, had he lived to see the serious consequences of his early violence. In Nov. 1643, he was appointed lieutenant of the ordnance, and probably would have risen to greater distinction, but he died at Derby-house, Dec. 8 following, and was interred with great solemnity in Westminster- abbey. He left several children by his lady, who died in 1620, and is said to have been a woman of rare accomplishments and learning. Many of his speeches were printed separately, and are inserted in the annals and histories of the times.

Lord Clarendon observes, that “his parts were rather acquired by industry, than supplied by nature, or adorned by art; but that, besides his exact knowledge of the forms and orders of the House of Commons, he had a very comely and grave way of expressing himself, with great volubility of words natural and proper. He understood likewise the temper and affections of the kingdom as well as any man, and had observed the errors and mistakes in government, and knew well how to make them appear greater than they were. At the first opening of the Long Parliament, though he was much governed in private designing by Mr. Hampden and Mr. Oliver St. John, yet he seemed of all men to have the greatest influence upon the House of Commons and was at that time, and for some months’ after, the most popular man in that or any other age. Upon the first design of softening and obliging the most powerful persons in both Houses, when he received the king’s promise for the chancellorship of the exchequer, he made in return a suitable profession of his service to*1iis majesty; and thereupon, the other being no secret, declined from that sharpness in the House, which was more popular than any man’s, and made some overtures to provide for the glory and splendour of the crown; in which he had so ill success, that his interest and reputation there visibly abated, and he found, that he was much more able to do hurt than good; which wrought very much upon him to melancholy, and complaint of the violence nd discomposure of the people’s affections and inclinations. In the prosecution of the earl of Strafford, his carriage and language was such, as expressed much personal animosity; and he was accused of having practised some arts in it unworthy of a good man; which, if true, might make many other things, that were confidently reported afterwards of him, to be believed; as that he received a great sum of money from the French ambassador, to hinder the transportation of those regiments of Ireland into Flanders, upon the disbanding that army there, which had been prepared by the earl of Strafford for the business of Scotland in which, if his majesty’s directions and commands had not been diverted and contradicted by both Houses, many believed, that the rebellion in Ireland had not happened. From the time of his being accused of high treason by the king, he opposed all overtures of peace and accommodation and when the earl of Essex was disposed, in the summer of 1643, to a treaty, his power and dexterity wholly changed the earl’s inclination in that point. He was also wonderfully solicitous for the Scots coming-in to the assistance of the parliament. In short, his power pf doing shrewd turns was extraordinary, and no less in doing good offices for particular persons, whom he preserved from censure, when they were under the severe displeasure of the Houses of parliament, and looked upon as eminent delinquents; and the quality of many of them made it believed, that he sold that protection for valuable considerations.”

Soon after, he lost the favour of the princess Anne, by neglecting- to obey her call, from his too great attachment to the bottle, and another physician was elected into his place. In 1699, king William returning from Holland, and being indisposed, sent for Radcliffe; and, shewing him his swoln ancles, while the rest of his body was emaciated and skeleton-like, said, “What think you of these?” “Why truly,” replied the physician, “I would not have your majesty’s two legs for your three kingdoms” which freedom lost the king’s favour, and no intercessions could ever recover it. When queen Anne came to the throne, the earl of Godolphin used all his endeavours to reinstate him in his former post of chief physician but she would not be prevailed upon, alledging, that Radcliffe would send her word again, “that her ailments were nothing but the vapours.” Still he was consulted in all cases of emergency and. critical conjuncture; and though not admitted as the queen’s domestic physician, he received large sums for his prescriptions.

Kirton school; to which he had now removed, was never much to his liking, and he therefore soon left it, and came to London. When he was admitted to orders does not appear, but we first hear of his preaching at Glentworth in 1632. In London he first took up his residence in Eulier’s Rents, but in three months removed to Sion college for the sake of the library there. He also became a candidate for the preachership of Lincoln’s-inn, but was not successful. In June of that year, however, he was appointed curate at the Savoy, and being invited back to his college by Dr. Smith the master, and some others of the society, he was, in 1634, admitted to a fellowship. After his return to the university, he appears to have resided occasionally, or for some stated time, annually, at London, where, in the year above mentioned, he preached one sermon, printed at the request of his friends, and another in 1639 hut it was at the university that his sermons were most admired, and his hearers most numerous. Here too, as in the case of the tripos, he was suddenly called upon to supply the place of a gentleman who was unexpectedly absent, and acquitted himself with great credit, in an extempore discourse. He does not, however, appear to have reviewed his early sermons with much pleasure, finding that he had indulged too much in a declamatory kind of style, which he did not think becoming in such compositions, nor to be preferred to the plain exposition of the doctrinal parts of the Holy Scriptures. With the same conscientious feeling, when he became a college tutor in 1635, he added to other branches of instruction, a knowledge of the foundation and superstructure of religion and so acceptable was his mode of teaching, that the master of the college recommended to his care, the sons of some noblemen, particularly Theophilus earl of Suffolk. In 1639, he was chosen dean of his college, and the following year attended James earl of Suffolk, son to Theophilus, to the Long parliament. In 1642, on the death of Dr. Smith, he was elected master of Magdalen college, with the concurrence of the earl. In 1646 he took his degree of D. D. and chose for the subject of his thesis a defence of the principles of the church of England, as containing every thing necessary to salvation. For some time he does not appear to have been molested for this attempt to support a church which the majority were endeavouring to pull down. In 1650, however, when he refused to sign a protestation Against the king, he was deprived of the mastership, which he was very willing to give up rather than comply with the party in power. His steady friend, however, the earl of Suffolk, gave him the small living of Little Chesterford near Audley Inn in Essex, in 1652, but this he held only by his lordship’s presentation, as he determined never to submit to an examination by the republican triers, as they were called.

Unpromising as his situation now was, he married Elizabeth, daughter of Dr. Smith, his predecessor in the mastership of the college. In performing his duties as a parish priest, he used a selection from the common prayerbook, with which his hearers, many of whom had never read them* were very much pleased. He also regularly visited and catechised his flock, and by works of charity gradually gained upon their affections. In 1659, he accepted the rectory of Benefield in Northamptonshire, from the earl of Warwick, but still on condition of having nothing to do with the triers; and here likewise he became very popular.

, or Raleigh, or'Rawlegh, an illustrious Englishman, was the fourth son, and the second by a third wife, of Walter Ralegh, esq. of Fardel, near Plymouth. His father was of an ancient knightly family, and his mother was Catharine, daughter of sir Philip Champernoun, of Modbury in Devonshire, relict of Otho Gilbert, of Compton, the father, by her, of sir Humphrey Gilbert, the celebrated navigator. Mr. Ralegh, upon his marriage with this lady, had retired to a farm called Hayes, in the parish of Budiey, where sir Walter was born in 1552. After a proper education at school, he was sent to Oriel college, Oxford, about 1568, where he soon distinguished himself by great force of natural parts, and an uncommon progress in academical learning but Wood is certainly mistaken in saying he stayed here three years for in 1569, when only seventeen, he formed one of the select troop of an hundred gentlemen whom queen Elizabeth permitted Henry Champernoun to transport to France, to assist the persecuted Protestants. Sir Walter appears to have been engaged for some years in military affairs, of which, however, we do not know the particulars. In 1575 or 1576, he was in London, exercising his poetical talents; for there is a commendatory poem by him prefixed, among others, to a satire called “The Steel Glass,” published by George Gascoigne, a poet of that age. This is dated from the Middle Temple, at which he then resided, but with no view of studying the law for he declared expressly, at his trial, that he had never studied it. On the contrary, his mind was still bent on military glory; and accordingly, in 1578, he went to the Netherlands, with the forces which were sent against the Spaniards, commanded by sir John Norris, and it is supposed he was at the battle of Rimenant, fought on Aug. 1. The following year, 1579, when sir Humphrey Gilbert, who was his brother by his mother’s side, had obtained a patent of the queen to plant and inhabit some Northern parts of America, he engaged in that adventure; but returned soon after, the attempt proving unsuccessful. In 1580, the pope having incited the Irish to rebellion, he had a captain’s commission under the lord deputy of Ireland, Arthur Grey, lord Grey de Wilton. Here he distinguished himself by his skill and bravery. In 1581, the earl of Ormond departing for England, his government of Munster was given to captain Ralegh, in commission with sir * William Morgan and captain Piers Ralegh resided chiefly at Lismore, and spent all this summer in the woods and country adjacent, in continual action with the rebels. At his return home, he was introduced to court, and, as Fuller relates, upon the following occasion. Her majesty, taking the air in a walk, stopped at a splashy place, in doubt whether to go on when Ralegh, dressed in a gay and genteel habit of those tirhes, immediately cast off and spread his new plush cloak on the ground n which her majesty gently treading, was conducted 6ver clean and dry. The truth is, Ralegh always made a very elegant appearance, as well in the splendor of attire, as the politeness of address; having a commanding figure, and a handsome and well-compacted person a strong natural wit, and a better judgment and that kind of courtly address which pleased Elizabeth, and led to herfaTOur. Such encouragement, however, did not reconcile hirn to an indolent life. In 1583 he set out with his brother sir H. Gilbert, in his expedition to Newfoundland but within a few days was obliged to return to Plymouth, his ship’s company -being seized with an infectious distemper and sir H. Gilbert was drowned in coming home, after he had taken possession of that country. These expeditions, however, being much to Ralegh’s taste, he still felt no discouragement; but in 1584 obtaining letters patent for discovering unknown countries, he set sail to America, and took possession of a place, to which queen Elizabeth gave the name of Virginia.

On 'the suppression of the rebellion in Munster, when the forfeited lands were divided in signories, among those who had been active in its reduction, he obtained a grant of 12,000 acres in the counties of Cork and Waterford which he planted at his own expence; and, at the end of this reign, sold to Richard Boyle, afterwards the great earl of Cork, who owned this purchase to have been the first step to his future vast fortune.

Sir Walter was now become such a favourite with the queen, that they who had at first been his friends at court began to be alarmed, and to intrigue against him, particularly the earl of Leicester, his former patron, who is said to have grawn jealous of his influence with her majesty, eind ta have set up, in opposition to him, Robert Devereux, the young earl of Essex. To this he appears to have paid little attention, but constantly attended his public charge and employments, whether in town or country, as occasion required. He was, in 1586, a member of that parliament which decided the fate of Mary queen of Scots, in which he probably concurred. But still speculating on the consequences of the discovery of Virginia, he sent three ships upon a fourth voyage thither, in 1587. In 1588 he sent another fleet, upon a fifth voyage, to Virginia and the same year took a brave part in the destruction of the Spanish armada, sent to invade England. About this time he made an assignment to divers gentlemen and merchants of London, of all his rights in the colony of Virginia. This assignment is dated March 7, 1588-9.

About the same time, 1593, Ralegh had an illicit amour with a beautiful young lady, Elizabeth, daughter of sir Nicolas Throgmorton, an able statesman and ambassador which so offended the queen, that they were both confined for several months and, when set at liberty, forbidden the court. Sir Walter afterwards made the most honourable reparation he could, by marrying the object of his affection; and he always lived with her in the strictest conjugal harmony. The next year he was so entirely restored to the queen’s favour, that he obtained a grant from her majesty of the manor of Sherborne, in Dorsetshire, which had been alienated from the see of Salisbury by bishop Caldwell, and was doubtless one of those church- lands, for accepting which he was censured, as mentioned above. During his disgrace he projected the discovery and conquest of the large, rich, and beautiful empire of Guiana, in South America; and, sending first an old experienced officer to collect information concerning it, he went thither himself jn 1595, destroyed the city of San Joseph, and took the Spanish governor. Upon his return, he mote a discourse t)f his discoveries in Guiana, which was printed in 1596, 4to, and afterwards inserted in the third volume of Hakluyt’s voyages, in Birch’s works of Ralegh, and in Mr. Cayley’s late “Life of Ralegh.” His second attempt on Guiana was conducted by Lawrence Keymis, who sailed in Jan. 1596, and returned in June following. An account of this also is to be found in Hakluyt. The same year, sir Walter had a chief command in the Cadiz action, under the earl of Essex, in which he took a very able and gallant part. In the “Island Voyage,” in 1597, which was aimed principally at the Spanish plate-fleets, Ralegh was one of the principal leaders and would have been completely successful, had he not been thwarted by the jealousy and presumption of Essex. This unhappy nobleman’s misfortunes were now coming on and Ralegh, who had long been at variance with him, contributed to hasten his fall, particularly by a most disgraceful and vindictive letter which he wrote to sir Robert Cecil, to prevent his showing any lenity to Essex. Sir E. Brydges, who has lately reprinted this letter, in his elegant memoir of sir Walter Ralegh, observes, that it exhibits an awful lesson for “Ralegh, in this dreadful letter, is pressing forward for a rival that snare by which he afterwards perished himself. He urges Cecil to get rid of Essex! By that riddance he himself became no longer necessary to Cecil, as a counterppise to Essex’s power.” “Then, I have no doubt it was,” adds sir Egerton, “that Cecil, become an adept in the abominable lesson of this letter, and conscious of his minor talents, but more persevering cunning, resolved to disencumber himself of the ascendant abilities, and aspiring and dangerous ambition of Ralegh.” But whatever share \ftalegh had in defeating the designs of Essex, his sun set at queen Elizabeth’s death, which happened March 24, 1602-3.

Upon the accession of king James, he lost his interest at court; was stripped of his preferments, and even accused, tried, and condemned for high treason. Various causes have been assigned for this strange reverse of fortune. In the first place, it has been observed, that the earl of Essex, in his life-time, had prejudiced king James against him and, after the earl’s death, there were circumstances implying, that secretary Cecil had likewise been his secret enemy. For, though Cecil and Ralegh joined against Essex, yet, when he was overthrown, they divided; and when king James came to England, sir Walter presented to him a memorial, in which he reflected upon Cecil in the affair of Essex ', and, vindicating himself, threw the whole blame upon the other. He farther laid open, at the end of it, the conduct of Cecil concerning Mary queen of Scots, his majesty’s mother and charged the death of that unfortunate princess on him which, however, only irritated Cecil the more againstRalegh, without producingany efFecton the king. But, what seems alone sufficient to have incensed the king against Ralegh was, his joining with that party of Englishman, who, jealous of the concourse of Scotchmen who came to court, wished to restrict his majesty in the employment of these his countrymen. We are toid, however, that the king received him for some time with great kindness; but this time must have been short, for on July 6, 1603, he was examined before the lords of the council at Westminster, and returned thence a private prisoner to his own house. He was indicted at Staines, September 21, and not long after committed to the Tower of London; whence he was carried to Winchester, tried there November 17, and condemned to die. That there was something of a treasonable conspiracy, called “Ralegh’s plot,” against the king was generally believed yet it never was proved that he was engaged in it and perhaps the best means to prove his innocence may be found in the very trial upon which he was condemned; in which the barbarous partiality and foul language of the attorney-general Coke broke out so glaringly, that he was exposed for it, even upon the public theatre. After this, Ralegh was kept near a month at Winchester, in daily expectation of death; and that he expected nothing less, is plain from an excellent letter he wrote to his wife, which is printed among his Works.

He was however reprieved, and committed prisoner to the Tower of London, where he lay many years, his lady living with him, and bringing him a second son, named Carew, within the year. His estate was at first restored to him, but taken again, and given to the king’s minion Robert Carr, afterwards earl of Somerset. Ralegh found a great friend in Henry, the king’s eldest son, who laboured to procure him his estate, and had nearly effected it; but, that hopeful and discerning prince dying in 1612, all his views were at an end. The prince is reported to have said, that “no king but his father would keep such a bird in a cage.” During his confinement, he devoted the greatest part of his time to reading and writing, and indeed the productions, of his pen at this time are as many, a if original writing and compilation had been the whole pursuit of his life. His writings have been divided into poetical, epistolary, military, maritimal, geographical, political, philosophical, and historical. But, however excellent these miscellanies are allowed by others to be written, he considered them as trivial amusements compared to his grand work “The History of the World;” the first volume of which was published in 1614, folio, and extends to the end of the Macedonian empire. As to a report respecting the second volume of this history, which, it is said, he burned because the first had sold so slowly that it had ruined his bookseller, it is scarcely worth notice; for it appears that there was a second edition of it printed by the same bookseller, within three years after the first. According to his own evidence, he had certainly planned a second and third volume; but was persuaded to lay them aside by the death of prince Henry, to whose use they were dedicated, and the course of his life afterwards left no room for a labour of this magnitude. Of the “History” it has been said, that the design was equal to the great-ness of his mind, and the execution to the strength of his parts, and the variety of his learning. His style is pure, nervous and majestic; and much better suited to the dignity of history, than that of lord Bacon. Ralegh seems to have written for posterity, Bacon for the reign of James I. This admirable work of Ralegh has been thought a just model for the reformation of our language, yet is now little read or consulted.

His works may be divided into classes, according to Oldys’s arrangement, 1. “Poetical: including his poems on Gascoigne’s Steel-Glass; The Excuse; The silent Lover; the Answer to Marloe’s Pastoral; with his poems of Cynthia, and two more on Spenser’s Fairy-Queen; The Lover’s Maze; a Farewei to Court; The Advice; which last three are printed in an old” Collection of several ingenious Poems and Songs by the wits of the age,“1660, in 8vo; another little poem, printed in the London Magazine for August 1734; several in the Ashmolean library at Oxford, namely,” Erroris Responsio,“and his” Answer, to the Lie,“&c. three pieces written just before his death, viz. his Pilgrim; his” Epigram in allusion to the Snuff' of a Candle,“and his Epitaph, printed in his” Remains.“There is likewise ascribed to him a satirical Elegy upon the death of the lord treasurer Cecil, earl of Salisbury, printed by Osborne in his Memoirs of king James, and said to be our author’s by Shirley in his Life of Ralegh, p. 179. Of his poems, a beautiful and correct, but limited edition, has lately been published by sir E. JBrydges, with a memoir of his life, written with the taste and feeling which distinguish all the productions of that gentleman’s pen. 2. Epistolary: viz. Letters, eight-and-twenty of which Mr. Oldys tells us he has seen in print and manuscript. 3. Military: these discourses relate either to the defence of England in particular, or contain general arguments and examples of the causes of war among mankind. On the former subject he seems to have drawn up several remonstrances, which have but sparingly and slowly come to light. However, as he had a principal hand in the determinations of the council of war for arming the nation when it was under immediate apprehensions of the Spanish invasion, there is reason to believe that he was the author of a treatise concerning” Notes of Direction“for such” Defence of the Kingdom,“written three years before that invasion. To this treatise was also joined a cc Direction for the best and most orderly retreat of an army, whether in campaign or straits.” And these were then presented in manuscript to the privy-council. One advice is, that since frontier forces are unlikely to prevent an enemy from landing, if they should land through the deficiency or absence of our shipping (for this is the force which Ralegh was ever for having first used against such foreign invasions) it were better by driving or clearing the country of provisions, and temporizing, to endeavour at growing stronger, and rendering the enemy weaker, than to hazard all by a confused and disorderly descent of the populace to oppose the first landing, as their custom was formerly. But this was one of the chief points, which a little before the approach of the Spanish armada was opposed by Thomas Digges, esq. muster-master-general of the queen’s forces in the Low Countries, in a “Discourse of the best order for repulsing a foreign Force,” &c. which he then published. This occasioned an Answer, which having been found in an old manuscript copy among others of sir Walter Ralegh’s discourses, and several circumstances agreeing with the orders in the council of war, as well as some passages in his “History of the World,” and his other writings, it was published by Nathaniel Booth, of Gray’s Inn, esq. at London, 1734, in 8vo, under this title: “A Military Discourse, whether it be better for England to give an invader present battle, or to temporize and defer the same,” &c. But Ralegh’s opinion upon this subject is more fully given in his Discourses of the original and fundamental cause of natural and necessary, arbitrary and customary, holy and civil wars; which, though published several years after his death, have sufficient marks of authenticity. 4. Maritimal: viz. his “Discourse of the invention of shipping,” &c. printed among his essays in 1650, in 8vo; his “Observations and Notes concerning the Royal Navy and Sea-service,” dedicated to prince Henry, printed likewise among his essays; his Letter to that prince concerning the model of a ship, printed among his Remains; his “Report of the truth of the Fight about the isles of Azores,” printed in 1591, in 4to, and reprinted by Hakluyt, vol. It.; his Relation of the Action at Cadiz, already mentioned; and his “Memorial touching Dover Port,” printed in a pamphlet, entitled “An Essay on ways and means to maintain the Honour and Safety of England,” published by sir Henry Sheers in 1701, in 4to. Sir Walter, in the introduction to his “Observations and Notes concerningthe Royal Navy and Sea-service,” men* tions a “Discourse of a maritimal voyage, with the passages and incidents therein,” which he bad formerly written to prince Henry; and in his “History of the World” he takes notice of another treatise, written to the same prince, “Of the art of War by Sea;” “a subject to my knowledge,” says he, “never handled by any man, ancient or modern; but God has spared me the labour of finishing it, by the loss of that brave prince; of which, like an eclipse of the sun, we shall find the effects hereafter.” 5. Geographical; viz. several discourses and papers of his concerning the discovery, planting, and settlement of Virginia, which were formerly in the hands of sir Francis Walsingham “A treatise of the West Indies;” “Considerations on the Voyage for Guiana,” a manuscript containing leaves in 4to, in the library of sir Hans Sloane, bart. and now in the British Museum “Discovery of the large, rich, and beautiful empire of Guiana,” pqblished by himself, and mentioned above. His “Journal of his second Voyage to Guiana,” which remains still in manuscript; and his “Apology” for the said voyage. 6. Political viz. “The Seat of Government,” shewing it to be upheld by the two great pillars of civil justice and martial policy; “Observations concerning the causes of the magnificency and o'pulency;” “The Prince; or Maxims of State,” printed at London, 1642, in 4to. Wood says that it is the same with “Aphorisms of State,” published by John Milton at London, in 1661, in 8vo. “The Cabinet-Council, containing the chief arts of Empire, and mysteries of State discabineted,” &c. published by John Milton, esq. London, 1658, 8vo. In the second edition at London, 1692, 8vo, it is entitled “The Arts of Empire and mysteries of State discabineted,” &c. “The Spaniard’s Cruelties to the English in Havanria” his “Consultation about the Peace with Spain” and our protecting the Netherlands, in manuscript. “The present state of Spain, with a most accurate account of his catholic majesty’s power and rights also the names and worth of the most considerable persons in that kingdom,” in manuscript; which seems to be a different piece from “The present state of Things, as they now stand between the three kingdoms, France, England, and Spain,” also in manuscript; “A Discourse on the Match propounded by the Savoyan between the lady Elizabeth and the prince of Piedmont,” and another on that “between, prince Henry of England and a daughter of Savoy,” both in manuscript “A Dialogue between a Jesuit and a i\ecusarit shewing how claugv rous their principles are to Christian Princes,” published by Philip Ralegh, esq. among jour author’s genuine Remains, at the end of an Abridgment of his History of the World, London, 1700, in 8vo; “A Dialogue between a counsellor of state and a justice of peace,” better known in the printed copies by the title of the “Prerogative of Parliaments,” dedicated to king James, and printed at Midelburge, 1628, in 4to, and reprinted in 1643 in 4to A “Discourse of the words Law and Right,” jn manuscript in the, Ashmolean library “Observations touching Trade and Commerce with the Hollander and other nations, as it was presented to king James; wherein is prqve.d, that our sea and land commodities serve to enrich and strengthen other countries against our own” printed in 1653, in 12mo. But it is doubtful whether this tract was written by our author. 7. Philosophical viz. “A treatise of the Soul” in manuscript in the Ashmolean library, His “Sceptic,” or Speculations printed among his Remains. “Instructions to his Son and Posterity,” 1632, in J2mo; and to this is subjoined “The dutiful Advice of a Joving Son to his aged Father:”. a treatise of “Mines, and the trial of Minerals;” and a “Collection of chymical and medicinal Receipts;” both which are in manuscript, 8. Jiistorical: viz. his “History of the World,” the best edition of which is that by Oldys, 1736, fol. with a life. Dr. Birch published a collection of his “Miscellaneous Works,” including most of the above, 1748, in 2 vols. 8vo. Mr. Cayley has lately published a very elaborate life of sir Walter, which includes every information as yet procurable, respecting this very extraordinary and unfortunate man.

His son, Carew, incidentally noticed above, was born in the Tower of London, in 1604, and was edupated at Wadham college, Oxford, After spending five years in the university he went to court; but meeting with no encouragement there, his friend, the earl of Pembroke, advised him to travel, as he did till the death of James, which happened about a year after. On his return he petitioned Parliament to restore him in blood; but, while this was under consideration, the king sent for him, and told him that he had promised to secure the manor of Sherborn to the lord Digby, it having been given by king James to that nobleman on the disgrace of Carr earl of Somerset. Mr. Ralegh, therefore, was under the necessity of complying with the royal pleasure, and to give up his inheritance. On this submission an act was passed for his restoration, a pension of 400l. a year was granted to him after the death of his mother, who had that sum paid during life in lieu of her jointure. About a year after this he married the widow *of sir Anthony Ashley, by whom he had two sons and three daughters, and soon after he was made one of the gentlemen of the king’s privy chamber. In 1645 he wrote a vindication of his father against some misrepresentations which Mr. James Howel had made relative to the mine-affair of Guiana. After the death of the king he again applied to Parliament for a restoration of his estate; but was not successful, although he published, in order to enforce the necessity of his claim, “A brief relation of sir Walter Ralegh’s Troubles.” In 1656 he printed his *' Observations on Sanderson’s History of king James," which were replied to by that historian with considerable asperity. In 1659, by the favour of General Monk, Mr. Ralegh was appointed governor of Jersey. King Charles II. would have conferred some mark of favour upon him, but he declined it. His son Walter, however, received the honour of knighthood from that monarch. Mr. Ralegh died in 1666, and was buried in his father’s grave at St. Margaret’s, Westminster. Anthony Wood says that he had seen some sonnets of his composition, and certain ingenious discourses in ms.

, an eminent English divine in the seventeenth century, was second son of sir Carew Ralegh (elder brother of the celebrated sir Walter Ralegh.) His mother was relict of sir John Thynne, of Longleate, in Wiltshire, and daughter of sir William Wroughton, viceadmiral under sir John Dudley (afterwards duke of Northumberland) in the expedition against the Scots in 1544. He was born at Downton, in Wiltshire, in 1586, and educated in Winchester-school, whence he was sent to Magdalen college, Oxford, of which he became a commoner in Michaelmas term, 1602. In June 1605, he took the degree of B. A. and in June 1608, that of master and being a noted disputant, was made junior of the public act the same year, in which he distinguished himself to great advantage. About that time he entered into holy orders, and became chaplain to William earl of Pembroke, in whose family he spent about two years, when he was collated by his lordship to the rectory of Chedzoy, near Bridgewater, in Somersetshire, in the latter end of 1620. Being settled here, he married Mary, the daughter of sir Richard Gibbs, and sister of Dr. Charles Gibbs, prebendary of Westminster. He was afterwards collated to a minor prebend in the church of Wells, and to the rectory of Streat, with the chapel of Walton in Wiltshire. About the time of the death of his patron, the earl of Pembroke, which happened in 1630, he became chaplain in ordinary to king Charles I, and by that title was created D. D. in 1636. January the 13th, 1641, he was admitted dean of Wells on the death of Dr. George Warburton. During the rebellion he was sequestered on account of his loyalty, and afterwards treated with the utmost barbarity. It being his month to wait on the king as his chaplain, the committee of Somersetshire raised the rabble, and commissioned the soldiers to plunder his parsonage-house at Chedzoy and in his absence they seized upon all his estate spiritual and temporal, drove away his cattle and horses, which they found upon his ground, and turned his family out of doors. His lady was forced to lie two nights in the corn-fields, it being a capital crime for any of the parishioners to afford them lodging. After this she went to Downton, in Wiltshire, the seat of sir Carew Ralegh, where her husband met her. The king’s party having had some success in the West, Dr. Ralegh had an opportunity to return to his family, and resettle at Chedzoy but the parliament party soon gained the ascendant by the defeat of the lord Goring, and he was obliged to take refuge at Bridgewater, then garrisoned by the king. Here he continued till that town was surrendered to Fairfax and Cromwell, when he was taken prisoner, and after much severe usage set upon a poor horse, with his legs tied under the belly of it, and so carried to his house at Chedzoy, which was then the head -quarters of Fairfax and Cromwell and being extremely sick through his former ill treatment, obtained the favour of continuing prisoner in his own house. But as soon as the generals marched, Henry Jeanes, who was solicitous for his rectory of Chedzoy, and afterwards succeeded him in it, entered violently into the house, took the doctor out of his bed, and carried him away prisoner with all his goods. His wife and children were exposed to such necessities, that they must have perished if colonel Ash. had not procured them the income of some small tenements, which the doctor had purchased at Chedzoy, After this Dr. Ralegh wa& sent prisoner to Ilchester, the county-gaol; thence to Banwell-house, and thence to the house belonging to the deanery in Wells, which was turned into a gaol and here, while endeavouring to secrete a letter which he had written to his wife, from impertinent curiosity, he was stabbed by David Barrett, a shoe-maker of that city, who was his keeper, and died of the wound October 10, 1646, and was interred on the 13th of the same month before the dean’s stall, in the choir of the cathedral of Wells. His papers, after his death, such as could be preserved, continued for above thirty years in obscurity, till at last coming into the hands of Dr. Simon Patrick (afterwards bishop of Ely) he published them at London, 1679, in 4to, under this title: “Reliquiae Raleghanae, being Discourses and Sermons on several subjects, by the reverend Dr. Walter Ralegh, dean of Wells, and chaplain in ordinary to his late majesty king Charles the First.” This editor tells us, that “besides the quickness of his wit and ready elocution, he was master of a very strong reason which won him the familiarity and friendship of those great men -who were the envy of the last age, and the wonder of this, the lord Falkland, Dr. Hammond, and Mr. Chillingvvorth the last of which was wont to say (and no man was a better judge of it than himself) that Dr. Ralegh was the best disputant that ever he met withal; and indeed there is a very great acuteness easily to be observed in his writings, which would have appeared more if he had not been led, by the common vice of those times, to imitate too far a very eminent man (meaning, perhaps, bishop Andrews) rather than follow his own excellent genius.” He is said to have been a believer in the millenium, or reign of Christ on earth for a thousand years, and to have written a book on that subject, which is lost. In 1719 the rev. Lawrence Howell published at Lond. 8vo, “Certain Queries proposed by Roman catholics, and answered by Dr. Walter Ralegh,” &c. which appears to be authentic.

Such is Warburton’s account, heightened a little, unqaestionnbly, by his regard for Pope, but, except where he calls him illiterate, not much beyond the truth for Ralph’s pen was completely venal, and both his principles and his distresses prevented any consideration on the moral part of his conduct. He had by this time produced on the stage, “The Fashionable Lady,” an opera, “The Fall of the Earl of Essex,” a tragedy and afterwards, “The Lawyer’s Feast,” a farce, and “The Astrologer,” a comedy, none of which had much success. He was a writer, iff 1739, in the “Universal Spectator,” a periodical paper; but from his letters to Dr. Birch* in the British Museum, it appears that he was no great gainer hy any of his performances. There is an excellent pamphlet, however* attributed tp him, which was published about 1731, a “Review of the Public Buildings of London” but from the style and subject, we should suppose his name borrowed. In 1735 he commenced a managing partner with Fielding- in the Haymarket theatre but, as Davies says, “he had no other share in the management than viewing and repining at his partner’s success.”

On the death of George II. Ralph, according to Mr. Davies’s account, attained the summit of his wishes by the interest of the earl of Bute, a pension of 600l. per annum was bestowed upon him, but he did not live to receive above one half year’s income. A fit of the gout proved fatal to him at his house at Chiswick, Jan. 24, 1762. He died almost in the arms of lord Elibank and sir Gilbert Elliot, from whom Mr. Davies had this information. His character may be gathered from the preceding particulars. He left a daughter, to whom a pension of 150l. was granted in consequence of some papers found in her father’s possession, which belonged to the prince of Wales, and contained a history of his life, said to be written by himself under the title of “The History of Prince Titi.” The late Dr. Rose of Chiswick, who was Ralph’s executor, gave up those papers to the earl of Bute, and the pension was granted to Miss Ralph, who died, however, about a month after her father. It has been thought, with much probability, that “The History of Prince Titi” was the composition of Ralph himself. Besides the above daughter, he left a son, if we may rely on the following paragraph in all the papers of May 22, 1770, erroneous certainly in other particulars “Mr. Ralph, who died a few days since, was the son of that great historian. He enjoyed a pension of 150l. a year, which the late and present king settled on his father for writing the History of Scotland.”

, one of the extraordinary instances of the power of uncultivated genius, was born at Leadhills, Oct. 13, 1685. His father, John Ramsay, descended of the Rarnsays of Cockpen, an ancient and respectable family in Mid- Lothian, was factor to the earl of Hopeton, and superintendant of his lead-mines. His mother, Alice Bower, was daughter of Allan Bower, a gentleman of Derbyshire, who, on account of his great skill in mining, had been invited by sir James Hope of Hopeton to set his valuable mines in motion.

, frequently styled the Chevalier Ramsay, a title by which he frequently signed his letters, was a Scotsman of an ancient family, and was born at Ayr in that kingdom, June 9, 1636. He received the first part of his education at Ayr, and was then removed to Edinburgh; where, distinguishing himself by good parts and uncommon proficiency, he was sent for to St. Andrew’s, in order to attend a son of the earl of Wemyss in that university. After this, he travelled to Holland, and went to Leyden; where, becoming acquainted with Poiret, the mystic divine, he became tinctured with his doctrines; and resolved, for farther satisfaction, to consult the celebrated Fenelon, archbishop of Camhray, who had long imbibed the fundamental principles of that theology. Before he left Scotland, he had conceived a disgust to all the forms of religion in his native country, and had settled in a species of deism, which became confirmed during his abode in Holland, yet not without leaving him sometimes in a considerable state of perplexity. On his arrival at Cambray in 1710, he was received with great kindness by the archbishop, who took him into his family, heard with patience and attention the history of his religious principles, entered heartily with him into a discussion of them, and, in six months’ time, is said to have ^made him as good a catholic as himself.

In the end of 1693, he was ordered for England without any reason assigned; but a letter informed him, that he was to be governor to the earl of Portland’s son. Having never bad any thoughts of this kind of employment, he could not imagine to whom he owed the recommendation; but at last found it to be lord Galway. He immediately went to London, and entered upon this charge, losing, however, with it those preferments in the army which several of his fellow-officers soon after attained. All the favour shown him was, that he had leave to resign his commission to his younger brother, who died in 1719, after having been made lieutenant-colonel in a regiment of English dragoons. Indeed the king gave him a pension of 100l. per annum, “till such time as he should provide for him better;” which time never came: and after enjoying this pension during the king’s life, a post of small value was given him in its stead.

While the earl of Portland was ambassador in France, Rapin was obliged to be sometimes in that kingdom, sometimes in England, and often in Holland: but at length he settled at the Hague, were the young lord Portland was learning his exercises. While he resided here, in 1699, he married; but this marriage neither abated his care of his pupil, nor hindered him from accompanying him in his travels. They began with a tour through Germany, where they made some stay at Vienna: hence went into Italy by the way of Tirol, where the marshal de Villeroy, at that time prisoner, gave Rapin a letter for the cardinal d'Etrees, when at Venice. Their travels being finished, which put an end to his employment, he returned to his family at the Hague, where he continued some years; but, as he found it increase, he resolved to remove to some cheap country; and accordingly retired, in 1707, to Wesel, in the duchy of Cleves in Germany, where he employed the remaining years of his life in writing fche “History of England.” Though his constitution was strong, yet seventeen years application (for so long he was in composing this history) entirely ruined it. About three years before his death, he found himself exhausted, and often felt great pains in the stomach: and at length a fever, with an oppression in his breast, carried him off, after a week’s illness, May 16, 1725. He left one son and six daughters. He was naturally of a serious temper, although no enemy to mirth: he loved music, and was skilled, as we have said, in mathematics, especially in the art of fortification. He was master of the Italian, Spanish, and English languages; and had also a very competent knowledge of the Greek and Latin. He spent all his leisure hours in reading and conversing with men of learning and information.

, Earl of Sussex, a statesman of the sixteenth century, was the eldest son of Henry Ratcliffe, the second earl of Sussex, by Elizabeth, one of the daughters of Thomas Howard, second duke of Norfolk. His first public service was in an honourable embassy to the emperor Charles the Fifth, to treat of the projected marriage of Queen Mary to Philip, which he afterwards ratified with the latter in Spain. Upon his return he was appointed lord deputy of Ireland, and chief justice of the forests north of Trent. The order of the garter, and the office of captain of the pensioners, were likewise conferred on him in that reign, a little before the conclusion of which he succeeded to his father’s honours. Elizabeth continued him for a while in the post of lord deputy, and recalled him to assume that of the president of the North, a situation rendered infinitely difficult by the delicacy of her affairs with Scotland, and the rebellious spirit of the border counties. The latter, however, was subdued by his prudence and bravery in 1569; and the assiduity and acuteness with which he studied the former, will appear from his own pen. The unfortunate affair of the duke of Norfolk, to whom he was most firmly attached, fell out in the course of that year, and would have ended happily and honourably if the duke had followed his advice. That nobleman’s last request was, that his best george, chain, and gafter, might be given to my lord of Sussex. He was the prime negociator in those two famous treaties of marriage with the archduke Charles and the duke of Alenson, Elizabeth’s real intentions in which have been so frequently the subject of historical disquisition. In 1572, he retired from the severer labours of the public service, in which he had wasted his health, to the honourable office of lord chamberlain, and the duties of a cabinet minister; and died at his house in Bermondsey, June 9, 1583, leaving little to his heirs but the bright example of a character truly noble. The earl of Sussex was twice married; first, to Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas Wriothesley, earl of Southampton, by whom he had two sons, Henry and Thomas, who died young; secondly, to Frances, daughter of sir William Sydney, afterwards the celebrated foundress of Sydney-Sussex college in Cambridge; by whom having no children, he was succeeded by Henry, his next brother.

“This great man’s conduct,” says Mr. Lodge, “united all the splendid qualities of those eminent persons who jointly rendered Elizabeth’s court an object of admiration to Europe, and was perfectly free from their faults. Wise and loyal as Burghley, without his blind attachment to the monarch; vigilant as Walsingham, but disdaining his low cunning; magnificent as Leicester, but incapable of hypocrisy; and brave as Ralegh, with the piety of a primitive Christian; he seemed above the common objects of human ambition, and wanted, if the expression may be allowed, those dark shades of character which make nien the 1 heroes of history. Hence it is, probably, that our writers have bestowed so little attention on this admirable person, who is but slightly mentioned in most historical collections, unless with regard to his disputes with Leicester, whom he hated almost to a fault.” Mr. Lodge justly esteems himself peculiarly fortunate in having been the instrument of disclosing the earl of Sussex’s letters to the public. They form a very valuable part of the “Historical Illustrations,” and, a small number excepted, are the only ones to be met with in print. These letters display both his integrity and ability in a very striking light, and are written in a clear and manly style. Four of them are particularly curious two to the queen, onthe treaty of marriage with the archduke of Austria; one to sir William Cecil, on the state of parties in Scotland; and one to her Majesty, concerning the duke of Alen$on. The letter on the affairs of Scotland is considered by Mr. Lodge as an inestimable curiosity. Farther light will be thrown on the earl of Sussex’s character, by transcribing the manly language in which he complains that his services were neglected, and declares his purpose of retiring to private life. It is in a letter to sir William Cecil. “I was firste a Lieuten‘te; I was after little better than a Marshal; I had then nothing left to me but to direct hanging matters (in the meane tyme all was disposed that was w th in my comission), and nowe I ame offered to be made a Shreif’s Bayly to deliver over possessions. Blame me not, good Mr. Secretarie, though my pen utter somewhat of that swell in my stomake, for I see I ame kepte but for a brome, and when I have done my office to be throwen out of the dore. I ame the first nobel man hathe been thus used. Trewe service deserveth honor and credite, and not reproche and open defaming; but, seeing the one is ever delivered to me in the stede of the other, I must leave to serve, or lose my honor; w^h, being continewed so long in my howse, I wolde be lothe shoolde take blemishe wth me. These matters I knowe procede not from lacke of good and honorable meaning in the Q,’ ma 1 towards me, nor from lacke of dewte' and trewthe in me towards her, which grevethe me the more and, therefore, seing I shall be still a camelyon, and yelde no other shewe then as it shall please others to give the couller, I will content my self to live a private lyfe. God send her Mate others that meane as well as I have done; and so I comitt you to th* Almightie.” From the next letter it appears that the queen had too much wisdom to part with so faithful a counsellor and servant. The earl of Sussex had a high regard and esteem for Lord Burghley. In one of his letters, dated June 28, 1580, he expresses himself, to that great statesman, in the following terms: “The trevve fere of God w^h yo r actyons have alwayes shewed to be in yo r harte, the grete and deepe care wch you have always had for the honor and salfty of the Q‘. Ma*’s most worthy p’son; the co‘tinual troubell w ch yqu have of long tyme taken for the benefyting of the com’on-welthe and the upryght course wich ye have alwaye’s taken, respectying the mattr and not the p’son, in all causes (wch be the necessary trusts of him that ferethe God trewly, s’rveth his Soverayne faythfully, and lovethe his countrey clerely) have tyed me to yo r L. in that knotte w cli no worldly fraylty can break; and, therfor, I wyll never forbere to runne any fortune that may s’rve you, and further you' godly actyons. And so, my good L. forberyng to entrobell you w th words, I end; and wysh unto you as to my self, and better, yf I may.”

, an eminent antiquary, and great benefactor to the university of Oxford, was the fourth son of sir Thomas; and was educated at St. John’s college, Oxford, where he was admitted gentleman commoner, and proceeded M. A. and grand cornpounder in 1713, and was admitted to the degree of doctor of civil law by diploma in 1719. He was F. R. S. and became F. S. A. May 10, 1727. He was greatly accessary to the bringing to light many descriptions of counties; and, intending one of Oxfordshire, had collected materials from Wood’s papers, &c. had many plates engraved, and circulated printed queries, but received accounts only of two parishes, which in some degree answered the design, and encouraged him to pursue it. In this work were to be included the antiquities of the city of Oxford, which Wood promised when the English copy of his “Historia & Antiquitates Oxon.” was t.o be published, and which have since been faithfully transcribed from his papers, by Mr. Gutch, and much enlarged and corrected from ancient original authorities. All Dr. Rawlinson’s collections for the county, chiefly culled from Wood, or picked up from information, and disposed b,y hundreds in separate books, in each of which several parishes are omitted, would make but one 8vo volume. But he made large collections for the continuation of Wood’s “Athena Oxonienses” and “History of Oxfor.d,” and for an account of “Non-compilers” at the Revolution which, together with some collections of Hearne’s, and note-books of his own travels, he bequeathed by his will to the university of Oxford. The Life of Mr. Anthony Wood, historiographer of the most famous university of Oxford, with an account of his nativity, education, works, &c. collected and composed from Mss. by Richard Rawlinson, gent, commoner of St. John’s college, Oxon. was printed at London in 1711. A copy of this life, with ms additions by the author, is in the Bodleian library. He published proposals for an “History of Eton College,” 1717; and, in 1728, “Petri Abselardi Abbatis Ruyensis & Heloissae Abbatissae Paracletensis Epistolae,” 8vo, dedicated to Dr, Mead. The books, the publication of which he promoted, are supposed to be the “History and Antiquities of Winchester,” 1715, 8vo. “History and Antiquities of Hereford,” 1717, 8vo. “History and Antiquities of Rochester,” 1717, 1723, 8vp. “Inscriptions on tombs in Bunhill-fields,” 1717, 8vo. “History and Antiquities of the Churches of Salisbury and Bath,” 1719, 1723, 8vo. “Aubrey’s History of Surrey,” 1719, 5 vols. 8vo. “Norden’s Delineation of Northamptonshire,” 1720, 8vo. “History and Antiquities of Glastonbury,” Oxford, 1722, 8vo. In 1728, he translated and printed Fresnoy’s “New Method of studying History, with a Catalogue of the chief Historians,” 2 vols. 8vo. But his principal work was “The English Topographer, or, an Historical Account of all the Pieces that have been written relating to the antient Natural History or Topographical Description of any Part of England,” 1720, 8vo, the plan of which has been so much augmented and improved in Mr. Cough’s two editions of the “British Topography.” In 1750, he gave, by indenture, the yearly sum of 87l. 165. Sd. being the rents and profits of various estates which he inherited under the will of his grandfather Daniel Rawlinson to the university of Oxford, for the maintenance and support of an Anglo-Saxon lecture or professorship for ever. To the Society of Antiquaries, he gave, by will, a small freehold and copyhold estate at FulEam, on condition that they did not, upon any terms, or by any stratagem, art, means, or contrivance howsoever, increase or add to their (then) number of 150 members, honorary members only excepted. He also made them a considerable bequest of dies and matrices of English seals and medals, all his collection of seals , charters, drawings by Vertue and other artists, and other antiquities ten walnut-tree book-cases, which had been given to his late brother Thomas by the then earl of Pembroke, and four mahogany presses, all marked P, all his English prints of which they had not duplicates, and a quit-rent of 5L per annum, in Norfolk, for a good medal for the best description on any English, Saxon, Roman, or Greek, coin, or other antiquity not before treated of or in print; but, resenting some supposed want of deference to his singularities and dictatorial spirit, and some reflections on his own and his friend’s honour, in an imputation of libelling the Society in the public papers, he, by a codicil made and signed at their house in Chancery lane, revoked the whole, and excluded all fellows of this or the Royal Society from any benefit from his benefactions at Oxford, which, besides his Anglo-Saxon endowment, were extremely considerable; including, besides a number of books with and without ms notes, all his seals, English and foreign, his antique marbles, and other curiosities; his copper-plates relative to several counties, his ancient Greek and Roman coins and medals, part of his collection of English medals, his series of medals of Louis XIV. and XV. a series of medals of the popes, which Dr. Rawlinson supposed to be one of the most complete collections in Europe; and a great number of valuable Mss. which he ordered to be safely locked up, and not to be opened till seven years after his decease . His music, ms. and printed, he gave to the music-school at Oxford. He died at Islington, April 6, 1755 and in the same year was printed “The Deed of Trust and Will of Richard Rawlinson, of St. John the Baptist college, Oxford, doctor of laws concerning his endowment of an Anglo-Saxon lecture, and other benefactions to the college and university.” He left to Hertford college the estate in F-ulham before mentioned, and to the college of St. John the Baptist the bulk of his estate, amounting to near 700l. a year, a plate of archbishop Laud, thirty-one volumes of parliamentary journals and debates; a set of the “Fo?dera,” all his Greek, Roman, and English, coins not given to the BocU leian library, all his plates engraved at the expence of the Society of Antiquaries, with the annuity for the prizemedal, and another to the best orator. The produce of certain rents bequeathed to St. John’s college was, after 40 years’ accumulation, to be laid out in purchase of an estate, whose profits were to be a salary to a keeper of the Ashmolean Museum, being a master of arts, or bachelor Ib civil law; and all legacies refused by the university or others, to center in this college. To the hospitals of Bridewell and Bethlehem, for the use of the incurables of the latter he left 200l. and ten guineas as an equivalent for the monthly coffee which he had received in Bethlehem common room: but, if they did not give up the picture of his father hanging in their hall, in order to its being put up in the Mansion-house, they were to forfeit the larger sum, and receive only the smaller. This picture, after it had hung up at the Mansion-house for some years, without any companion, in a forlorn, neglected state, and received considerable damage, the late sir Walter Rawlinson obtained leave of the court of aldermen (being then himself & member of that body, and president of those hospitals) to restore to Bridewell. It is one of sir Godfrey Kneller’s best performances, and well engraved by Vertue. Constanxine, another brother, is mentioned by Richard RawJinson’s will, as then residing at Venice, where he died in 1779. To him he gave the copper-plate of his father’s portrait, and all family-pictures, except his father’s portrait by Kneller, which was given to the Vintners’ company, of which his father was a member. He left him also his rents in Paul’s-head court, Fenchurch-street, jointly with his sisters, Mary Rawlinson, and Anne Andrews, for life. In the same will is mentioned another brother, John, to whom he left estates in Devonshire-street, London; and a nephew Thomas. To St. John’s college he bequeathed also his diploma, and his heart, which is placed in a beaur tiful marble urn against the chapel- wall, inscribed

Notwithstanding a due attention to business, Mr. Reed found leisure to amuse himself and the world with many miscellanies in prose and verse of very considerable merit. The late Mr. Ritson, who had for Mr. Reed, what he extended to very few, a high respect, intended to have edited some of these miscellanies, in a volume or volumes, of which the following were to have been the contents: 1. “Madrigal and Trulletta, a mock tragedy,” 1758. 2. “The Register Office,” 1761, a farce, or rather a dramatic satire. 3. The same; the second edition. 4. “Tom Jones,” a comic opera, 1769. 5. “Dido,” a tragedy, 1767, printed for the first time by Messrs. Nichols in 1808, but the whole impression having been destroyed by the fire which consumed their premises in February of that year, it has not been reprinted. 6. The “Retort Courteous,” to the manager of the theatre. 7. An “Epitaph on the Earl of Chatham.” 8. “St. Peter’s Lodge,” a serio-comic legendary tale. 9. “A Rope’s end for Hempen monopolists.” Besides the above articles, Mr, Reed was the author of, 10. “A Poem, in imitation of the Scottish dialect, on the death of Mr. Pope,” printed in the Gentleman’s Magazine for August 1744. 11. “The Superannuated Gallant,” a farce, Newcastle, 1745, 12mo. 12. “A British Philippic, inscribed to the right hon. the earl of Granville,” London, 1756, 4to. 13. “A Sop in the Pan for a physical critic, in a letter to Dr. Smollett, occasioned by a criticism (in the Critical Review) on Madrigal and Trulletta/' 1759. 14.” A humorous account of his own Life,“printed in the Universal Museum for 1764. 15.” The Tradesman’s Companion, or Tables of Averdupois weight, &c.“London, 1762, 12mo. 16.” The Impostors, or a Cure for Credulity,“a farce, acted for the benefit of Mr. Woodward, March 19, 1776, with an excellent prologue, not printed. To these may be added, several tragedies, comedies, and farces, never acted or printed; a few unpublished poems; and some numbers of the” Monitor,“a political paper published in the administration of the earl of Bute, and” Letters“under the signature Benedict, in defence of Mr. Garrick, on the publication of Kenrick’s” Love in the Suds," printed originally in the Morning Chronicle, and afterwards added to the fifth edition of that poem.

, an English divine, was born in 1668, and educated at King’s college, Cambridge, where he took his degree of B. A. in 1688, and M. A. in 1692, and obtained a fellowship. In 1694, earl Berkley gave him the rectory of Cranford in Middlesex, and he obtained the vicarage of St. Mary, Reading, in 1711. He was also chaplain to queen Anne. He died March 26, 1726, in the fifty-eighth year of his age, and was buried near the altar in St. Mary’s church. He published several occasional sermons; and after his death a collection of fourteen were printed in 1729, from his ms. which he had prepared for the press. These sermons have a peculiar cast of originality; and the author was considered as an able and spirited preacher. The first sermon in the volume, “The fatal consequences of Bribery, exemplified in Judas, Matt, xxvii. 3, 4.” was first preached during the time of an election, and printed at a low price, to be given away: and it is said that many, on hearing, or reading it, returned the bribes which they had taken, and voted another way. He published also a valuable work, “The Apologies of the Fathers, with a dissertation on the right use of the Fathers,” Loud. 1709, 2 vols.

After some time, Eberhard, count of Wirtemberg, being to make the tour of Italy, Reuchlin was chosen among others to attend him; chiefly because, during his residence in France, he had corrected his own German pronunciation of the Latin, which appeared so rude and savage to the Italians. They were handsomely received at Florence by Lorenzo de Medicis, the father of Leo X. and became acquainted with many learned men there, as ChalcondylaSj Ficinus, Politian, Picus earl of Mirandula, &c. They proceeded to Rome, where Hermolaus Barbarus prevailed with Reuchlin to change his name to Capnio, which signifies the same in Greek as Reuchlin does in German; that is, smoke. Count Eberhard entertained so great an esteem for Capnio, so he was afterwards called, thatj upon his return to Germany, he made him ambassador to the emperor Frederic III.; who conferred many honours upon him, and made him many presents. He gave him. in particular an ancient Hebrew manuscript bible, very neatly written, with the text and paraphrase of Onkelos, &c. Frederic died in 1493; and Capnio returned to count Eberhard, who died also about three months after the emperor: when, an usurpation succeeding, Capnio was banished. He retired to Worms, and continued his studies: hut the elector Palatine, having a cause to defend at Rome some time after, selected him as the ablest man for his purpose; and accordingly, in 1498, Capnio made an oration before the pope and cardinals concerning the rights of the German princes, and the privileges o the German churches. He remained more than a year at Rome; and had so much leisure as to perfect himself in the Hebrew tongue under Abdias, a Jew, and also in the Greek under Argyropylus. He had some trouble in his old age by an unhappy difference with the divines of Cologne, occasioned by a Jew named Pfefferkorn. This man, of whom we have already given a brief account (see Pfeffekcorn), to shew his zeal for Christianity, advised that all the Jewish books, except the Bible, should be burnt; but the Jews having prevailed on the emperor to allow them to be examined first, Capnio, who was universally acknowledged to excel in this kind of learning, was appointed by the elector of Mentz, under the authority of the emperor, to pass a judgment upon these writings. Capnio, who had too much good sense to adopt, in its full extent, this wretched policy, gave it as his opinion, that no other books should be destroyed, but those which were found to be written expressly against Jesus Christ, lest, with the Jewish books on liberal arts and sciences, their language itself, so important to the church, should perish. This opinion was approved by the emperor, and the books were by his authority restored to the Jews. Pfefferkorn and his supporters were exceedingly enraged against Capnio, and pursued him with invectives and accusations even to the court of Home. His high reputation in the learned world, however, protected him; and bigotry met with a most mortifying defeat in his honourable acquittal.

With great judgment, and at a considerable expence, he collected a library most rich in scarce, valuable, and beautiful books, and obtained such fame in this department of literature, as to be ranked with the Vallieres, Pinellis, and Lomenies of the day. Of this excellent library, he printed a descriptive catalogue under the title of “Bibliotheca Grseca et Latina, complectens auctores fere omnes Grteciae et Latii veteris, &c. cum delectu editionum turn primariarum, principum, et rarissimarum, quum etiam optima rum, splendidissimarum, atque nitidissimarum, quas usui mei paravi Periergus Deltophilus,” Berlin, 1784, 1794, 8vo. To some of these catalogues were prefixed a letter to M. L. A. D. i. e. Denina, and a preface. Three supplements to this catalogue were afterwards published by him, which are not easily procurable. Although the superlatives in the title smack a little of the dealer, rather than the private gentleman, the count has not exceeded the bounds of truth, and perhaps few men were better qualified to form a collection deserving of such praise. With the boundless zeal, he had also the extensive knowledge of a collector, and understood and spoke readily the principal ancient and modern languages. His frequent removes made him acquainted with every public and private library on the continent; and he never missed an opportunity to add to his collection whatever was most curious and valuable at sales, or booksellers’ shops. This library is now in England, and in the possession of a nobleman who knows its value, and whose own library at present exceeds that of any subject in Europe. When count Revickzky came to London, he made an offer to earl Spenser to dispose of the whole collection to his lordship. What the terms were is variously reported. It seems agreed, however, that it was for a sum of money to be paid immediately, and an annuity, which last the count did not live long to enjoy. The count was himself an author, and published the “Odes of Hafez,” known here by Richardson’s translation; a treatise on Turkish tactics; and an edition of Petronius, Berlin, 1785, 8vo, formed on the editions of Burman and Antonius.

In this mission he and his colleagues were at first interrupted by certain enthusiasts among the soldiers, headed by one Erbury, who maintained that the ordination of these divines was unlawful, and that no ordination was necessary for any man who had gifts. This was a favourite topic in those days, and is not yet exhausted. In the following year he was nominated to the more obnoxious office of one of thevisitors of the university, and in Feb. 1 648 was chosen vice-chancellor, on the recommendation of the earl of Pembroke, then chancellor of the university. ID this last office he was to continue until August 1649. He was also, by a mandate from parliament, which now was supreme in all matters, created D. D. In March 1648 he was appointed dean of Christ church, in the room of Dr. Fell, who was ejected with no common degree of violence, Mrs. Fell and her family being literally dragged out of the deanery house by force. Dr. Reynolds being admitted into office in form, Wood says, “made a polite and accurate oration,” in Latin, in which “he spoke very modestly of himself, and how difficult it Was for a man that had sequestered himself from secular employments to be called to government, especially to sit at the stern in these rough and troublesome times; but since he had subjected himself to those that have authority to command him, he did desire that good example and counsel might prevail more in this reformation than severity and punishments.”

, an English traveller, was the tenth son of sir Peter Ricaut, probably a mer* chant in London, and the author of some useful works, who was one of the persons excepted in the “Propositions of the Lords and Commons,” assembled in parliament, “for a safe and well-grounded peace, July 11, 1646, sent to Charles I. at Newcastle.” He also paid o.1500 for his composition, and taking part with his unhappy sovereign. His son Paul was born in London, and admitted scholar of Trinity college, Cambridge, in 1647, where he took his bachelor’s degree^ in 1650. After this he travelled many years, not only in Europe, but also in Asia and Africa; and was employed in some public services. In 1661, when the earl of Winchelsea was sent ambassador extraordinary to the Ottoman Porte, he went as his secretary; and while he continued in that station, which was eight years, he wrote “The present State of the Ottoman Empire, in three books; containing the Maxims of the Turkish Politic, their Religion, and Military Discipline,” illustrated with figures, and printed at London, 1670, in folio, and 1675 in 8vo, and translated into French by Bespier, with notes, and anittoadversions on some mistakes. During the same time, he had occasion to take two voyages from Constantinople to London; one of them was by land, through Hungary, where he remained some time in the Turkish camp with the famous vizier, Kuperlee, on business relating to England. In 1663 he published the “Capitulations, articles of peace,” &C; concluded between England and the Porte^ which were very much to our mercantile advantage, one article being that English ships should be free from search or visit under pretence of foreign goods, a point never secured in any former treaty. After having meritoriously discharged his office of secretary to lord Winchelsea, he was made consul for the English nation at Smyrna; and during his residence there, at the command of Charles II. composed “The present State of the Greek and Armenian Churchesjanno Christi 1678,” which, upon his return to England, he presented with his own hands to his majesty; and it was published in 1679, 8vo. Having acquitted himself, for the space of eleven years, to the entire satisfaction of the Turkey company, he obtained leave to return to England, where he lived in honour and good esteem; The earl of Clarendon > being appointed lord lieutenant of Ireland in 1685, made him his principal secretary for the provinces of Leinster and Connaught; and James II. knighted him, constituted him one of the privy council for Ireland, and judge of the high court of admiralty* which he enjoyed till the revolution in 1688, Soon after this, he was employed by king William as his resident with the Hanse-towns in Lower Saxony, namely, Hamburg, Lubeck, and Bremen; where he continued for ten years, and gave the utmost satisfaction. At length, worn out with age and infirmities, he had leave in 1700 to return to England, where he died, Dec. 16 of that year. He was fellow of the Royal Society for many years before his decease; and a paper of his, upon the “Sable Mice,” or “Mures Norwegici,” is published in the Philosophical Transactions. He understood perfectly the Greek, both ancient and modern, the Turkish, Latin, Italian, and French languages.

, a puritan divine, the son of Henry Roberts of Aslake, in Yorkshire, was born there or in that county in 1609, and entered a student of Trinity college, Oxford, in 1625. In 1632 he completed his degrees in arts, and was ordained. Where he first officiated does not appear but on the breaking out of the rebellion he went to London, took the covenant, and wns appointed minister of St. Augustine’s, Watlirtg-street, in room of Ephraim Udal, ejected for his loyalty. In 1649 he was presented to the rectory of WriiHTton in Somersetshire by his patron Arthur lord Capel, son of the beheaded lord Capel. While on this living he was appointed one of the commissioners for the “ejectment of those” who were called “ignorant and insufficient ministers and schoolmasters.” At the restoration, however^ he conformed, tired out, as many other’s were, by the distractions of the contending parties, and disappointed in every hope which the encouragers of rebellion had held forth. It does not appear whether he had any additional preferment, except that of chaplain to his patron lord Capel whenhe became earl of Essex; and when thrit nobleman was lord-lieutenant, of Ireland in 1672, it is suppose. i he procured him the degree of D. D. from the university of Dublin. He died at Wriugton about the end of 1675, and most probably wasi interred in that church. He published some single sermons: “The Believer’s evidence for Eternal Life,” &c, 1649, 1655, 8vo, and the “Communicant instructed,” 1651, 8vo, often reprinted; but his principal work is entitled “Chivis Bibliorum, the Key of the Bible,” in eluding the order, names, times, penmen, occasion, scope, and principal matter of the Old and New Testament. This was first printed at London and Edinburgh, 1649, in 2 vols, 8vo, and afterwards in 4to; and the fourth edition, 1675, in folio. Wood mentions another work, “Mysterium & Medulla Bibliorum, or the Mystery and Marrow of the Bible,” 1657, 2 vols. fol. as he says, but this is doubtful, and “The True way to the Tree of Life,” 1673, 8vo.

, a very learned divine, was born in Dublin, Oct. 16, 1705. His father was a native of Scotland, who carried on the linen-manufacture there; and his mother, Diana Allen, was of a very reputable family in the bishopric of Durham, and married to his father in England. From his childhood he was of a very tender and delicate constitution, with great weakness in his eyes till he was twelve years of age, at which period he was sent to school. He had his grammar-education under the celebrated Dr. Francis Hutcheson, who then taught in Dublin, but was afterwards professor of philosophy in the university of Glasgow. He went from Dr. Hutcheson to that university in 1722, where he remained till 1725, and took the degree of M. A. He had for his tutor Mr. John Lowdon, professor of philosophy; and attended the lectures of Mr Ross, professor of humanity; of Mr. Dunlop, professor of Greek; of Mr. Morthland, professor of the Oriental languages; of Mr. Simpson, professor of mathematics; and of Dr. John Simpson, professor of divinity. In the last-mentioned year, a dispute was revived, which had been often agitated before, between Mr. John Sterling the principal, and the students, about a right to chuse a rector, whose office and power is somewhat like that of the vice-chancellor of Oxford or Cambridge. Mr. Robertson took part with his fellow- students, and was appointed by them, together with William Campbell, esq. son of Campbell of Mamore, whose family has since succeeded to the estates and titles of Argyle, to wait upon the principal with a petition signed by more than threescore matriculated students, praying that he would, on the 1st day of March, according to the statutes, summon an university-meeting for the election of a rector; which petition he rejected with contempt. On this Mr. Campbell, in his own name and in the name of all the petitioners, protested against the principal’s refusal, and all the petitioners went to the house of Hugh Montgomery, esq. the unlawful rector, where Mr. Robertson read aloud the protest against him and his- authority. Mr. Robertson, by these proceedings, became the immediate and indeed the only object of prosecution. He was cited before the faculty, i. e. the principal and the professors of the university, of wbotn the principal was sure of a majority, and, after a trial which lasted several clays, had the sentence of expulsion pronounced against him; of which sentence he demanded a copy, and was so fully persuaded of the justice of his cause, and the propriety of his proceedings, that he openly and strenuously acknowledged and adhered to what he had done. Upon this, Mr. Lowdon, his tutor, and Mr. Dunlop, professor of Greek, wrote letters to Mr. Robertson’s father, acquainting him of what had happened, and assuring him that his son had been expelled, not for any crime or immorality, but for appearing very zealous in a dispute about a matter of right between the principal and the students. These letters Mr. Robertson sent inclosed hi 'one from himself, relating his proceedings and suffer! ngs in the cause of what he thought justice and right. Upon this his father desired him to take every step he might think proper, to assert and maintain his own and his fellowstudents claims; and accordingly Mr. Robertson went up to London, and presented a memorial to John duke of Argyle, containing the claims of the students of the university of Glasgow, their proceedings in the vindication of them, and his own particular sufferings in the cause. The duke received him very graciously, but said, that “he was little acquainted with things of this sort;” and advised him “to apply to his brother Archibald earl of Hay, who was better versed in such matters than he.” He then waited on lord Hay, who, upon reading the representation of the case, said “he would consider of it.” And, upon consideration of it, he was so affected, that he applied to the king for a commission to visit the university of Glasgow, with full power to examine into and rectify all abuses therein. In the summer of 1726, the earl of Hay with the other visitors repaired to Glasgow, and, upon a full examination into the several injuries and abuses complained of, they restored to the students the right of electing their rector; recovered the right of the university to send two gentlemen, upon plentiful exhibitions, to Baliol college in Oxford; took off the expulsion of Mr. Robertson, and ordered that particularly to be recorded in the proceedings of the commission; annulled the election uf the rector who had been named by the principal; and assembled the students, who immediately chose the master of Ross, son of lord Ross, to be their rector, &c. These things so affected Mr* Sterling, that he died soon after; but the university revived, and has since continued in a most flourishing condition.

Mr. Robertson had, in 1723, married Elizabeth, daughter of major William Baxter, who, in his younger years, had been an officer in Ireland in the armies of king Charles II. and James 11.; but was cashiered by the earl of Tyrconnel, James’s lord-lieutenant of Ireland, as a person not to be depended upon in carrying on his and his master’s designs. Captain Baxter upon this repaired to London, and complained of it to the duke of Ormond. His father was at that time steward to the duke’s estate. His grace, who was then joined with other English noblemen in a correspondence with the prince of Orange, recommended him to that prince, who immediately gave him a company in his own forces. In this station he returned to England with the prince at the revolution, and acted his part vigorously in bringing about that great event. While the captain was in Holland, he wrote that remarkable letter to Dr. Burnet, afterwards bishop of Salisbury, which is inserted in the bishop’s life at the end of the “History of his own Times.” By this lady, who was extremely beautiful in her person, but much more so in her mind, Mr. Robertson had one and twenty children. There is a little poem written by him eight years after their marriage, and inscribed to her, upon her needle-work, inserted in the Gent. Mag. 1736. In 1743, Mr. Robertson obtained the bishop’s leave to nominate a curate at Ravilly, and to reside for some time in Dublin, for the education of his children. Here he was immediately invited to the cure of St. Luke’s parish; aud in this he continued five years, and then returned to Ravilly in 1748, the town air not agreeing with him. While he was in the cure of St. Luke’s, he, together with Mr. Kane Percival, then curate of St. Michan’s, formed a scheme to raise a fund for the support of widows and children of clergymen of the diocese of Dublin, which hath since produced very happy effects. In 1758 he lost his wife. In 1759 Dr. Richard Robinson was translated from the see of Killala to that of Ferns; and, in his visitation that year, he took Mr. Robertson aside, and told him, that the primate, Dr. Stone (who had been bishop of Ferns, and had kept up a correspondence with Mr. Robertson), had recommended him to his care and protection, and that he might therefore expect every thing in his power. Accordingly, the first benefice that became vacant in his lordship’s presentation was offered td him, and he thankfully accepted it. But, before he could be collated to it, he had the “Free and Candid Disquisitions” put into his hands, which he had never seen before. This inspired him with such doubts as made him defer his attendance on the good bishop. His lordship wrote to him again to come immediately for institution. Upon this, Mr. Robertson wrote him the letter which is at the end of a little book that he published some years after, entitled, “An Attempt to explain the words of Reason, Substance, Person, Creeds, Orthodoxy, Catholic Church, Subscription, and Index Expurgatorius;” in which letter Mr. Robertson returned his lordship the most grateful thanks for his kindness, but informed him that he could not comply with the terms required by law to qualify him for such preferment. However, Mr. Robertson continued at Ravilly performing his duty only, thenceforward, he omitted the Athanasian creed, &c. This gave o(Ferice and, therefore, he thought it the honestest course to resign all his benefices together, which he did in 1764; and, in 1766, he published his book by way of apology to his friends for what he had done; and soon after left Ireland, and returned to London. In 1767, Mr. Robertson presented one of his books to his old Alma Mater the university of Glasgow, and received in return a most obliging letter, with the degree of D. D. In 1768 the mastership of the freegrammar school at Wolverhampton in Staffordshire becoming vacant, the company of Merchant-Tailors, the patrons, unanimously conferred it on him. In 1772 he was chosen one of the committee to carry on the business of the society of clergymen, &c. in framing and presenting the famous petition to the House of Commons of Great Britain, praying to be relieved from the obligation of subscribing assent and consent to the thirty-nine articles, and all and every thing contained in the book of common-prayer. After this he lived several years at Wolverhampton, performing the duties of his office, in the greatest harmony with all sorts of people there; and died, of the gout in his stomach, at Wolverhampton, May 20, 1783, in the 79th year of his age; and was buried in the churchyard of the new church there.

His studies at the university being finished, he was licensed to preach in 1741, and in 1743 was presented to the living of Gladsmuir, in East Lothian, by John, second earl of Hopeton. This preferment, although the whole emoluments did not exceed 100l. a year, was singularly opportune, as his father and mother died about this time, leaving a family of six daughters and a younger son unprovided for, whom our author removed to Gladsmuir, and maintained with decency and frugality, until they were settled in the world. During the rebellion in 1745, when the capital of Scotland was in danger of falling into the hands of the rebels, the state of public affairs appeared so critical that he thought himself justified in laying aside for a time the pacific habits of his profession, and in quitting his parochial residence at Gladsmuir, to join the volunteers of Edinburgh; and, when at last it was determined that the city should be surrendered, he was one of the small band who repaired to Haddington, and offered their services to the commander-in-chief of his majesty’s forces. He returned, however, as soon as peace was restored, to Gladsmuir, and in 1751 married his cousin, miss Mary Nesbit, daughter of the Rev. Mr. Nesbit, o e of the mU nisters of Edinburgh, He now applied himself to his pastoral duties, which he discharged with a punctuality that procured him the veneration and attachment of his parishioners, and as his eloquence in the pulpit began to attract the notice of the neighbouring clergy, this circumstance, no doubt, prepared the way for that influence in the church which he afterwards attained. In 1755 he published “A Sermon preached before the Society for promoting Christian knowledge,” which has been deservedly admired, and encouraged by a sale of five editions, besides a translation into German. He had some time before this made his appearance in the General Assembly of the church of Scotland, and had taken an active part in their proceedings. In 1757, he distinguished himself in the defence of Mr. John Home, minister of Athelstoneford, who had written the tragedy of “Douglas.” This was considered as so bold a departure from the austerity expected in a presbyterian divine, that the author, and some of his brethren, who had witnessed the play in the theatre, were prosecuted in the ecclesiastical court. On this occasion Dr. Robertson contributed much, by his eloquence, to the mildness of the sentence in which the prosecution terminated; and his conduct was no inconsiderable proof of his general candour, as he had never himself entered within the walls of a play-house, avoiding such an indulgence as inconsistent with the scruis circumspection which he maintained in his private character.

While the “History of Scotland” was in the press, Dr. Robertson removed, with his family, from Gladsmuir to Edinburgh, in consequence of a presentation which he had received to one of the churches of that city. His preferments now multiplied rapidly. In 1759, he was appointed chaplain of Stirling castle; in 1761, one of his majesty’s chaplains in ordinary for Scotland; and in 1762 he was chosen principal of the university of Edinburgh. Two years afterward, the office of king’s historiographer for Scotland (with a salary of 200l. a year) was revived in his favour. About this time, likewise, it appears that he was solicited to become a member of the church of England, by friends who considered that establishment as more likely to reward his merit than the highest emoluments his own church could afford. He resisted this temptation, however, with a decision which prevented its being farther urged, although it appears at the same time, from his correspondence, that he would not have been sorry to accept any situation which might have relieved him from the duties of his pastoral office, and afford him the power of applying himself wholly to his studies. His refusal, therefore, as his biographer justly observes, “became the consistency and dignity of his character,” and it is greatly to his honour, that whatever offices or wealth he acquired throughout life, were the fair reward of his own exertions. He was, however, about this time, desirous of profiting by the indulgence the public had shewn him, and consulted his friends relative to the choice of another historical subject. A history of England was strongly recommended, and encouragement promised from the most exalted source of honour. His majesty was pleased to express a wish to see a history of England from his pen, and the earl of Bute promised him every assistance that could be derived from the records in possession of government, and held out the most flattering views of encouragement in other respects. At first Dr. Robertson was averse to this scheme, as interfering with the plan of Hume, with whom, notwithstanding the contrariety of their sentiments, both in religion and politics, he lived in the greatest friendship; but afterwards, wben the royal patronage was so liberally tendered, appears to have inclined to the undertaking. This perhaps cannot be better expressed than in his own words. “The case, I now think, is entirely changed. His (Hume’s) history will have been published several years before any work of mine on the same subject can appear: its first run will not be marred by any jostling with me, and it will have taken that station in the literary system which belongs to it. This objection, therefore, which I thought, and still think, so weighty at that time, makes no impression on me at present, and I can now justify my undertaking the English history, to myself, to the world, and to him. Besides, our manner of viewing the same subject is so different or peculiar, that (as was the case in our last books) both may maintain their own rank, have their own partizans, and possess their own merit, without hurting each other.”

Thus qualified and encouraged, she was prevailed upon to accept of an engagement at the Opera, where she made her first appearance in Creso, and her second in the character of Ismina, the principal female part in Arminio. From this period till 1724, she continued to perform a principal part at the Opera with increasing favour and applause. Her salary is said to have been 1000l. and her emoluments, by benefits and presents, were estimated at nearly as much more. When she quitted the stage it was supposed to have been in consequence other marriage with the gallant earl of Peterborough, the friend of Pope and Swift, who distinguished himself so heroically in Spain during the reign of queen Anne. Though the marriage was not publicly declared till the earl’s death in 1735, yet it was then spoken of as an event which had long taken place. And such was the purity of her conduct and character, that she was instantly visited at Fulham as the lady of the mansion, by persons of the highest rank. Here, and at Mount Bevis, the earl’s seat near Southampton, she resided in an exalted station till the year of her decease, 1750, surviving her lord fifteen years; who, at the time of the connexion, must have been considerably beyond his prime, as he was arrived at his seventy-fifth year when he died.

The following anecdotes of Mrs. Anastasia Robinson were communicated to Dr. Burney in 1787, by the late venerable Mrs. Delany, her contemporary and intimate acquaintance. " Mrs. Anastasia Robinson was of a middling stature, not handsome, but of a pleasing, modest countenance, with large blue eyes. Her deportment was easy, unaffected, and graceful. Her manner and address very engaging; and her behaviour, on all occasions, that of a gentlewoman, with perfect propriety. She was not only liked by all her acquaintance, but loved and caressed by persons of the highest rank, with whom she appeared always equal, without assuming. Her father’s house in Golden-square was frequented by all the men of genius and refined taste of the times; among the number of persons of distinction who frequented Mr. Robinson’s house, and seemed to distinguish his daughter in a particular manner, were the earl of Peterborough and general H; the

"At length lord Peterborough made his declaration to her on honourable terms; he found it would be vain to make proposals on any other; and as he omitted no circumstance that could engage her esteem and gratitude, she accepted them, as she was sincerely attached to him. He earnestly requested her keeping it a secret till it was a more convenient time for him to make it known, to which she readily consented, having a perfect confidence in his honour. Among the persons of distinction that professed a friendship for Mrs. A. Robinson, were the earl and countess of Oxford, daughter-in-law to the lord-treasurer Oxford, who not only bore every public testimony of their affection and esteem for Mrs. A. Robinson, but lady Oxford attended her when she was privately married to the earl of Peterborough, and lady Peterborough ever acknowledged her obligations with the warmest gratitude; and after lady Oxford’s death she was particularly distinguished by the duchess of Portland, lady Oxford’s daughter, and was always mentioned by her with the greatest kindness for the many friendly offices she used to do her in her childhood when in lady Oxford’s family, which made a lasting impression upon the duchess of Portland’s noble and generous heart.

"Mrs. A. Robinson had one sister, a very pretty accomplished woman, who married Dr. Arbuthnot’s brother. AfV ter the death of Mr. Robinson, lord Peterborough took a house near Fulham, in the neighbourhood of his own villa at Parson’s-Green, where he settled Mrs. Robinson and her mother. They never lived under the same roof till the earl, being seized with a violent fit of illness, solicited her to attend him at Mount Bevis, near Southampton, which she refused with firmness, but upon condition that, though still denied to take his name, she might be permitted to wear her wedding-ring; to which, finding her inexorable, he at length consented.

“Among lord Peterborough’s papers she found his memoirs, written by himself, in which he declared he had been guilty of such actions as would have reflected very much upon his character. For which reason she burnt them; this, however, contributed to complete the excellency of her principles, though it did not fail giving offence to the cu-r rious inquirers after anecdotes of so remarkable a character as that of the earl of Peterborough.”

, a distinguished English prelate and statesman, was born at Cleasby, in Yorkshire, Nov. 7, 1650, and educated at Oriel college, Oxford, to which he was afterwards a liberal benefactor. After he had completed his master’s degree, and taken orders, he went about 1683 to Sweden, as domestic chaplain to the British ambassador at that court; and in his absence was appointed first resident, then envoy extraordinary, and lastly ambassador. He remained in this rank until 1708. During this time he published his “Account of Sweden, as it was in 1688,” which is generally printed with lord Molesvvorth’s account of Denmark. On his return to England, her majesty, queen Anne, was so sensible of the value of his services, that she made him dean of Windsor, registrar of the order of the garter, and prebendary of Canterbury. He was also in 1710 preferred to the bishopric of Bristol. His political knowledge recommended him to the confidence of the earl of Oxford, then at the head of administration, who resolved to have him of the privy council. For this purpose, he was first made lord privy seal, and afterwards was admitted to a seat at the council board, where he so distinguished himself that queen Anne made choice of him as one of her plenipotentiaries at the memorable treaty of Utrecht. With what spirit he behaved on this occasion, appears from the common histories of the treaty, and Swift’s “Four last years of the Queen.” He was also appointed one of the commissioners for finishing St. Paul’s cathedral, and for building fifty new churches in London; was a governor of the Charter-house, and dean of the chapel royal. On the death of Dr. Compton in 1714, he was translated to the see of London, and the qneen, indeed, had such regard for him, that had she outlived the archbishop of Canterbury, she would have made Dr. Robinson primate.

, archbishop of Armagh, a-nd lord Rokeby, was the immediate descendant of the Robinsons of Rokeby, in the north riding of the county of York, and was born in 1709. He was educated at Westminsterschool, whence he was elected to Christ church, Oxford, in 1726. After continuing his studies there for some years, and taking his master’s degree in 1733, Dr. Blackburn, archbishop of York, appointed him his chaplain, and collated him first to the rectory of Elton, in the east riding of Yorkshire, and next to the prebend of Grindal, in the cathedral of York. In 1751 he attended the duke of Dorset, lord lieutenant of Ireland, to that kingdom, as his first chaplain, and the same year was promoted to the bishopric of Kiilala. A family connexion with the earl of Holdernesse, who was secretary of state that year, with the earl of Sandwich and other noblemen related to him, opened the f.iirest prospects of attaining to the first dignity in the Irish church. Accordingly, in 1759, he was translated to the united sees of Leighlin and Ferns, and in 1761 to Kildare. The duke of Northumberland being appointed to the lieutenancy of Ireland in 1765, Dr. Robinson was advanced to the primacy of Armagh, and made lord almoner and vicechancellor of the university of Dublin. When lord Harcourt was- lord-lieutenant of Ireland in 1777, the king was pleased, by privy- seal at St. James’s, Feb. 6, and by patent at Dublin the 26th of the same month, to create him baron Rokeby of Armagh, with remainder to Matthew Robinson of West Lay ton, esq. and in 1783 he was appointed prelate to the order of St. Patrick. On the death of the duke of Rutland, lord-lieutenant of Ireland, in 1787, he was nominated one of the lords justices of that kingdom. Sir William Robiuson, his brother, dying in 1785, the primate succeeded to the title of baronet, and was the survivor in the direct male line of the Robinsons of Rokeby, being the eighth in descent from William of Kendal. His grace died at 1 Clifton, near Bristol, in the end of October, 1794.

, a celebrated naval commander, was the second son of Henry Rodney, esq. of Walton on Thames, and Mary, eldest daughter and coheir to sir Henry Newton, knight, envoy- extraordinary to Genoa, LL. D. judge of the high-court of admiralty, and chancellor of the diocese of London. His father, as a naval officer, commanded the yacht in which king George I. attended by the duke of Chandos, used to embark in going to or coming from Hanover, and in consequence, asked leave that his son might be called George Brydges. He was born in Dec. 1717. At the desire, or by the command, of his royal and noble god-fathers, he entered early into the navy, and in 1742 he was lieutenant in the Namur, commanded by admiral Matthews. In November of the same year, he was promoted by the admiral to the command of ili Plymouth, of shrty gtttts; on returning home he was removed into the Sheerness, a small frigate; and in 174i he was npp.iinied to the command of the Lucliowcastle, of furty-iour guns. In this ship he does not appear to have continued long, for in May 1746, he was captain of the Eagle, a new ship of sixty guns, then employed as a cruiser on the Irish station. While here he captured two large privateers. He continued in the Eagle during the remainder of the war, and was one of the commanders under the orders of rear-admiral Hawke, when in 1747 he defeated L'Etendiere’s squadron. On this occasion capt. Rodney behaved with much spirit, and may be said to have then laid the foundation of that popularity he afterwards in so high a degree possessed. On the conclusion of the war he was, in March 1749, appointed to the Rainbow, a fourth rate, and in May following was nominated governor and commander-in-chief in and over the island of Newfoundland. Immediately afterwards he proceeded thither with the small squadron annually sent there in time of peace, for the protection of the fishery. Some time after his return in 1753 he married Miss Compton, daughter of Charles Compton, esq. and sister to Spencer, then earl of Northampton. In 1757 he was engaged, under the command of admirals Hawke and Boscawen, to attempt a descent on the coast of France, near Rochefort; and in 1759 he was advanced rear-admiral of the blue. In this same year he was sent to bombard Havre de Grace, where a large force was collected for the purpose of attempting an invasion of this country. He executed the trust committed to him so completely, that the town itself was several times on fire, and the magazines of stores and ammunition burnt with fury upwards of six hours, notwithstanding the exertions used to extinguish it. Thus had admiral Rodney the happiness of totally frustrating the design of the French court; and so completely did he destroy their preparations, that the fort itself, as a naval arsenal, was no longer during the war in a state to annoy Great Britain. In 1761 admiral Rodney was very instrumental in the capture of the islands of St Pierre, Granada, St. Lucia, and St. Vincent, when the whole Caribbees came into the possession of the English. For his skill and bravery in the war, he was, after the conclusion of it, raised to the dignity of a baronet. In 1768, after an expensive, and to sir George Rodney a ruinous, contest with Mr. Howe, he was elected member of parliament for Northampton. In the month of October 1770 he was progressively advanced to be vice-admiral of the white and red squadrons, and in the month of August 1771, to be rear-admiral of Great Britain. In the very arly part of this year he resigned the mastership of Greenwich hospital, to which he had been appointed in 1765, and was immediately after made commander-in-chief on the Jamaica station, whither he repaired, having his flag on board the Princess Amelia of 80 guns. The appointment of this ship to that service was intended as a particular and pointed compliment, it being extremely unusual to send a three-decked ship on that station, except in time of actual war. It is said the command in India was offered to him, which he declined, entertaining hopes of being appointed governor of Jamaica in case of the death of sir William Trelawney; but in this he was disappointed. After his return to England at the expiration of the time allotted for the continuance of his command, he retired to France, where he lived some years in obscurity, hoping to retrieve the losses he had suffered at the Northampton election. It is said that the French king wished to take advantage of his pecuniary embarrassments, and through the duke de Biron made him the most unbounded offers if he would quit the English for the French service. In reply to this proposal he said,“My distresses, sir, it is true, have driven me from the bosom of my country, but no temptation can estrange me from her service. Had this offer been voluntary on your part, I should have deemed it an insult, but I am glad to learn it proceeds from a source that can do no wrong.” The duke was so struck with the patriotism of the admiral, that he became attached to him as a friend, and is said to have advanced him a sum of money to revisit England, and solicit a command.

At what time he was ordained, or whether ordained at all, has been the subject of some controversy, but it is certain that he became famous in the university, and among his countrymen in general, for his lectures in theology, and for the persuasive power of his preaching for Calderwood assures us that in 1589, he and Mr. Robert Bruce, another popular preacher, made the earl of Bothwell so sensible of his vicious courses, that, upon Nov. 9, his lordship humbled himself upon his knees in the east church in the forenoon, and in the high church in the afternoon, confessing before the people, with tears in his eyes, his dissolute and licentious life, and promising to prove for the future, another man.

By the above-mentioned, and some other eminent persons, Rolt was encouraged to undertake his “History of the general War” which terminated in 1748. This was published in four successive volumes, octavo, and procured him a correspondence with Voltaire, who sent him some flattering letters. He was also engaged to write the “Life of John earl of Craufurd,” an officer of distinction. The above publications do him no discredit; and he shewed considerable ability in defending the case of Clifford against the Dutch West India company, and in a reply to the answers of the Dutch civilians in that case as also in a series of letters concerning the Antigallican privateer and prize, which had been illegally seized and confiscated by the Spaniards.

The following catalogue of Mr. Rolt’s publications, is subjoined to his proposals in 1769. But many of them were published without his name, and in weekly numbers. In folio, he published, 1. “A Dictionary of Trade and Commerce; dedicated, by permission, to George Lord Anson.” To this Johnson wrote the preface. 2. “Lives of the Reformers dedicated to the Princess Dowager of Wales” a decent compilation, but most valued for a fine set of mezzotinto heads. In quarto, 3. “Life of John earl of Craufurd; dedicated to his grace James duke of Hamilton.” In octavo, &c. 4. <f History of the General War from 1733 to 1748,“4 vols. 1st volume dedicated to admiral Vernon; 2d, to John earl Grenville; 3d, to his grace Charley duke of Marlborough; 4th to George Dunk, earl of Halifax. 5.” Universal Visitor, with several Songs.“(la this he joined with Christopher Smart, as is before-mentioned.) 6.” Account of capt. Northall’s Travels through Italy.“7.” Letters concerning the Antigallican privateer.“8.” Case of Clifford against the Dutch West India Company.“9.” Reply to the Anssver of the Dutch Civilians to Clifford’s Case.“10.” History of England,“4 vols. 11.” History of France,“vol. 12.” History of Egypt,“4 vols. 13.” History of Greece,“6 vols. 14.” Cambria; inscribed to Prince George“(his present majesty.) 15.” Eliza,“an English opera. 16.” Aljnena,“an English opera. 17.” A Monody on the Dqath oC Frederic Priace of Wales.“18.” An Elegiac Ode t* the memory of Edward Augustus, Duke of York.“19.” A Poem on the Death of sir Watkin Williams Wynne, bart.“20.” Shakspeare in Elysium to Mr. Garrick.“21.” The Ancient Rosciad," published in 1753.

In the mean time, the love of poetry and books did not make him unfit for business; for nobody applied closer to it when occasion required. The duke of Queensbernf, when secretary of state, made him secretary of public affairs. After the duke’s death, all avenues were stopped to his preferment; and, during the rest of queen Anne’s reign, he passed his time in study. A story, indeed, is told, rather an improbable one, which shews that he had some acquaintance with ministers. It is suid, that he went one day to pay his court to the lord treasurer Oxford, who asked him, “if he understood Spanish well?” He answered, “No:” but, thinking that his lordship might intend to send him into Spain on some honourable commission, he presently added, “that he did not doubt but he could shortly be able both to understand and to speak it.” The earl approving what he said, Rowe took his leave; and, retiring a few weeks to learn the language, waited again on the earl to acquaint him with it. His lordship asking him, “if he was sure he understood it thoroughly,” and Rowe affirming that he did, “How happy are you, Mr. Rowe,” said the earl, “that you can have the pleasure of reading and understanding the history of Don Quixote in the original!” On the accession of George I. he was made poet laureat, and one of the land-surveyors of the customs in the port of London. The prince of Wales conferred on him the clerkship of his council; and the lord chancellor Parker made him his secretary for the presentations. He did not enjoy these promotions long, for he died Dec. 6, 1718, in his 45th year.

, third son of the king of Bohemia, by the princess Elizabeth, eldest daughter of James I. of England, was born 1619, and educated, like most German princes, for the army and those who have been least inclined to favour him, admit that he was well adapted, both by natural abilities and acquired endowments, to form a great commander. On the commencement of the rebellion, which happened when he was scarcely of age, he offered his services to Charles I. and throughout the whole war behaved with great intrepidity. But his courage was of that kind which is better calculated for attack than defence, and is less adapted to the land service than that of the sea, where precipitate valour, Granger observes, is in its element. He seldom engaged but he gained the advantage, which he generally lost by pushing it too far. He was better qualified to storm a citadel, or even mount a breach, than patiently to sustain a siege, and would have been an excellent assistant to a general of a cooler head. In consideration of his services, for which we refer to the general histories of the times, and on account of his affinity to him, king Charles made him a knight of the garter, and a free denizen, and advanced him to the dignity of a peer of England, by the title of earl of Holdernesse and duke of Cumberland.

His “Historical Collections of private passages in State, weighty matters in Law, and remarkable proceedings in Parliament/' were published at different times, in folio. The first part, from 1618 to 1629, was published in 1659. The copy had been presented to Oliver Cromwell when he was protector; but he, having no leisure to peruse it, recommended it to Whitelock, who running it over made some alterations and additions. The second part appeared in 1680; the third in 1692; and the fourth and last, which extends to 1648, in 1701. All the seven volumes were reprinted together in 1721, with the trial of the earl of Strafford, published in 1680, which makes the whole eight volumes. This work has been highly extolled by some, and as much condemned by others. Alt who have been averse to Charles I. and his measures, have highly extolled it; all who have been favourers of that king and his cause, have represented it as extremely partial, and discredited it as much as possible. But the person who professedly set himself to oppose it, and to ruin its credit, was Dr. John Nalson, of Cambridge, who published, by the special command of Charles II.” An impartial collection of the great affairs of State, from the beginning of the Scotch rebellion in 1639 to the murder of king Charles I. wherein the first occasions and whole series of the late troubles in England, Scotland, and Ireland, are faithfully represented. Taken from authentic records, and methodically digested.“The title promises to bring the history down to the murder of Charles I. but Nalson lived only to put out two vols. in folio, 1682 and 1683, which bring it no lower than Jan. 1641-2. He professes, in the introduction to this work, to make it appear that” Mr. Rushvvorth hath concealed truth, endeavoured to vindicate the prevailing detractions of the late times, as well as their barbarous actions, and, with a kind of a rebound, to libel the government at second-hand:“and so far it is certain, that his aim and design was to decry the conduct of the court, and to favour the cause of the parliament; for which reason it is easy to conceive that he would be more forward to admit into his collections what made for, than against that purpose. The authors of the” Parliamentary Chronicle" have also proved that Rushworth suppressed much which an impartial collector would have inserted, nor can we suppose that he could be very impartial in the early part of the work, which was submitted to Cromwell or his adherents. His Collections, however, cannot be without great use, if it be only to present us with one side of the question.

, a man of learning and ingenuity, the son of Christopher Russel, esq. of Minorca, was born in 1728. He was bred at Westminster-school, and in 1746 was admitted a member of St. Mary’s hall, Oxford. He commenced a poet in 1744, or before; for in his collection are verses on seeing lady Elizabeth Boyle dance at Marston on her father’s birth-day in that year. In April 1750 he was admitted bachelor of arts, but. did not determine or complete his decree until 1752. About 1753 he obtained the rectory of Skull, in the diocese of Cork, in Ireland, by r the patronage of John, fifth earl of Oork and Orrery. With that nobleman he appears to have lived in intimacy, as well as with his second son, Hamilton Boyle, and frequently visited Marston. He died in 1767; and two years after, were published, in 2 vols. 8vo, “The Works^of the late Rev. George Russel, Rector of Skull, in the diocese of Cork.” From the few specimens Mr. Malone has given, he seems justified in saying that these work?, though little known, owing probably to their having been published only in Ireland, have very considerable merit.

Dr. Russel was a man of indefatigable industry. Before he had perfected one scheme, another always presented itself to his mind. Besides two complete tragedies, entitled “Pyrrhus” and “Zenobia,” he left behind him an analysis of Bryant’s Mythology, and the following unfinished productions: 1. “The Earl of Strafford,” a tragedy. 2. “Modern Life,” a comedy. 3. “The Love Marriage,” an opera. 4. “Human Happiness,” a poem intended to have been comprised in four books. 5. “A Historical and Philosophical View of the progress of mankind in the knowledge of the Terraqueous Globe.” 6. “The History of Modern Europe, part III. from the peace of Paris in 1763, to the general pacification in 1783.” 7. “The History of England from the beginning of the reign of George III. to the conclusion of the American war.” In the composition of the last of these works he was engaged at the time of his death. It was to be comprised in three volumes 8vo; for the copy-right of which Mr. Caclell had stipulated to pay seven hundred and fifty pounds. His “History of Modern Europe” has lately been reprinted, with an additional volume “to the peace of Amiens,” by Dr. Coote, and continues to be a standard book for scholars of the upper classes. His “Ancient History” has never been completed.

, was eldest son of Francis fourth earl of Bedford, by Catharine, sole daughter and heir of Giles Bridges, lord Chandois, and was born in 1614. He was educated in Magdalen college, Oxford, and was made knight of the bath at the coronation of king Charles I. He was a member of the Long-parliament, which met at Westminster, November 3, 1640; and May 9 following, upon the death of his father, succeeded him in his honours and estate. In July 1642, having avowed his sentiments against the measures pursued by the court, he was appointed by the parliament general of the horse, in the army raised in their defence against the king; and the marquis of Hertford being sent by his majesty into the West to levy forces, iti order to relieve Portsmouth, the earl of Bedford inid the command of seven thousand foot, and eight full troops of horse, to prevent his success in those parts; and marched with such expedition, that he forced the marquis out of Somersetshire, where his power and interest were believed unquestionable, and thus destroyed all hopes of forming an army for the king in the West. He afterwards joined the eari of Essex, and in the battle of Edgehill commanded the reserve of horse, which saved the whole army, when the horse of both wings had been defeated, and, after doing great execution on the king’s infantry, brought off their own foot; so that it became doubtful who had the victory, this reserve being the only body of forces that stood their ground in good order. In 1643, he, and the earls of Holland and Clare, conferred with the earl of Essex, who became dissatisfied with the war; and they had so much influence in the House of Lords, that, on the 5th of August the same year, that House desired a conference with the Commons, and declared to them their resolution of senclHig propositions for peace to the king, and hoped they would join with him. But by the artin'ce of Pennington, lord mayor of London, who procured a petition from the common-council of that city against the peace, such tumults were raised to terrify these lords, that they left the town, the Commons refusing to agree to their propositions. The earls of Bedford and Holland resolved therefore to go to Oxford; but their purpose being discovered or suspected, they with some difficulty got into the king’s garrison at Wallingford, from whence the governor sent an account of their arrival to the council at Oxford. The king was then at the siege of Gloucester, and the council divided in their opinions, in what manner to receive them; but his majesty upon his return determined on a middle way, by allowing them to come to Oxford, and every person to treat them there as they thought fit, while himself would regard them according to their future behaviour. Accordingly the two earls came, and, together with the earl of Clare, entered into the king’s service in Gloucestershire, waited upon his majesty throughout his march, charged in the royal regiment of horse at the battle of Newbury with great bravery, and in all respects behaved themselves well. Upon the king’s return to Oxford, he spoke to them on all occasions very graciously; but they were not treated in the same manner by others of the court, so that the earl of Holland going away first, the earls of Bedford and Clare followed, and came to the earl of Essex at St. Alban’s on Christmas-day, 1643. Soon after this, by order of parliament, the earl of Bedford was taken into custody by the black rod, and his estate sequestered, as was likewise the earl of Clare’s, tili the parliament, pleased with their successes against % the king in 1644, ordered their sequestrations to be taken off, and on the 17th of April the year following, the earl of Bedford, with the earls of Leicester and Ciare, and the lords Paget, Rich, and Convvay, who had left Oxford, and joined the parliament at London, took the covenant before the commissioners of the great-seal. He did not, however, interpose in any public affairs, till the House of Peers met in 1660, when the earl of Manchester, their speaker, was ordered by them to write to him to take his place among them; which he accordingly did, being assured of their design to restore the king and on the 27th of April that year, he was appointed one of the managers of the conference with the House of Commons, “to consider of some ways and means to make up the breaches and distractions of the kingdom” and on the 5th of May was one of the committee of peers “for viewing and considering, what ordinances had been made since the House of Lords were voted useless, which now passed as acts of parliament, and to draw up and prepare an act of parliament to be presented to the House to repeal what they should think fit.”

After the restoration of king Charles II. the earl of Bedford, notwithstanding his past conduct, was so far in his favour, that at the solemnity of his coronation, on April 23, 1661, he had the honour to carry St. Edward’s scepter; and, on May 29, 1672, was elected a knight of the most noble order of the garter. When the prince and princess of Orange came to the throne, he was sworn one of their privy council and at their coronation, on April 11, 1689, carried the queen’s scepter with the dove. They constituted his lordship, on May 10, 1689, lord lieutenant of the counties of Bedford and Cambridge; and, on March 1, 1691, lord lieutenant and custos rotulorum for the county of Middlesex, and the liberties of Westminster. He sought for no other honours or employments; but their majesties, on May 11, 1694, created him marquis of Tavistock and duke of Bedford, and, in enumerating his merits in the patent it is expressed, “That this was not the least, that he was father to the lord Russel, the ornament of his age, whose great merits it was not enough to transmit by history to posterity; but they were willing to record them in their royal patent, to remain in the family, as a monument consecrated to his consummate virtue; whose name could never be forgot, so long as men preserved any esteem for sanctity of manners, greatness of mind, and a love to their country, constant even to death. Therefore to solace his excellent father for so great a loss, to celebrate the memory of so noble a son, and to excite his worthy grandson, the heir of such mighty hopes, more cheerfully to emulate and follow the example of his illustrious father, they intailed this high dignity upon the earl and his posterity.”

At the revolution an act was passed on March 16, 1688-9, for annulling and making void the attainder of William Russel, esq. commonly called Lord Russel; and about the same time Henry lord De la Mere published “The late Lord Russel’s Case: with Observations upon it,” in which he affirms that his lordship could not be guilty of the indictment he was tried on; which he inferred from the law of the case, and from the inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence against his lordship. Sir Robert Atkyns also, one of the judges of the court of common pleas, published a “Defence of the late Lord Russet’s Innoeency,” printed in 1694; but the greatest honour paid to his memory is in the preamble to his father’s patent, transcribed in our account of him. His lordship married the lady liachel, second daughter, and at length heir to Thomas Wriothesley, earl of Southampton, lord high treasurer of England, the widow of Francis Vaughan, eldest son of Richard earl of Carbery. She died Sept. 29, 1723, aged eighty-seven. This lady’s “Letters,” published in 1773, exhibit her piety, virtue, and conjugal affection, and have immortalized her memory.

His implacable enemy, the duke of York, when James II. was reminded of his courage and virtues in a very affecting manner. Upon the approach of the prince of Orange, the infatuated king called an extraordinary council to consider of his highness’s proposals. Lord William Russel’s father, the earl of Bedford, being of the number, the king made earnest application to him, saying, “My lord, you are a good man, and have a great influence; you can do much for me at this time.” His lordship replied, “I am an old man, and can do but little, but I once had a son.” The king felt the full force of this appeal, and was struck dumb.

, one of the learned divines who was contemporary with Cudworth, Whichcot, Tillotson, and Worth ington, at the university of Cambridge, was a native of that town, and educated at Christ’s college, of which he became fellow, and probably took his degrees at the usual periods, though we do not find his name in the list of graduates published some years ago. Mr. Joseph Glanvil, in his preface to Dr. Rust’s “Discourse of Truth,” tells us that, when at the university, he “lived in great esteem and reputation for his eminent learning and virtues, and was one of the first in the university who overcame the prejudices of the education of the times before the restoration, and was very instrumental to enlarge others. He had too great a soul for the trifles of that age, and saw early the nakedness of phrases and fancies. He out-grew the pretended orthodoxy of those days, and addicted himself to the primitive learning and theology, in which he even then became a great master.” In 1651 he delivered in his own. chapel a discourse upon Proverbs xx. 27, which in 1655 he preached again at St. Mary’s in Cambridge. This piece was first published by Mr. Joseph Glanvil at London in 1682, in 8vo, under the title of “A Discourse of Truth,” in a volume entitled “Two choice and useful Treatises; the one Lux Orientalis: or an inquiry into the opinion of the Eastern sages concerning the pre-existence of souls: being a key to unlock the grand mysteries of Providence in relation to man’s sin and misery.” The other, “A Discourse of Truth, by the late reverend Dr. Rust, lord bishop of Drornore in Ireland. With annotations on them both.” The annotations are supposed to be written by Dr. Henry More, to who-e school Dr. Rust appears to have belonged. On the restoration, bishop Jeremy Taylor, foreseeing the vacancy in the deanery of Connor in Ireland, sent to Cambridge for some learned and ingenious man, who might be fit for that dignity. The choice tell upon Dr. Rust, which corresponding with the great inclination he had to be conversant with that eminent prelate, he gladly accepted of it, hastened to Ireland, and landed at Dublin about August 1661. He was received with great kindness and respect by bishop Taylor, and preferred to the deanery of Connor as soon as it was void, which was shortly after, and in 1662 to the rectory of the island of Magee in the same diocese. Upon the bishop’s death, August 13, 1667, he preached his funeral sermon, which was printed. The bishoprics were now divided; Dr. Boyle, dean of Cork, was nominated bishop of Down and Connor, and Dr. Rust, bishop of Dromore, in which he continued till his death, which was occasioned by a fever in Dec. 1670. He was interred in the choir of the cathedral of Dromore in a va'ult made for his predecessor bishop Taylor, whose body was deposited there. Mr. Glanvil, who was very particularly acquainted with him, tells us “that he was a man of a clear mind, a deep judgment, and searching wit, greatly learned in all the best sorts of knowledge, old and new, a thoughtfql and diligent inquirer^ of a free understanding and vast capacity, joined with singular modesty and unusual sweetness of temper, which made him the darling of all that knew him. He was a person of great piety and generosity, a hearty lover of God and man, an 'excellent preacher, a wise governor, a profound philosopher, a close reasoner, and above all, a true and exemplary Christian. In short, he was one, who had all the qualifications of a primitive bishop, and of an extraordinary man.” Dr. Rust’s other works were, “A Letter of Resolution concerning Origen and the chief of his opinions,” Lond. 1661, 4to; two sermons, one at the funeral of the earl of Mount-Alexander, the other on the death of bishop Taylor; and “Remains,” published by Henry Hallywell, Lond. 1686, 4to.

Soon after his return to England, he, however, engraved in lines a portrait of the queen, after Coates, and that portrait of his majesty, after Allan Ramsay, which Strange, from a misunderstanding, either with the earl of Bute or Ramsay, had declined, but they possess neither the vigour nor taste of his “Jupiter and Leda.” From this time he was appointed engraver to the king, and received an annual salary.

, a very eminent sculptor, was born in 1694, at Antwerp. His father was a landscape-painter, and had been in England, but quitted it with Largilliere, and went to Paris, where he married, and returning to Brussels and Antwerp, died in the latter in 1726, at the age of eighty. Michael, his son, arrived here in 1720, and after modelling some small figures in clay, to show his skill, succeeded so well in a bust of the earl of Nottingham, that he began to be employed on large works, particularly monuments, in which his art and industry gave general satisfaction. His models were thoroughly studied, and ably executed; and as a sculptor capable of furnishing statues was now found, our taste in monuments improved, which till Rysbrach’s time had depended more on masonry and marbles than statuary, on which he taught the age to depend for its best ornaments; and although he is too fond of pyramids for back-grounds, his figures are well disposed, simple and great.

, lord Buckhurst and earl of Dorset, an eminent statesman and poet, was born at Withyam in Sussex, in 1527. He was the son of sir Richard Sackville, who died in 1566, by Winifred Brydges (afterwards marchioness of Winchester), and grandson of John Sackville, esq. who died in 1557, by Anne Boleyne, sister of sir Thomas Boleyne, earl of Wiltshire and great grandson of Richard Sackviiie, esq. who died in 1524, by Isabel, daughter of John Digges, of Digues 1 s place in Barham, Kent, of a family which for many succeeding generations produced men of learning and genius. He was first of the university of Oxford, and, as it is supposed, of Hart-hall, now Hertford-college; but taking no degree there, he removed to Cambridge, where he commenced master of arts, and afterwards was a student of the Inner Temple. At both universities he became celebrated both as a Latin and English poet, and carried the same taste and talents to the Temple, where he wrote his tragedy of “Gorboduc,” which was exhibited in the great hall by the students of that society, as part of a Christmas entertainment, and afterwards before queen Elizabeth at Whitehall^ Jan. 18, 1561. It was surreptitiously printed in 1563, under the title of “The Tragedy of Gorboduc,” 4to; but a correct edition under the inspection of the authors (for he was assisted by Thomas Norton), appeared in 1571, entitled “The Tragedie of Ferrex and Porrex.” Another edition appeared in 1569, notwithstanding which, for many years it had so feompletely disappeared, that Dryden and Oldham, in the reign of Charles II. do not appear to have seen it, though they pretended to criticise it; and even Wood knew just as little of it, as is plain from his telling us that it was written in old English rhyme. Pope took a fancy to retrieve this play from oblivion, and Spence being employed to set it off with all possible advantage, it was printed pompously in 1736, 8vo, with a preface by the editor. Spence, speaking of his lordship as a poet, declares, that “the dawn of our English poetry was in Chaucer’s time, but that it shone out in him too bright all at once to last long. The succeeding age was dark and overcast. There was indeed some glimmerings of genius again in Henry VIII's time but our poetry had never what could be called a fair settled day-light till towards the end of queen Elizabeth’s reign. It was between these two periods, that lord Buckhurst wrote; after the earl of Surrey, and before Spenser.” Warton’s opinion of this tragedy is not very favourable. He thinks it never was a favourite with our ancestors, and fell into oblivion on account of the nakedness anil uninteresting nature of the plot, the tedious length of the speeches, the want of discrimination of character, and almost a total absence of pathetic or critical situations. Yet he allows that the language of “Gorboduc” has great merit and perspicuity, and that it is entirely free from the tumid phraseology of a subsequent age of play-writing.

Having by these productions established the reputation of being the best poet in his time, he laid down his pen, and assumed the character of the statesman, in which he also became very eminent. He found leisure, however, to make the tour of France and Italy; and was on some account or other in prison at Rome, when the news arrived of his father sir Richard Sackville’s death in 1566. Upon this, he obtained his release,‘ returned home, ente’red into the possession of a vast inheritance, and soon after was promoted to the peerage by the title of lord Buckhurst. He enjoyed this accession of honour and fortune too liberally for a while, but soon saw his error. Some attribute his being reclaimed to' the queen,- but others say, that the indignity of being kept in waiting by an alderman, of whom he had occasion to 1 borrow money, made so deep an impression oft him,“ibat he resolved from that moment to be an eeconomisi. By the queen he was received into particalar favour, and employed in many very important affairs- In 1587 he was sent ambassador to the United Provinces’,” upon 1 their complaints against the earl of Leicester 'j and y though he discharged that nice and hazardous trust with- great integrity, yet the favourite prevailed with his mistress to call him home, and confine him to his house for nine Or ten months; which command lord Buckhurst is said to have submitted to so obsequiously, than in all the time he never would endure, openly or secretly, by day or by night, to see either wife or child. His enemy, however, dying, her majesty’s favour returned to him more strongly than ever. He was made knight of the garter in 1590; and chancellor of Oxford in 1591, by the queen’s special interposition. In 1589 he was joined with the treasurer Burleigh in negotiating a peace with Spain; and, upon the death of Burleigh the same year, succeeded him in his office; by virtue of which he became in a manner prime minister, and as such exerted himself vigorously for the public good and her majesty’s safety.

Upon the death of Elizabeth, the administration of the kingdom devolving on him with other counsellors, they unanimously proclaimed king James; and that king renewed his patent of lord high-treasurer for life; before his arrival in England, and even before his lordship waited on his majesty. In March 1604 he was created earl of Dorset. tie was one of those whom his majesty consulted and confided in upon all occasions; and he lived in the highest esteem and reputation, without any extraordinary decay of health, till 1607. Then he was seized at his house at tlorsley, in Surrey, with a disorder, which reduced him so, that his life was despaired of. At this crisis, the king sent him a gold ring enamelled black, set with twenty diamonds; and this message, that “his majesty wished him a speedy and perfect recovery, with all happy and good success, and that he might live as long as the diamonds of that ring did endure, and in token thereof required him to wear it, and keep it for his sake.” He recovered this illness to all appearance but soon after; as he was attending at the council-table, he dropped down, and immediately expired. This sudden death, which happened April 19, 1608, was occasioned by a particular kind of dropsy on. the brain. He was interred with great solemnity in Westminster-abbey; his funeral sermon being preached by his chaplain Dr. Abbot, afterwards abp. of Canterbury. Sit Robert Naunton writes of him in the following terms “They much comoiend his elocution, but more the excellency of his pen. He was a scholar, and a person of quick dispatch; faculties that yet run in the blood: and they say of him, that his secretaries did little for him by way of inditement, wherein they could seldom please him, he was so facete and choice in his phrase and style. I find not that he was any ways inured in the factions of the court, which were all his time strong, and in every man’s note; the Howards and the Cecils on the one part, my lord of Essex; &c. on the other part for he held the staff of the treasury fast in his hand, which once in a year made them all beholden to him. And the truth is, as he was a wise man and a stout, he had no reason to be a partaker; for he stood sure in blood atid grace, and was wholly intentive to the queen’s services and such were his abilities, that she received assiduous proofs of his sufficiency and it has been thought, that she might have mure cunning instruments, but none of a more strong judgment and confidence in his ways, which are symptoms of magnanimity and fidelity.” Lord Orford says, that “iew first ministers have left so fair a character, and that hU family disdained the office of an apology for it, against some little cavils, which spreta exolescunt; si irascare, agnita videntur.”

, sixth earl of Dorset and Middlesex, a celebrated wit and poet, was descended in a direct line from Thomas lord Buckhurst, and born Jan. 24, 1637. He had his education under a private tutor; after which, making the tour of Italy, he returned to England a little before the Restoration. He was chosen in the first parliament that was called after that event for East Grinstead in Sussex, made a great figure as a speaker, and was caressed by Charles II.; but, having as yet no turn to business, declined all public employment. He was, in truth, like Villiers, Rochester, Sedley, &c. one of the wits or libertines of Charles’s court; and thought of nothing so much as feats of gallantry, which sometimes carried him to inexcusable excesses . He went a volunteer in the first Dutch war in 1665; and, the night before the engagement, composed the celebrated song “To all you Ladies now at land,” which is generally esteemed the happiest of his productions; but there is reason to think it was not originally composed, but only revised on this occasion. Soon after he was made a gentleman of the bed-chamber; and, on account of his distinguished politeness, sent by the king upon several short embassies of compliment into France. Upon the death of his uncle James Cranfield, earl of Middlesex, in 1674, that estate devolved on him; and he succeeded likewise to the title by creation in 1675. His father dying two years after, he succeeded him in his estate and honours. He utterly disliked, and openly discountenanced, the violent measures of James II's reign; and early engaged for the prince of Orange, by whom he was made lord chamberlain of the household, and taken into the privy-council. In 1692, he attended king William to the congress at the Hague, and was near losing his life in the passage. They went on board Jan. 10, in a very severe season; and, when they were a few leagues off Goree, having by bad weather been four days at sea, the king was so impatient to go on shore, that he took a boat; when, a thick fog arising soon after, they were so closely surrounded with ice, as not to be able either to make the shore, or get back to the ship. In this condition they remained twenty-two hours, almost despairing of life; and the cold was so bitter, that they could hardly speak or stand at their landing; and lord Dorset contracted a lameness, which continued for some time. In 1698, his health insensibly declining, he retired from public affairs; only now and then appearing at the council-board. He died at Bun Jan. 19, 1705-6, after having married two wives; by the latter of whom be had a daughter, and an only son, Lionel CranfieKl Sackvilie, who was created a duke in 1720, and died Oct. 9, 1765.

, an eminent English statesman, was born in 1507, at Hackney, in Middlesex. He was the son of Henry Sadler, who, though a gentleman by birth, and possessed of a fair inheritance, seems to have been steward or surveyor to the proprietor of the manor of Gillney, near Great Hadham, in Essex. Ralph in early life gained a situation in the family of Thomas Cromwell, earl of Essex, and by him was introduced to the notice of Henry VIII. who took him into his service, but at what time is not very clear. He was employed in the great work of dissolving the religious houses, and had his full share of the spoil. In 1537, he commenced a long course of diplomatic services, byan embassy to Scotland, whose monarch was then absent in France. The objects of his mission were to greet the queen dowager, to strengthen the English interests in the councils of regency which then governed Scotland, and to discover the probable consequences of the intimate union of Scotland with France. Having collected such information as he could procure on these topics, he returned in the beginning of the following year, but went again to Scotland soon after, ostensibly to maintain a good correspondence between the two crowns, but really, as appears from his state-papers, to detach the king of Scotland from the councils of cardinal Beaton, who was at the head of the party most in the interest of France. He was instructed also to direct the king’s attention to the overgrown possessions of the church as a source of revenue, and to persuade him to imitate his uncle Henry VHIth’s conduct to the see of Rome, and to make common cause with England against France. In all this, however, he appears to have failed, or at least to have left Scotland without having materially succeeded in any part of his. mission.

When the war with Scotland was renewed, sir Ralph so distinguished himself at the battle of Pinkie, that he was on the field raised to the degree of knight banneret; but we hear nothing more of him during the reign of Edward VI. except that in a grant, dated the 4th of that king’s reign, he is termed master of the great wardrobe. In Mary’s reigo, although he appears to have been in her favour, he retired to his estate at Hackney, and resigned the office of knight of the hamper,;-.nich had been conferred on him by Henry VIII. On the accession of Elizab^th, he again appeared at court, was called to the privy council, and retained to his death a great portion of the esteem of that princess. He was a member of her first parliament, as one of the knights of the shire for the county of Hertford, and continued to be a representative of the people during the greater part, if not the whole, of her reign. When queen Elizabeth thought proper to favour the cause of the reformation in Scotland, and to support the nobility who were for it against Mary, sir Ralph Sadler was her principal agent, and so negotiated as to prepare the way for Elizabeth’s great influence in the affairs of Scotland. He was also concerned in the subsequent measures which led to the death of queen Mary, and was appointed her keeper in the castle of Tutbury; but such was Elizabeth’s jealousy of this unfortunate princess, that even Sadler’s watchfulness became liable to her suspicions, and on one occasion, a very heavy complaint was made against him, that he had permitted Mary to accompany him to some distance from the castle of Tutbury, to enjoy the sport of hawking. Sir Ralph had been hitherto so subservient to his royal mistress, in all her measures, and perhaps in some which he could not altogether approve, that this complaint gave him great uneasiness, and he answered it rather by an expostulation than an apology. He admitted that he had sent for his hawks and falconers to divert " the miserable life'- which he passed at Tutbury, and that he had been unable to resist the solicitation of the prisoner, to permit her to see a sport in which she greatly delighted. But he adds; that this was under the strictest precautions for security of her person; and he declares to the secretary Cecil, that rather than continue a charge which subjected him to such misconstruction, were it not more for fear of offending the queen than dread of the punishment, he would abandon his present charge on coitdition of surrendering himself prisoner to the Tower for all the days of his life, and concludes that he is so weary of this life, that death itself would make him more happy. Elizabeth so far complied with his intimation as to commit Mary to a new keeper, but she did not withdraw her confidence from sir Ralph in other matters, and after the execution of Mary, employed him to go to the court of James VI. to dissuade him from entertaining thoughts of a war with England on his mother’s account, to which there was reason to think he might have been excited. In this sir Ralph had little difficulty in succeeding, partly from James’s love of ease, and partly from the prospect he had of succeeding peaceably to the throne of England. This was the last time sir Ralph Sadler was employed in the public service, for soon after his return from Scotland, he died at his lordship of Standon, March 30, 1587, in the eightieth year of his age, and was buried in the church of Standon, where his monument was decorated with the king of Scotland’s standard, which he took in the battle of Musselburgh. He left behind him twenty-two manors, several parsonages, and other great portions of land, in the several counties of Hertford, Gloucester, Warwick, Buckingham, and Worcester. He married Margaret Mitchell, a laundress in the family of his first patron, Thomas Cromwell, earl of Essex, in the life-time, though in the absence, of her husband, Matthew Barre, a tradesman in London, presumed to be dead at that time, and he afterwards procured an act of parliament, 37 Henry VIII. for the legitimation of the children by her, who were three sons, and four daughters; Anne, married to sir George Horsey of Digswell, knight; Mary, to Thomas Bollys aliter Bowles Wallington, esq. Jane, toEdward Baesh, of Stanstead, esq. (which three gentlemen appear to have been sheriffs of the county of Hertford, 14, 18, and 13 Eliz.); and Dorothy, to Edward EIryngton of Berstall, in the county of Bucks, esq. The sons were, Thomas, Edward, and Henry. Thomas succeeded to Standon, was sheriff of the county 29 and 37 Eliz. was knighted, and entertained king James there two nights on his way to Scotland. He had issue, Ralph and Gertrude married to Walter the first lord Aston of the kingdom of Scotland; Ralph, his son, dying without issue, was succeeded in his lordship of Standon and other estates in the county of Hertford, by Walter, the second lord Aston, eldest surviving son of his sister Gertrude lady Aston. The burying-place of the family is in tire chancel of the church at Standon. Against the south wall is a monument for sir Ralph Sadler, with the effigies of himself in armour, and of his three sons and four daughters,' and three inscriptions, in Latin verse, in English verse, and in English prose against the north wall i& another for sir Thomas, with the effigies of himself in armour, his lady, son and daughter, and an epitaph in Ertglish prose. There are also several inscriptions for various persons of the Aston family.

, lord viscount Bolingbroke, an eminent statesman and writer, was descended from an ancient and noble family, and born, as all his biographers say, in 1672, but it appears by the register of Battersea parish that he was baptised Oct. 10, 1678. His father, sir Henry St. John, son of sir Walter St. John, died at Battersea, his family-seat, July 3, 1708, in his eighty- seventh year his mother was lady Mary, second daughter and coheiress of Robert Rich, earl of Warwick. He was bred up, with great care, under the inspection of his grandfather, as well as his father, who neglected no means to cultivate his mind. It was once noticed in parliament that he was educated in dissenting principles, and it is very certain that the first director of his studies was the famous Daniel Burgess, who, with all his oddities (See Burgess) was frequently employed as tutor to the sons of men of rank. Goldsmith seems desirous to impute Bolingbroke’s infidelity to this divine, and to his being obliged to read Manton’s Sermons on the 119th Psalm but such an opinion is as dangerous as it is absurd. From Burgess or Manton, he could have imbibed only a higher reverence for religion than was to be expected from a lively youth; and as to the disgust he felt, to which his biographer seems inclined to trace his infidelity, it is probable that a boy would not have entertained much less dislike to a voluminous history of England, if obliged to read it when he wished to be idle. But, whatever instruction he might receive from his first tutors, it is very certain, that he had a regular and liberal education. He was sent to Eton, where he had for his companion and rival sir Robert Waipole. “The parts of Mr. St. John,” says Coxe, “were more lively and brilliant, those of Walpole more steady and solid. Walpole was industrious and diligent, because his talents required application; St. John was negligent, because his quickness of apprehension rendered labour less necessary.” These characteristics prevailed in both throughout life. From Eton Mr. St. John was removed to Christ-church, Oxford, where he made a shining figure as a polite scholar, and when he left the university, he was considered as a youth highly accomplished for public life. His person was agreeable, and he had a dignity mixed with sweetness in his looks, and a manner very prepossessing, and, as some of his contemporaries said, irresistible. He had much acuteness, great judgment, and a prodigious memory. Whatever he read he retained so as to make it entirely his own; but in youth, he was not in general much given either to reading or reflection. With great parts, he had, as it usually happens, great passions which hurried him into those indiscretions and follies that distinguish the libertine. He does not, however, appear to have been without his serious moments, nor always unwilling to listen to the voice of conscience. “There has been something always,” says he, “ready to whisper in my ear, while I ran the course of pleasure and of business, * Solve senescentem mature sanus equum;‘ < and while ’tis well, release thy aged horse.' But my genius, unlike the demon of Socrates, whispered so softly, that very often I heard him not, in the hurry of those passions with which I was transported. Some calmer hours there were in them I hearkened to him. Reflection had often its turn and the love of study and the desire of knowledge have never quite abandoned me. I am not, therefore, entirely unprepared for the life I will lead; and it is not without reason that I promise myself more satisfaction in the latter part of it than I ever knew in the former.”

As these youthful extravagances involved him in discredit, his parents were very desirous to reclaim him. With this view, when in his twenty-second year, they married him to the daughter and coheiress of sir Henry Winchecomb of Bucklebury, in the county of Berks, bart.; and upon this marriage a large settlement was made, which proved very serviceable to him in his old age, though a great part of what his lady brought was taken from him, in consequence of his attainder. The union in other respects was not much to his liking. The same year he was elected for the borough of Wotton-Basset, and sat in the fifth parliament of king William, which met Feb. 10, 1700; and in which Robert Harley, esq. afterwards earl of Oxford, was chosen for the first time speaker. Of this short parliament, which ended June 24, 1701, the business was the impeachment of the king’s ministers, who were concerned in the conclusion of the two partition-treaties; and, Mr. St. John siding with the majority, who were then considered as tories, ought to be looked upon as commencing his political career in that character. He sat also in the next, which was the last parliament in the reign of William, and the first in that of Anne. He was charged, so early as 1710, with having voted this year against the succession in the House of Hanover; but this he has peremptorily denied, because in 1701 a bill was brought into parliament, by sir Charles Hedges and himself, entitled tt A Bill ibr the farther security of his majesty’s person, and the succession of the crown in the Protestant line, and extinguishing the hopes of the pretended prince of Wales, and all other pretenders, and their open and secret abettors." In July 1702, upon the dissolution of the second parliament, the queen making a tour from Windsor to Bath, by way of Oxford, Mr. St. John attended her; and, at that university, with several persons of the highest distinction, had the degree of doctor of laws conferred upon him.

In July 1712, he was created baron St. John of LediardTregoze in Wiltshire, and viscount Bolingbroke; and was also, the same year, appointed lord-lieutenant of the county of Essex. But these honours not coming up to the measure of his ambition, he meditated supplanting Harley, flow earl of Oxford, who had offended him, even in the matter of the peerage. Paulet St. John, the last earl of Bolingbroke, died the 5th of October preceding his creation and the earldom became extinct by his decease, and this honour had been promised to him but, his presence in the House of Commons being so necessary at that time, Harley prevailed upon him to remain ther<5 during that session; with an assurance, that his rank should be preserved for him. But, when he expected the old title should have been renewed in his favour, he received only that of viscount; which he resented as an intended affront on the part of Harley, who had got an earldom for himself. “I continued,” says Bolingbroke, “in the House of Commons during that important session which preceded the peace; and which, by the spirit shewn through the whole course of it, and by the resolutions taken in it, rendered the conclusion of the treaties practicable. After this, I was dragged into the House of Lords in such a manner as to make my promotion a punishment, not a reward; and was there left to defend the treaties alone. It would not have been hard,” continues he, “to have forced the earl of Oxford to use me better. His good intentions began to be very much doubted of: the truth is, no opinion of his sincerity had ever taken root in the party; and, which was worse for a man in his station, the opinion of his capacity began to fall apace. 1 began in my heart to renounce the friendship which, till that time, 1 had preserved inviolable for Oxford. I was not aware of all his treachery, nor of the base and little means which he employed then, and continued to employ afterwards, to ruin me in the opinion of the queen, and every where else. I saw, however, that he had nofriencUhip for any body; and that, with respect to me, instead of having the ability to render that merit, which I endeavoured to acquire, an addition of strength to himself, it became the object of his jealousy, and a reason for undermining me.” There was also another transaction, which passed not long after lord Bolingbroke’s being raised to the peerage, and which aggravated his animosity to that minister. In a few weeks after his return from France, her majesty bestowed the vacant ribbons of the order of the garter upon the dukes Hamilton, Beaufort, and Kent, and the earls Powlet, Oxford, and Strafford. Bolingbroke thought himself here again ill used, having an ambition, as the minister well knew, to receive such an instance as this was of his mistress’s grace and favour. Indignant at all these circumstances, we are told that Bolingbroke, when the treasurer’s staff was taken from Oxford, expressed his joy by entertaining that very day, July 7, 1714, at dinner, the generals Stanhope, Cadogan, and Palmer, sir William Wyndham. Mr. Craggs, and other gentlemen. Oxford said upon his going out, that “some of them would smart for it;” and Bolingbroke was far from being insensible of the danger to which he stood exposed yet he was not without hopes still of securing himself, by making his court to the whigs and it is certain, that a little before this he had proposed to bring iri a bill to the House of Lords, to make it treason to enlist soldiers for the Pretender, which was passed into an act. Soon, however, after the accession of king George I. in

In the mean time, his new engagements with the Pretender were so unsuccessful as to bring on him a similar disgrace; for the year 1715 was scarcely expired, when the seals and papers of his new secretary’s office were demanded, and given up; and this was soon followed by an accusation branched into seven articles, in which he was impeached of treachery, incapacity, and neglect. Thus discarded, he turned his thoughts once more to a reconciliation with his country, and in a short time, by that characteristic activity with which he prosecuted all his designs, he procured, through the mediation of the earl of Stair, then the British ambassador at the French court, a promise of pardon, upon certain conditions, from the king, who, in July 1716, created his father baron of Battersea and viscount St. John. In the mean time these vicissitudes had thrown him into a state of reflection; and this produced, by way of relief, a “Consolatio Philosophica,” which he wrote the same year, under the title of “Reflections upon Exile.” In this piece he has drawn the picture of his own exile; which, being represented as a violence, proceeding solely from the malice of his persecutors, to one who had served his country with ability and integrity, is by the magic of his pen converted not only into a tolerable, but what appears to be an honourable, station. He had also this year written several letters, in answer to the charge brought against him by the Pretender and his adherents, which were printed at London in 1735, 8vo, together with answers to them by Mr. James Murray, afterwards made earl of Dunbar by the Pretender; but, being then immediately suppressed, are reprinted in “Tindal’s Continuation of Rapin’s History of England” The following year, he drew up a vindication of his whole conduct with respect to the tories, in the form of a letter to sir William Wyndham, which was printed in 1753, 8vo. It is written with the utmost elegance and address, and abounds with interesting and entertaining anecdote’s.

, an English antiquary, was the son of the rev. Thomas Salmon, M. A. rector of Mepsall in Bedfordshire, by a daughter of the notorious Serjeant Bradshaw. He was admitted of Bene‘t college, Cambridge, June 11, 1690, where his tutors were dean Moss and archdeacon Lunn, and took the degree of LL. B. in 1695. Soon after he went into orders, and was for some time curate of Westmill in Hertfordshire; but, although he had taken the oaths to king William, he had so many scruples against taking them to his successor, queen Anne, that he became contented to resign the clerical profession, and with it a living of 140l. per annum ’offered him in Suffolk. He then applied himself to the study of physic, which he practised first at St. Ives in Huntingdonshire, and afterwards at Bishops Stortford, in the county of Hertford. His leisure time appears to have been employed in studying the history and antiquities of his country, on which subjects he published, 1. “A Survey of the Roman Antiquities in the Midland Counties in England,” 1726, 8vo. 2. “A Survey of the Roman Stations in Britain, according to the Roman Itinerary,” 1721, 8vo. 3. “The History of Hertfordshire, describing the county and its ancient monuments, particularly the Roman, with the characters of those that have been the chief possessors of the lands, and an account of the most memorable occurrences,” 1728, folio. This was designed as a continuation of Chauncey’s History, and was dedicated to the earl of Hertford. 4. “The Lives of the English Bishops from the Restoration to the Revolution, fit to be opposed to the Aspersions of some late Writers of Secret History,” 1733, a work which we have occasionally found very useful, although the author’s prejudices, in some instances, appear rather strong. 5. “A Survey of the Roman Stations in England,” 1731, (an improved edition probably of the first two works above mentioned) 2 vols. 8vo. C. “The Antiquities of Surrey, collected from the most ancient records, and dedicated to Sir John Evelyn, bart. with some Account of the Present State and Natural History of the County,” 1736, 8vo. 7. “The History and Antiquities of Essex, from the Collections of Mr. Strangeman,” in folio, with some notes and additions of his own; but death put a stop to this work, when he had gone through about two thirds of the county, so that the hundreds of Chelmsford, Hinkford, Lexden, Tendring, and Thurstable, were left unfinished.

, a learned English divine, was the eldest son of Dr. Samuel Salter, prebendary of Norwich, and archdeacon of Norfolk, by Anne-Penelope, the daughter of Dr. John Jeffery, archdeacon of Norwich. He was educated for some time in the free-school of that city, whence he removed to that of the Charter-house, and was admitted of Bene't-college, Cambridge, June 30, 1730, under the tuition of Mr. Charles Skottowe. Soon after his taking the degree of B. A. in 1733, he was chosen into a fellowship, and took his master’s degree in 1737. His natural and acquired abilities recommended him to sir Philip Yorke, then lord-chief-jqstice of the King’s-bench, and afterwards earl of Hardwicke, for the instruction of his eldest son the second earl, who, with three of his brothers, in compliment to abp. Herring, was educated at that college. As soon as that eminent lawyer was made Jordehancellor, he appointed Mr. Salter his domestic chaplain, and gave him a prebend in the church of Gloucester, which he afterwards exchanged for one in that of Norwich. About the time of his quitting Cambridge, he was one of the writers in the “Athenian Letters.” Soon after the chancellor gave Mr. Salter the rectory of Burton Goggles, in the county of Lincoln, in 1740; where he went to reside soon after, and, marrying Miss Seeker, a relation of the then bishop of Oxford, continued there till 1750, when he was nominated minister of Great Yarmouth by the dean and chapter of Norwich. Here he performed the duties of that large parish with great diligence, till his promotion to the preachership at the Charter-house in January 1754, some time before which (in July, 1751), abp. Herring had honoured him with the degree of D. D. at Lambeth. In 1756, he was presented by the lord-chancellor to the rectory of St. Bartholomew near the Royal Exchange, which was the last ecclesiastical preferment he obtained; but in Nov. 1761, he succeeded Dr. Bearcroft as master of the Charter-house, who had been his predecessor in the preachership. While he was a member of Bene't college, he printed Greek Pindaric odes on the nuptials of the princes of Orange and Wales, and a copy of Latin verses on the death of queen Caroline. Besides a sermon preached on occasion of a music-meeting at Gloucester, another before the lord-mayor, Sept. 2, 1740, on the anniversary of the fire of London, a third before the sons of the clergy, 1755, which was much noticed at the time, and underwent several alterations before it was printed; and one before the House of Commons, Jan. 30, 1762; he published “A complete Collection of Sermons and Tracts” of his grandfather Dr. Jeffery, 1751, in 2 vols. 8vo, with his life prefixed, and a new edition of “Moral and Religious Aphorisms,” by Dr. Whichcote, with large additions of some letters that passed between him and Dr. Tuckney, “concerning the Use of Reason in Religion,” &c. and a biograpiiical preface, 1751, 8vo. To these may be added, “Some Queries relative to the Jews, occasioned by a late sermon,” with some other papers occasioned by the “Queries,” published the same year. In 1773 jmd 1774, he revised through the press seven of the celebrated “Letters of Ben Mordecai;” written by the rev. Henry Taylor, of Crawley in Hants. In 1776, Dr. Salter printed for private use, “The first 106 lines of the First Book of the Iliad; nearly as written in Homer’s Time and Country;” and printed also in that year, “Extract from the Statutes of the House, and Orders of the Governors, respecting the Pensioners or poor Brethren” (of the Charterhouse), a large single sheet in folio; in 1777, he corrected the proof-sheets of Bentley’s “Dissertation on Phalaris;” and not long before his death, which happened May 2, 1773, he printed also an inscription to the memory of his parents, an account of all which may be seen in the “Anecdotes of Bowyer.” Dr. Salter was buried, by his own express direction, in the most private manner, in the common burial-ground belonging to the brethren of the Charter-house.

Some years after, having received an invitation from the pope, he took a journey to Rome, whence he was sent as nuncio to the popish bishops and clergy in Ireland, and landed there in 1579. At this time Gerald Fitzgerald, earl of Desmond, was in arms, as he pretended, in defence of the liberties and religion of his country; but in 1583 his party was routed and himself killed. The part Sanders took in this rebellion is variously represented. Camden says that he was sent over purposely to encourage Desmond, and that several companies of Spanish soldiers went over with him, and that when their army was routed, he fled to the woods, and died of hunger. All that the catholics deuy in this account, is, that Sanders was sent purposely i but this they deny very feebly. With regard to the manner of Sanders’s death, Dodd seems inclined to prefer Wood’s account, who says that he died of a dysentery, and Dodd likewise adopts the report of Rushton and Pits, who say that he died at the latter end of 1580, or the beginning of 1581, because this was long before Desmond’s defeat, and consequently dissolves in some measure the supposed connection between him and Sanders. Dodd, however, who is generally impartial, allows that several catholics, his contemporaries, were of opinion that he was engaged in the Spanish interest against queen Elizabeth; and his writings prove that he maintained a deposing power both in the church and people, where religion was in danger. He was, according to all accounts, a man of abilities, and was considered as the most acute adversary for the re-establishment of popery in England, which his party could boast of. He had, however, to contend with men of equal ability, who exposed his want of veracity as well as of argument, and few of his works have survived the times in which they were written. Among them are, 1. “The Supper of our Lord, &c.” a defence of the real presence, being what he calls “A confutation of Jewel’s Apology, as also of Alexander Newel’s challenge,” Louvain, in 1566, 1567, 4to. 2. “Treatise of the Images of Christ and his Saints; being a confutation of Mr. Jewel’s reply upon that subject,” ibid. 1567, 8vo.- 3. “The Rock of the Church/ 1 eoncerning the primacy of St. Peter, ibid. 1566, 1567, St. Omer’s, 1624, 8vo.' 4.” A brief treatise on Usury,“ibid. 1566. 5.” De Visibili monarchia Ecclesia,“ibid. 1571, folio, Antwerp, 1581, Wiceburg, 1592. 6.” De origine et progressu Schismatis Anglicani,“Colon. 1585, 8vo, reprinted at other places in 1586, 1588, and 1590, and translated into French in 1673, with some tracts on the tenets of his church, which seem not of the controversial kind. Mo’st of the former were answered by English divines of eminence, particularly his large volume” De visibili monarchia ecclesise," by Dering, Clerk, and others, of whose answers an account may J>e seen in Strype’s Life of Parker. That on the English schism is refuted, as to his more important assertions, in the appendix to Burnet’s History of the Reformation, vol. II.

, an eminent English bishop, was descended from an ancient family, and was the youngest son of Robert Sanderson, of Gilthwaite-hall, Yorkshire, by Elizabeth, one of the daughters of Richard Carr, of Butterthwaite-hall, in the parish of Ecclesfield. He was born at Rotherham, in Yorkshire, Sept. 19, 1587, and educated in the grammar-school there, where he made so uncommon a progress in the languages, that, at thirteen, he was sent to Lincoln college in Oxford. Soon after taking his degree of B. A. his tutor told Dr. Kilbie, the rector, that his “pupil Sanderson had a metaphysical brain, and a matchless memory, and that he thought he had improved or made the last so by an art of his own invention.” While at college, he generally spent eleven hours a day in study, chiefly of philosophy and the classics. In 1606 he was chosen fellow, and in July 1608, completed his degree of M. A. In November of the same year, he was elected logic reader, and re-elected in Nov. 1609. His lectures on this subject were published in 1615, and ran through several editions. In 1613, 1614, and 1616, he served the office of sub-rector, and in the latter of those years, that of proctor. In 1611, he was ordained deacon and priest by Dr. King, bishop of London, and took the degree of bachelor of divinity in 1617. In 1618, he was presented by his cousin sir Nicolas Sanderson, lord viscount Castleton, to the rectory of Wybberton, near Boston, in Lincolnshire, but resigned it the year following on account of the unhealthiness of its situation; and about the same time was collated to the rectory of Boothby-Paniiell, or Paynel, in the same county, which he enjoyed above forty years. Having now quitted his fellowship, he married Anne, the daughter of Henry Nelson, B. D. rector of Haugham in the county of Lincoln; and soon after was made a prebendary of Southwell, as he was also of Lincoln in 1629. He continued to attend to his parochial duties in a very exemplary manner, and particularly laboured much to reconcile differences, and prevent law-suits both in his parish, and in the neighbourhood. He also often visited sick and disconsolate families, giving advice and often pecuniary assistance, or obtaining the latter by applications to persons of opulence. He was often called upon to preach at assizes and visitations; but his practice of reading his sermons, as it was then not very common, raised some prejudice against him. Walton observes, that notwithstanding he had an extraordinary memory, he had such an innate bashfulness and sense of fear, as to render it of little use in the delivery of his sermons. It was remarked, when his sermons were printed in 1632, that “the best sermons that were ever read, were never preached.” At the beginning of the reign of Charles I. he was chosen one of the clerks in convocation for the diocese of Lincoln; and Laud, then bishop of London, having recommended him to that king as a man excellently skilled in casuistical learning, he was appointed chaplain to his majesty in 1631. When he became known to the king, his majesty put many cases of conscience to him, and received from him solutions which gave him so great satisfaction, that at the end of his month’s attendance, which was in November, the king told him, that “he should long for next November; for he resolved to have more inward acquaintance with him, when the month and he returned.” The king indeed was never absent from his sermons, and used to say, that “he carried his ears to hear other preachers, but his conscience to hear Mr. Sanderson.” In 1633 he obtained, through the earl of Rutland’s interest, the rectory of Muston, in Leicestershire, which he held eight years. In Aug. 1636, when the court was entertained at Oxford, he was,‘ among others, created D. D. In 1642, he was proposed by both Houses of parliament to king Charles, who was then at Oxford, to be one of their trustees for the settling of church affairs, and approved by the king: but that treaty came to nothing. The same year, his majesty appointed him regius professor of divinity at Oxford, with the canonry of Christ church annexed: but the national calamities hindered him from entering on it till 1646, and then he did not hold it undisturbed much more than a year. In 1643, he was nominated by the parliament one of the assembly of divines, but never sat among them neither did he take the covenant or engagement, so that his living was sequestered but, so great was his reputation for piety and learning, that he was not deprived of it. He had the’ chief hand in drawing up “The Reasons of the university of Oxford against the solemn League and Covenant, the Negative Oath, and the Ordinances concerning Discipline and Worship:” and, when the parliament had sent proposals to the king for a peace in church and state, his majesty desired, that Dr. Sanderson, with the doctors Hammond, Sheldon, and Morley, should attend him, and advise him how far he might with a good conscience comply with those proposals. This request was rejected by the presbyterian party; but, it being complied with afterwards by the independents, when his majesty was at Hampton-court, and in the isle of Wight, in 1647 and 1648, those divines attended him there. Dr. Sanderson often preached before him, and had many public and private conferences with him, to his majesty’s great satisfaction. The king also desired him, at Hampton-court, since the parliament had proposed the abolishing of episcopal government as inconsistent with monarchy, that he would consider of it, and declare his judgment; and what he wrote upon that subject was afterwards printed in 1661, 8vo, under this title, “Episcopacy, as established by law in England, not prejudicial to Regal power.” At Sanderson’s taking leave of his majesty in this his last attendance on him, the king requested him to apply himself to the writing of “Cases of Conscience;” to which his answer was, that “he was now grown old, and unfit to write cases of conscience.” But the king told him plainly, “it was the simplest thing he ever heard from him; for, no young man was fit to be a judge, or write cases of conscience.” Upon this occasion, Walton relates the following anecdote: that in one of these conferences the king told Sanderson, or one of them that then waited with him, that “the remembrance of two errors did much afflict him, which were, his assent to the earl of Stafford’s death, and the abolishing of episcopacy in Scotland; and that, if God ever restored him to the peaceable possession of his crown, he would demonstrate his repentance by a public confession and a voluntary penance, by walking barefoot from the Tower of London, or Whitehall, to St. Paul’s church, and would desire the people to intercede with God for his pardon.” In 1643, Dr. Sanderson was ejected from his professorship and canonry in Oxford by the parliamentary visitors, and retired to his living of Boothby-Pannel. Soon after, he was taken prisoner, and carried to Lincoln, to be exchanged for one Clarke, a puritan divine, and minister of Alington, who had been made prisoner by the king’s party. He was, however, soon released upon articles, one of which was, that the sequestration of his living should be recalled; by which means he enjoyed a moderate subsistence for himself, wife, and children, till the restoration. But, though the articles imported also, that he should live undisturbed, yet he was far from bein^r either quiet or safe, being once wounded, and several times plundered; and the outrage of the soldiers was such, that they not only came into his church, and disturbed him when reading prayers, but even forced the common prayer book from him, and tore it to pieces. During this retirement, he received a visit from Dr. Hammond, who wanted to discourse with him upon some points disputed between the Caivinists and Arminians; and he was often applied to for resolution in cases of conscience, several letters upon which subjects were afterwards printed*. In 1658, the hon, Robert Boyle sent him a present of 50l.; his circumstances, as of most of the royalists at that time, being very low. Boyle had read his lectures “De juramenti obligatione,” published the preceding year, with great satisfaction; and asked Barlow, afterwards bishop of Lincoln, if he thought Sanderson could be induced to write cases of conscience, provided he had an honorary pension allowed, to supply him with books and an amanuensis But Sanderson told Barlow, “that, if any future tract of his could bring any benefit to mankind, he would readily set about it without a pension.” Upon this, Boyle sent the above present by the hands of Barlow; and Sanderson presently revised, finished, and published, his book “De obligatione conscientiae,” which, as well as

, a herald and heraldic writer, descended from a very ancient and respectable family, still seated at Sandford, in the county of Salop, was the third son of Francis Sandford, *of that place, esq. by Elizabeth, daughter of Calcot Chambre, of Williamscot in Oxfordshire, and of Carnow in Wicklow in Ireland. He was born in 1630, in the castle of Carnow in the province of Wicklow, part of the half barony of Shelelak, purchased of James I., by his maternal grandfather, Chalcot Chambre. He partook in an eminent degree the miseries of the period which marked his youth. At eleven years of age he sought an asylum in Sandford, being driven by the rebellion from Ireland. No sooner had his pitying relatives determined to educate him to some profession, than they were proscribed for adhering to the cause of their sovereign; he received, therefore, only that learning which a grammar school could give. As some recompence for the hardships he and his family had experienced, he was admitted, at the restoration, as pursuivant in the college of arms; but conscientiously attached to James II., he obtained leave to resign his tabard to Mr. King, rougedragon, who paid him 220l. for his office. He retired to Bloomsbury, or its vicinity, where he died, January 16, 1693, and was buried in St. Bride’s upper church yard. The last days of this valuable man corresponded too unhappily with the first, for he died “advanced in years, neglected, and poor.' 7 He married Margaret, daughter of William Jokes, of Bottington, in the county of Montgomery, relict of William Kerry, by whom he had issue. His literary works are, 1.” A genealogical History of the Kings of Portugal,“&c. London, 1664, fol. partly a translation, published in compliment to Catherine of Braganza, consort to Charles II. It is become scarce. 2.” The Order and Ceremonies used at the Funeral of his Grace, George Duke of Albemarle,“Savoy, 1670. This is a thin folio, the whole represented in engraving. 3.” A genealogical History of the Kings of England, and Monarchs of Great Britain, from the Norman Conquest, Anno 1066, to the year 1677, in seven Parts or Books, containing a Discourse of their several Lives, Marriages, and Issues, Times of Birth, Death, Places of Burial, and monumental Inscriptions, with their Effigies, Seals, Tombs, Cenotaphs, Devices, Arms,“&c. Savoy, 1677, fol. dedicated to Charles II., by whose command the work was undertaken. It is his best and most estimable performance. The plan is excellent, the fineness of the numerous engravings greatly enrich and adorn it: many are by Hollar, others by the best artists of that period, inferior to him, but not contemptible, even when seen at this age of improvement in graphic art. The original notes are not the least valuable part of the work, conveying great information, relative to the heraldic history of our monarchs, princes, and nobility. Mr. Stebbing, Somerset herald, reprinted it in 1707, continuing it until that year, giving some additional information to the original works; but the plates being worn out, or ill touched, this edition is far inferior to the first.” The Coronation of K. James II. and Q. Mary," &c. illustrated with sculptures, Savoy, 1687, a most superb work. When James declared he would have the account of his coronation printed, Mr. Sandford and Mr. King, then rouge-dragon, obtained the earl marshal’s consent to execute it; the latter says, the greatest part passed through his hands, as well as the whole management and economy of it, though he declined having his name appear in the title-page, contenting himself with one third part of the property, leaving the honour, and two remaining shares of it, to Mr. Sandford well foreseeing, he says, that they would be maligned for it by others of their office and he was not mistaken, for Sandford, with all the honour, had all the malice, for having opposed the earl marshal’sappointing Mr. Burghill to be receiver of fees of honour for the heralds, and endeavouring to vest it in the king; so that the affair was taken and argued at the council table. The earl marshal, at the insinuation of some of the heraids, suspended him, under pretence that he had not finished the history of the coronation; but he submitting, the suspension was soon taken off. The book at last was not successful, for the publication being delayed until 1687, and the revolution following, which threw a damp on such an undertaking, Messrs. Sandford and King gained no more than their expences, amounting to 600l.

The last act of the archbishop’s life seems to have been the resistance he made against the earl of Leicester, who wanted to wrest from the see a valuable estate. It is to be regretted that after having made this noble stand, our prelate should have granted a long lease of the manor of Scroby to his own family.

the only clergyman belonging to it. In lain, and a well-stored wine-cellar clergyman ever admitted into it, was a member of Emanuel college, Cambridge, where he took his degrees, and was D. D. of both universities. He was rector, first of Bygrave, then of Clottiall, Herts, and lecturer of St. George, Hanover-square, London. In his younger days he had travelled with James, fifth earl of Salisbury, who gave him the great living of Clothall, where Dr. Savage rebuilt the rectory-house. In his more advanced years he was so lively, pleasant, and facetious, that he was called the “Aristippus” of the age. One day, at the levee, George I. asked him, “How long he had stayed at Rome with lord Salisbury” Upon his answering how long, “Why,” said the king, “you stayed long enough, why did you not convert the Pope” “Because, sir,” replied he, “I had nothing better to offer him.” Having been bred at Westminster, he had always Jl great fondness for the school, attended at all their plays and elections, assisted in all their public exercises, grew young again, and, among boys, was a great boy himself. He used to attend the schools, to furnish the lads with extempore epigrams at the elections. He died March 24, 1747, by a fall down the stairs belonging to the scaffolding for lord Lovat’s trial; and the king’s scholars had so great a regard for him, that, after his decease, they made a collection among themselves, and, at their own charge, erected a small tablet of white marble to his memory in the East cloister, with a Latin inscription. Besides a visitation and an assize sermon, Mr. Cole attributes the following works to him: 1. “The Turkish History by Mr. Knolles and sir Paul Rycaut abridged,” 1701, 2 vols. 8vo. This was shewn to sir Paul, who approved of it so much, that he designed to have written a preface to it, had not death prevented him. 2. “A Collection of Letters of the Ancients, whereby is discovered the morality, gallantry, wit, humour, manner of arguing, and in a word the genius of the Greeks and Romans,” 1703, 8vo.

, an eminent instance of the uselessuess and insignificancy of knowledge, wit, and genius, without prudence and a proper regard to the convnon maxims of life, was born in 1698. He was the son of Anne countess of Macclesfield, by the earl of Rivers. He might have been considered as the lawful issue of the earl of Macclesfield; but his mother, in order to procure a separation from her husband, made a public confession of adultery in this instance. As soon as this spurious offspring was brought to light, the countess treated him with every kind of unnatural cruelty. She committed him to the care of a poor woman, to educate as her own. She prevented the earl of Rivers from making him a bequest in his will of 6000l. by declaring him dead. She endeavoured to send him secretly to the American plantations; and at last, to bury him in poverty and obscurity for ever, she placed him as an apprentice to a shoemaker in Holborn. About this time his nurse died; and in searching her effects, which he imagined to be his right, he found some letters which informed him of his birth, and the reasons for which it was concealed. He now left his low occupation, and tried every method to awaken the tenderness, and attract the regard, of his mother: but all his assiduity was without effect; for he could neither soften her heart, nor open her hand, and he was reduced to the miseries of want. By the care of the lady Mason, mother to the countess, he had been placed at the grammar-school at St. AJban’s, where he had acquired all the learning which his situation allowed; and necessity now obliged him to become an author.

He now recovered his liberty, but had no means of subsistence; and a scheme struck him, by which he might compel his mother to do something for him, and extort that from her by satire, which she had denied to natural affection. The expedient proved successful; and lord Tyrconnel, on his promise to lay aside his design, received him into his family, treated him as his equal, and engaged to allow him a pension of 200/, a-year. In this gay period of life, when he was surrounded by affluence and pleasure, he published “The Wanderer, a moral Poem,” 1729, which was approved by Pope, and which the author himself considered as his master-piece. It was addressed to the earl of Tyrconnel, with the highest strains of panegyric. These praises, however, in a short time, he found himself inclined to retract, being discarded by that nobleman on account of his imprudent and licentious behaviour. He now thought himself again at liberty to expose the cruelty of his mother, and accordingly published “The Bastard, a Poem.” This had an extraordinary sale: and, its appearance happening at a time when the countess was at Bath, many persons there in her hearing took frequent opportunities of repeating passages from it, until shame obliged her to quit the place.

, marquis of Halifax, a celebrated statesman, but of equivocal character, was descended from an ancient family in Yorkshire. He was the son of sir William Savile, bart. and Anne, daughter of Thomas lord Coventry, lord keeper of the great seal. He was born, probably about 1630. Upon the death of his father, he succeeded to the title of baronet, and soon distinguished himself by his abilities in public affairs; and being zealous in bringing about the restoration, was created a peer, in consideration of his own and his father’s merits. In 1668 he was appointed of that remarkable committee, which sat at Brook-hall for the examination of the accounts of the money which had been given during the Dutch war, of which no member of the House of Commons was admitted. In April 1672 he was called to a seat in the privy council; and, June following, went over to Holland with the duke of Buckingham and the earl of Arlington, as ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary, to treat about a peace with France, when he met with great opposition from hi* colleagues.

In 1675 he opposed with vigour the non-resisting testbill; and was removed from the council-board the year following by the interest of the earl of Dauby, the treasurer. He had provoked this lord by one of those witticisms in which he dealt so largely. In the examination before the council concerning the revenue of Ireland, lord Widrington confessed that he had made an offer of a considerable sum to the lord treasurer, and that his lordship had rejected it very mildly, and in such a mariner as not to discourage a second attempt. Lord Halifax observed upon this, that “it would be somewhat strange if a man should ask the use of another man’s wife, and the other should indeed refuse it, but with great civility.” His removal was very agreeable to the duke of York, who at that time had a more violent aversion to him than even to Shaftesbury himself, because he had spoken with great firmness and spirit in the House of Lords against the declaration for a toleration. However, upon a change of the ministry in 1679, his lordship was made a member of the new council. The same year, during the agitation of the bill for the exclusion of the duke of York, he seemed averse to it; but proposed such limitations of the duke’s authority when the crown should devolve upon him, as should disable him from doing any harm either in church or state; such as the taking out of his hands all power in ecclesiastical matters^ the disposal of the public money, and the power of peace or war, and lodging these in the two Houses of Parliament; and that the parliament in being at the king’s death should continue without a new summons, and assume the administration; but his lordship’s arguing so much against the danger of turning the monarchy, by the bill of exclusion, into an elective government, was thought the more extraordinary, because he made an hereditary king the subject of his mirth, and had often said “Who takes a coachman to drive him, because his father was a good coachman” Yet he was now jealous of a small slip in the succession; though he at the same time studied to infuse into some persons a zeal for a commonwealth; and to these he pretended, that he preferred limitations to an exclusion, because the one kept up the monarchy still, only passing over one person; whereas the other really introduced a commonwealth, as soon as there was a popish king on the throne. And it was said by some of his friends, that the limitations proposed were so advantageous to public liberty, that a man might be tempted to wish for a popish king, in order to obtain them. Upon this great difference of opinion, a faction was quickly formed in the new council; lord Halifax, with the earls of Essex and Sunderland, declaring for limitations, and against the exclusion, while the earl of Shaftesbury was equally zealous for the latter; and when the bill for it was brought into the House of Lords, lord Halifax appeared with great resolution at the head of the debates against it. This so highly exasperated the House of Commons, that they addressed the king to remove him from his councils and presence for ever: but he prevailed with his majesty soon after to dissolve that parliament, and was created an earl. However, upon his majesty’s deferring to call a new parliament, according to his promise to his lordship, his vexation is said to have been so great as to affect his health, and he expostulated severely with those who were sent to him on that affair, refusing the post both of secretary of state and lord-lieutenant of Ireland. A parliament being called in 1680, he still opposed the exclusion-bill, and gained great reputation by his management of the debate, though it occasioned a new address from the House of Commons to remove him. However, after rejecting that bill in the House of Lords, his lordship pressed them, though without*success, to proceed to limitations; and began with moving that the duke might be obliged to live five hundred miles out of England during the king’s life. In August 1682, he was created a marquis, and soon after made privy-seal, and, upon king James’s accession, president of the council. But on refusing his consent to the repeal of the tests, he was told by that monarch, that, though he could never forget his past services, yet, since he would not comply in that point, he was resolved to have unanimity in his councils, and, therefore, dismissed him from all public employments. He was afterwards consulted by Mr. Sidney, whether he would advise the prince of Orange’s coming over; but, this matter being only hinted, he did not encourage a farther explanation, looking upon the attempt as impracticable, since it depended on so many accidents. Upon the arrival of that prince, he was sent by the king, with the earls of Kochester and Godolphin, to treat with him, then at Hungerford.

In that assembly of the lords which met after king James’s withdrawing himself the first time from Whitehall, the marquis was chosen their president; and, upon the king’s return from Feversham, he was sent, together with the earl of Shrewsbury and lord Delamere, from the prince of Orange, ordering his majesty to quit his palace at Whitehall, and retire to Hull. In the convention-parliament, he was chosen speaker of the House of Lords; and strenuously supported the motion for the vacancy of the throne, and the conjunctive sovereignty of the prince and princess, upon whose accession he was again made privy-seal. But, in the session of 1689, upon the inquiry into the authors of the prosecutions against lord Russell, Algernon Sidney, &c. the marquis, having concurred in these councils in 1683, now quitted the court, and became a zealous opposer of the measures of the government till his death, which happened in April 1695, and was occasioned by a gangrene in a rupture he had long neglected. There seems little in his conduct that is steady, or in his character that is amiable. Towards his end he showed some signs of repentance, which, according to Burnet, were transient. “He was,” says that writer, “a man of great and ready wit, full of life and very pleasant, much turned to satire be let his wit turn upon matters of religion so that he passed for a bold and determined atheist, though he often protested to me, that he was not one, and said, he believed there was not one in the world. He confessed he could not swallow down all that divines imposed on the world; he was a Christian in submission; he believed as much as he could; and hoped, that God would not lay it to his charge, if he could not digest iron as an ostrich did, nor take into his belief things that must burst him. If he had any scruples, they were not sought for nor cherished by him; for he never read an atheistical book in his life. In sickness, I knew him very much affected with a sense of religion I was then often with him, he seemed full of good purposes, but they went off with his sickness he was continually talking of morality and friendship. He was punctual in his payments, and just in all private dealings; but, with relation to the public, he went backward and forward and changed sides so often, that in the conclusion no side trusted him; he seemed full of commonwealth notions, yet he went into the worst part of king Charles’s reign. The liveliness of his imagination was always too hard for his judgment. His severe jest was preferred by him to all arguments whatever; and he was endless in council; for, when after much discourse a point was settled, if he could find a new jest, whereby he could make that which was digested by himself seem ridiculous, he could not hold, but would study to raise the credit of his wit, though it made others call his judgment in question. When he talked to me, as a philosopher, of the contempt of the world, I asked him what he meant by getting so many new titles, which I callecl the hanging himself about with bells and tinsel; he had no other excuse for it but this, that, if the world were such fools as to value those matters, a man must be a fool for company he considered them but as rattles, yet rattles please children so these might be of use to his family.”

By his first wife, daughter of Henry Spencer, earl of Sunderland, he had a son William, who succeeded him; and by a second wife, the daughter of William Pierrepoint, second son of Robert earl of Kingston, he had a daughter Gertrude, who was married to Philip Stanhope, third earl of Chesterfield, and was mother to the celebrated earl, who, says Maty, may be perhaps justly compared to his grandfather in extent of capacity, fertility of genius, and brilliancy of wit. They both, adds he, distinguished themselves in parliament by their eloquence; at court, by their knowledge of the world; in company, by their art of pleasing. They were both very useful to their sovereigns, though not much attached either to the prerogative or to the person of any king. They both knew, humoured, and despised the different parties. The Epicurean philosophy was their common study. William, the second marquis of Halitax, died in 1699, when the dignity became extinct in his family, but was revived in 1700 in the person of Charles Montague. The -marquis William left three daughters Anne, married to Charles Bruce, earl of Aylesbury Dorothy, to Richard Boyle, the last earl of Burlington; and Mary, to Sackville Tuftou, earl of Thanet. George,: marquis of Halifax, was the author of some tracts, written with considerable spirit and elegance. Besides his “Character of a Trimmer,” he wrote “Advice to a Daughter;” “The Anatomy of an Equivalent;” “A Letter to a Dissenter, upon his Majesty’s laie Glorious Declaration of Indulgences;” “A rough Draught of a new Model at Sea, in 1694;” “Maxims of State.” Ah which were printed together after his death; and the third edition came out in 1717, 8vo. Since these, /there was alsa published under his name, “The Character of king Charles the Second to which is subjoined, Maxims of State, &c,” 1750, 8vo. “Character of Bishop Burnet,” printed at the end of his “History of his own Times;” “Historical Observations upon the Reigns of Edward I. II. III. and Richard II. with Remarks upon their faithful Counsellors and false Favourites,” 1689. He also left memoirs of his own times* from a journal which he kept every day of all the conversations which he had with Charles II. and the most distinguished men of his time. Of these memoirs two fair copies were made, one of which fell into the hands of Daniel earl, of Nottingham, and was destroyed by him. The other devolved on the marquis’s grand-daughter, lady Burlington, in whose possession it long remained; but Pope, as the late lord Orford informed Mr. Mai one, finding, on a perusal of these memoirs, that the papists of those days were represented in an unfavourable light, prevailed on her to burn them; and thus the public have been deprived of probably a curious and valuable work.

, an eminent lawyer in the seventeenth century, was a member of Magdalen college, Cambridge, where he took his degree of M.A. in 1655,. and was the same year admitted ad eundem at Oxford. He was afterwards a benefactor to the library of his college. After studying law at the Inner Temple, he was admitted to the bar, and had a large share of practice fit London, and on the Oxford circuit. In 1661 he was knighted, and in Feb. 1680, was appointedattorney-general, As a lawyer he formed himself after the lord chief justice Hale, under whom he practised, and of whom he was a just admirer. Like that excellent person, he was a man of general learning, and, according to Granger, of an integrity that nothing could corrupt; but bishop Burnet represents him as a dull hot man, and forward to serve all the designs of the court. Had this been always the case, however, king James would not have dismissed him from the office of attorney general, which he did in 1687, because he perceived that sir Robert could not have been prevailed upon to njould the laws to such purposes as were never intended by the legislatureOn the other hand, Granger allows that he was justly censured for his harsh treatment of lord Russel on his trial, and it is certain that he supported some of king James’s arbitrary measures, being the manager in depriving the city of London of its charter. At the time of the revolution, he sat as member of parliament for the university of Cambridge, and was expelled the house for being concerned, as attorney-general, in the prosecution of sir Thomas Armstrong, who was executed for being one of the conspirators in the Rye-house plot. In the next sessions he was re-chosen, and appears to have sat quietly for the remainder of his life. He died in 1692, at Highclear in Hampshire, where he had an estate, and rebuilt the parish church. His only daughter married the earl of Pembroke, and died in 1706. Under his name, and those of Heneage Finch, sir George Treby, and Henry Pollexfen, were published in 1690, folio, “Pleadings and arguments with other proceedings in the court of king’s bench upon the Quo Warranto, touching the charter of the city of London, with the judgment entered thereupon.”

, was son of a native of Zurich, in Switzerland, lieutenant in the Dutch army at the memorable siege of Bergen-op-Zoom in 1747; when, after a gallant resistance of two months, it was, as generally believed, surprised by the French under marshal Lowendal. Upon quitting the service Mr. Schnebbelie came over to England, and settled in the business of a confectioner, in which capacity he had frequently the honour of attending on king George II. He afterwards opened a shop at Rochester, where one of his sons still resides; and the same profession his son Jacob (who was born Aug. 30, 1760, in Duke’s Court, in the parish of St. Martin in the Fields) followed for some time, first at Canterbury, and afterwards at Hammersmith till, nature pointing out to him the proper road to fame and credit, he quitted his shop and commenced self-taught teacher, at Westminster and other public schools, of the art of drawing, in which he made a proficiency which introduced him to the notice of many among the learned and the great. To the earl of Leicester’s notice he was first introduced by accidentally sketching a view in his park near Hertford, and was employed by him in taking some of the most picturesque landscapes about Tunbridge Wells, with a view to their publication for his benefit. At their noble president’s express recommendation he was appointed draughtsman of the society of antiquaries; and filled that office with equal credit to himself and his patron. The merits of his pencil are too generally known and acknowledged to require any exaggerated eulogium, Happy in a quick eye and a discriminating taste, he caught the most beautiful objects in the happiest points of view; and for fidelity and elegance of delineation, may be ranked high among the list of firstrate artists. The works put forth on his own account are not numerous. In 1781 he intended to publish six views of St. Augustine’s Monastery, to be engraved by Mr. Rogers, &c. five of which. were completed, and one small view of that religious house was etched by himself. In 1787 he etched a plate representing the Serpentine River, part of Hyde Park, with the house of earl Bathurst, a distant view of Westminster Abbey, &c. now the property and in the possession of Mr. Jukes, intended to be aquatinted for publication, Mr. Jukes purchased also from him several views of Canterbury cathedral, St. Augustine’s monastery, &c. In March 1788 he published four views of St. Alban’s town and abbey, drawn and etched by himself; which in the November following were published, aquatinted by F. Jukes. About the same time that he set on foot the “Antiquaries Museum,' he became an associate with the late James Moore, esq. F. S. A. and Mr, Parkyns, in the f< Monastic Remains*;” which, after five numbers had appeared, he relinquished to his coadjutors. The assistance he occasionally gave to “The Gentleman’s Magazine,” the smallest part of his merit, it will be needless to particularize; his masterly hand being visible on whatever it was exerted. It is of more consequence to his fame to point out the beauties of many of the plates in the second and third volumes of the “Vetusta Monumenta” of the Society of Antiquaries and in the second volume of the “Sepulchral Monuments of Great Britain ,” the far greater part of the numerous plates in which are after him; or in the very many drawings he had finished, and the sketches he had designed, for Mr. Nichols’s “History of Leicestershire.” He had completed also some views of King’s college chapel at Cambridge, in a style worthy that most beautiful and most perfect of all our gothic buildings, and in a manner which had so far recommended him to royal notice, that, had his life been spared, there is no doubt but he would have been properly distinguished.

When the prince of Orange was almost ready for his expedition into England, marshal Schomberg obtained leave of the elector of Brandenbourg to accompany his highness in that attempt; and, after their arrival at London, he is supposed to have been the author of that remarkable stratagem for trying the affections of the people, by raising an universal apprehension over the kingdom of the approach of the Irish with fire and sword. Upon the prince’s advancement to the throne of England, he was appointed master of the ordnance, and general of his majesty’s forces; in April 1689, knight of the garter, and the same month naturalized by act of parliament; and, in May, was created a baron, earl, marquis, and duke of this kingdom, by the name and title of baron Teys, earl of Brentford, marquis of Harwich, and duke of Schomberg. The House of Commons likewise voted to him 100,000l. for the services which he had done; but he received only a small part of that sum, the king after his death paying his son 5000l. a year for the remainder. In Aug. 1689 he sailed for Ireland, with an army, for the reduction of that kingdom; and, having mustered all his forces there, and finding them to be not above 14,000 men, among whom there were but 2000 horse, he marched to Dundalk, where he posted himself; king James being come to Ardee. within five or six miles of him, with above thrice his number. Schomberg, therefore, being disappointed of the supplies from England, which had been promised him, and his army being so greatly inferior to the Irish, resolved to keep himself on the defensive. He lay there six weeks in a rainy season; and his men, for want of due management, contracted such diseases that almost one half of them perished.

Dr. Schomberg had a younger brother, Ralph Schomberg, M. D. who first settled at Yarmouth as a physician^ and published some works on professional subjects that indicated ability, and others from which he derived little reputation. Of the former kind are, 1. “Aphorismi practici, sive observationes medicse,” for the use of students, and in alphabetical order, 1750, 8vo. 2. “Prosperi Martiani Annotationes in csecas praenotationes synopsis,” 175 1 * 3. “Van Swieten’s Commentaries” abridged. 4. “A Treatise of the Colica Pictonum, or Dry Belly-ache,” 1764, 8vo. 5. “Duport de signis morborum libri quatuor,” 1766. Of the latter, are some dramatic pieces of very little value, and 6. “An Ode on the present rebellion,” 1746. 7. “An Account of the present rebellion,” 1746. 8. “The Life of Maecenas,” 1767, 12mo, taken without acknowledgment from Meibomius. 9. “A critical Dissertation on the characters and Writings of Pindar and Horace, in a letter to the right hon. the earl of B” also a shame* ful instance of plagiarism from Blondell’s “Comparison de Pindare et D' Horace.” It would have been well if his pilferings had only been from books; but after he had removed to Bath, and practised there some years with considerable success, he tried his skill upon the funds of a public charity, and, detection following, was obliged to make a precipitate retreat from Bath, and from public practice. He appears to have hid himself first at Pangbourn in Berkshire, and afterwards at Heading, where he died June 29, 1792. In the obituary he is called “Ralph Schornberg, Esq.”

* In Trinity term, 1624, he was concerning him were respited until this chosen reader of Lyon’s-lnn, but re- term. Now this day being called agairt fused to perform that office. In the to the table, he doth absolutely refuse register of the Inner Temple is the fol- to read. The masters of the bench, lowing passage “Whereas an order taking into consideration his contempt was made at the Bench-Table this term, add offence, and for that it is without ince the last parliament, and entered precedent, that any man elect-d to into the buttery-book in these words; read in chancery has been discharged Jovtslldie Octobrls 1624. Memoran- in like case, much less has with such dum, that whereas John Selden, esq. wilfulness refused the same, have orone of the utter barristers of this house, dered, that he shall presently pay to *ras in Trinity term last, chosen reader the use of this house the sum of 20J. of Lyon’s-lnn by the gentlemen of the for his fine, and that he stand and be same house, according to the order of disabled ever to be called to the bench, their house, which he then refused to or to be a reader of this house. Now take upon him, and perform the same, at this parliament the said order is coriwithout some sufficient cause or good firmed; and it is further ordered, that reason, notwithstanding many ccwirte- if any of this house, which hereafter ous and fair persuasions and admoni- shall be chosen to read in chancery, tions by the masters of the bench made shall refuse to read, every such offender to him; forwhich cause he having been shall be fined, and be disabled to be twice convented before the masters of called to the bench, or to be a reader the bench, it was then ordered, that of this house.” However, in Michaelthere should be a nt reclpiatur entered mas term 1632, it was ordered, that upon his name, which was done accord- Mr. Seldea “shall stand enabled and ingly and in respect the beneh was be capable of any preferment in the not then full, the farther proceedings House, in such a manner as other drawing up articles of impeachment against the duke of Buckingham, and was afterwards appointed one of the managers for the House of Commons on his trial. In 1627 he opposed the loan which the king endeavoured to raise, and although he seldom made his appearance at the har, pleaded in the court of King’s Bench for Hampden, who had been imprisoned for refusing to pay his quota of that loan. After the third parliament of Charles I. in which he sat for Lancaster, had been prorogued, he retired to Wrest in Bedfordshire, a seat belonging to the earl of Kent, where he finished his edition of the” Marmora Arundelliana," Loud. 1621), 4to, reprinted by Prideaux, with additions at Oxford, in 1676, folio, and by Maittaire, at London, 1732, in folio.

In this same year, 1640, Selden was chosen member for the university of Oxford, and that year and the following continued Jo oppose the measures of the court, but his. coneliiet may to some appear unsteady. In truth, he attempted what in those days was impossible, to steer a middle course. He supported the republican party in the measures preparatory to the sacrifice of the earl of Strafford, but was not one of their Committee for managing the impeachment, and his name was even inserted in a list of members, posted up in Old Palace Yard by some party zealots, and branded with the appellation of " enemies of justice.*' On the subject of church-government, although he seems to have entertained some predilection for the establishment, yet he made no effort to prevent its fall, at all commensurate to his knowledge and credit. In the debates on the question whether bishops sat in parliament as barons and peers of the realm, or as prelates, he gave it as his opinion that they sat as neither, but as representatives of the clergy; and this led to the expulsion of them from parliament. Afterwards we find him concurring with other members of the House of Commons in a protestation that they would maintain the protestant religion according to the doctrine of the church of England, and would defend the person and authority of the king, the privileges of parliament, and the rights of the subject. In the prosecution of archbishop Laud, Selden was among those who were appointed to draw up articles of impeachment against him, an office which must have produced a severe contest between his private feelings and his public duties.

Selden was a man of extensive learning, and had as much skill in the Hebrew and Oriental languages as perhaps any man of his time, Pocock excepted. Grotius, over whom he triumphed in his “Mare clausum,” styles him “the glory of the English nation.” He was knowing in all laws, human and divine, yet did not greatly trouble himself with the practice of law: he seldom appeared at the bar, but sometimes gave counsel in his chamber. “His mind also,” says Whitelocke, “was as great as his learning; he was as hospitable and generous as any man, and as good company to those he liked.” Wilkins relates, that he was a man of uncommon gravity and greatness of soul, averse to flattery, liberal to scholars, charitable to the poor; and that, though he had a great latitude in his principles with regard to ecclesiastical power, yet he had a sincere regard for the church of England. Baxter remarks, that “he was a resolved se-> rious Christian, a great adversary, particularly, to Hobbes’s errors;” and that sir Matthew Hale affirmed, “how he had seen Selden openly oppose Hobbes so earnestly, as either to depart from him, or drive him out of the room.” But the noblest testimony in his favour is that of his intimate friend the earl of Clarendon, who thus describes him in all parts of his character: “Mr. Selden was a person,” says he, “whom no character can flatter, or transmit in any expressions equal to his merit and virtue. He was of such stupendous learning in all kinds and in all languages, as may appear from his excellent and transcendant writings, that a man would have thought he had been entirely conversant among books, and had never spent an hour but in reading or writing; yet his humanity, courtesy, and affability, was such, that he would have been thought to have been bred in the best courts, but that his good-nature, charity, and delight in doing good, and in communicating all he knew, exceeded that breeding. His style in all his writings seems harsh, and sometimes obscure; which is not wholly to be imputed to the abstruse subjects of which he commonly treated, out of the paths trod by other men, but to a little undervaluing the beauty of a style , and too much propensity to the language of antiquity: but in his conversation he was the most clear discourser, and had the best faculty in making hard things easy, and present to the understanding, of any man that hath been known.” His lordship also used to say, that *' he valued himself upon nothing more than upon having had Mr. Selden’s acquaintance, from the time he was very young; and held it with great delight as long as they were suffered to continue together in London: and he was very much troubled always when he heard him blamed, censured, and reproached for staving in London, and in the parliament, after they- were in rebellion, and in the worst times, which his age obliged him to do; and how wicked soever the actions were, which were every day done, he was confident he had not given his consent to them, but would have hindered them if he could with his own safety, to which he was always enough indulgent. If he had some infirmities with other men, they were weighed down with wonderful and prodigious abilities and excellences in the other scale.“The political part of Selden’s life, is that which the majority of readers will contemplate with least pleasure; but on this it is unnecessary to dwell. The same flexibility of spirit, which made him. crouch before the reprehension of James I. disfigured the rest of his life, and deprived him of that dignity and importance which would have resulted from his standing erect in any place he might have chosen. Clarendon seems to have hit the true cause of all, in that anxiety for his own safety to which, as he says,” he was always indulgent enough."

, duke of Somerset, and uncle to Edward VI. was eldest son of sir John Seymour of Wolfhall, in the county of Wilts, knt. by Elizabeth daughter of sir Henry Wentworth, of Nettlested in Suffolk. He was educated at the university of Oxford, whence returning to his father at court, when martial achievements were encouraged by Henry VIII. he joined the army, and accompanying the duke of Suffolk in his expedition to France in 1533, was knighted by him Nov. 1, of that year. Upon his sister’s marriage with the king in 1536, he had the tide of viscount Beauchamp bestowed upon him, in consequence of his descent from an heir female of that house; and in Oct. 1537 was created earl of Hertford. In 1540 he was sent to France to dispute the limits of the English borders, and on his return was elected knight of the garter. In 1542 he attended the duke of Norfolk in his expedition into Scotland, and the same year was made lord great chamberlain of England for life. In 154-4, being made lieutenant-general of the north, he embarked for Scotland with two hundred sail of ships, on account of the Scots refusing to marry their young queen to prince Edward; and landing in the Frith, took Leith and Edinburgh, and after plundering and burning them, marched by land into England. In August of the same year, he went to the assistance of the king at the siege of Boulogne, with several German and Flemish troops; and after taking it, defeated an army of 14,000 French, who lay encamped near it. By the will of Henry VIII. he was appointed one of the sixteen persons, who were to be his majesty’s executors, and governors of his son, till he should be eighteen years of age. Upon Edward’s accession to the crown, it was proposed in council, that one of the sixteen should be chosen, to whom the ambassadors should address themselves, and who should have the chief direction of affairs, though restrained from acting without the consent of the major part of the rest. The lord chancellor Wriothesly, who thought the precedence in secular affairs belonging to him by his office, opposed this strongly, and urged, that it was changing the king’s will, who had made them equal in power and dignity; and if any was raised above the rest in title, it would be impossible to keep him within just bounds, since greater titles made way for exorbitant power. But the earl of Hertford had so prepared his friends, that he was declared governor of the king’s person, and protector of the king*, dom, with this restriction, that he should not act without the advice and consent of the rest. In consequence of this measure, two distinct parties were formed; the one headed by the new protector, and the other by the chancellor; the favourers of the reformation declaring for the former, and the enemies of it for the latter. On Feb. 10, 1547-8, the protector was appointed lord treasurer, and the next day created duke of Somerset, and on the 17th of that month, had a grant of the office of earl marshal of England for life. On March 12th following, he had a patent for the office of protector and governor of the king and his realms. By this patent he had a negative in the council, but they had none on him; and he could either bring his own adherents into it, or select a cabinet-council out of it at pleasure; while the other executors,' having thus delivered up their authority to him, were only privy-counsellors like the rest, without retaining any authority peculiar to themselves, as was particularly provided by Hemy Vlllth’s will. In August 1548 the protector took a commission to be general, and to make war in Scotland, and accordingly entered that kingdom, and, on Sept. 10, gained a complete victory at Musselburgh, and on the 29th returned to England triumphantly, having, with the loss of but sixty men in the whole expedition, taken eighty pieces of cannon, bridled the two chief rivers of the kingdom by garrisons, and gained several strong places.

It may easily be imagined how much these successes raised his reputation in England, especially when it was remembered what great services he had done formerly against France so that the nation in general had vast expectations from his government but the breach between him and his brother, the lord high admiral of England, lost him the present advantages. The death of the admiral also, in March 1548, drew much censure on the protector; though others were of opinion that it was scarce possible for him to do more for the gaining his brother than he had done. In September 1549, a strong faction appeared against him, under the influence and direction of Wriothesly earl of Southampton, who hated him on account of losing the office of lord chancellor, and Dudley earl of Warwick, who expected to have the principal administration of affairs upon his removal; and other circumstances concurred to raise him enemies. His partiality to the commons provoked the gentry; his consenting to the execution of his brother, and his palace in the Strand, erected on the ruins of several churches and other religious buildings, in a time both of war and pestilence, disgusted the people, The clergy hated him, not only for promoting the changes in religion, but likewise for his enjoying so many of the best manors of the bishops; and his entertaining foreign troops, both German and Italian, though done by the consent of the council, gave general disgust. The privy counsellors complained of his being arbitrary in his proceedings, and of many other offences, which exasperated the whole body of them against him, except archbishop Cranmer, sir William Paget, and sir Thomas Smith, secretary of state. The first discovery of their designs induced him to remove the king to Hampton Ctuirt, and then to Windsor; but finding the party against him too formidable to oppose, he submitted to the council, and on the 14th of October was committed to the Tower, and in January following was fined in the sum of two thousand pounds a year, with thg loss of all his offices and goods. However, on the 16th of February, 1549-50, he obtained a full pardon, and so managed his interest with the king, that he was brought both to the court and council in April following: and to confirm the reconciliation between him and the earl of Warwick, the duke’s daughter was married, on the 3d of June, 1550, to the lord viscount Lisle, the earl’s son. But this friendship did not continue long; for in October 1551, the earl, now created duke of Northumberland, caused the duke of Somerset to be sent to the Tower, alledging^ that the latter had formed a design of raising the people; and that when himself, and the marquis of Northampton^ and the earl of Pembroke, had been invited to dine at the lord Paget’s, Somerset determined to have set upon them by the way, or to have killed them at dinner; with other particulars of that kind, which were related to the king in so aggravated a manner, that he was entirely alienated from his uncle. On the first of December the duke was brought to his trial, and though acquitted of treason, was found guilty of felony in intending to imprison the duke of Northumberland. He was beheaded on Tower-hill on the 22d of January, 1551-2, and died with great serenity. It was generally believed, that the conspiracy, for which he suffered, was a mere forgery; and indeed the not bringing the witnesses into the court, but only the depositions, and the parties themselves sitting as judges, gave great occasion to condemn the proceedings against him. Besides, his four friends, who were executed for the same cause, ended their lives with the most solemn protestations of their innocence.

Somerset left three daughters, Anne, Margaret, and Jane, who were distinguished for their poetical talents. They composed a century of Latin distichs on the death of Margaret de Valois, queen of France, which were translated into the French, Greek, and Italian languages, and printed in Paris in 1551. Anne, the eldest of these ladies, married first the earl of Warwick, the son of the duke of Northumberland, already mentioned, and afterwards sir Edward Hunton. The other two died single. Jane was maid of honour to queen Elizabeth.

, an English dramatic poet, was descended of a good family in the county of Stafford, but born at Stanton-hail, in Norfolk, a seat of his father’s, about 1640. He was educated at Cains college in Cambridge, and afterwards placed in the Middle Temple; where he studied the law some time, and then went abroad. Upon his return from his travels he applied himself to the drama, and wrote seventeen plays, with a success which introduced him to the notice of several persons of wit and rank, by whom he was highly esteemed. At the Revolution he was, by his interest with the earl of Dorset, made historiographer and poet-laureat; and when some persons urged that there were authors who had better pretensions to the laurel, his lordship is said to have replied, " that he did not pretend to determine how great a poet Shadwell might be, but was sure that he was an honest man.' 7 He succeeded Dryden as poet-laureat; for Dryden had so warmly espoused the opposite interest, that at the Revolution he was dispossessed of his place. This, however, Dryden considered as an indignity, and resented it very warmly. He had once been on friendly terms with Shadwell, but some critical differences appear to have first separated them, and now Dryden introduced Shadwell in his Mac-Fleckno, in these lines:

Our author’s son, Dr. John Shadwell, was physician to queen Anne, George I. and George II. by the former of whom he was knighted. In August 1609, he attended the earl of Manchester, who then went to Paris as ambassador extraordinary to Louis XIV. and continued there with that nobleman till his return to England in Sept. 1701. He died Dec. 4, 1747.

Mr. Rowe regrets that he cannot inform us which was the first play he wrote. More skilful research has since found that Romeo and Juliet, and Richard II. and III. were printed in 1597, when he was thirty-three years old; there is also some reason to think that he commenced a dramatic writer in 1592, and Mr. Malone even places his first, play, “First part of Henry VI.” in 1589. His plays, however, must have been not only popular, but approved by persons of the higher order, as we are certain that he enjoyed the gracious favour of Queen Elizabeth, who was very fond of the stage, and the particular and affectionate patronage of the earl of Southampton, to whom he dedicated his poems of “Venus and Adonis,” and his “Rape of Lucrece.” On sir William Davenant’s authority, it has been asserted that this nobleman at one time gave him a thousand pounds to enable him to complete a purchase. At the conclusion of the advertisement prefixed to Lintot*s edition of Shakspeare’s Poems, it is said, “That most learned prince and great patron of learning, king James the first, was pleased with his own hand to write an amicable letter to Mr. Shakspeare: which letter, though now lost, remained long in the hands of sir William D'Avenant, as a credible person now living can testify.” Dr. Farmer with great probability supposes, that this letter was written by king James, in return for the compliment paid to him in Macbeth. The relator of the anecdote was Sheffield, duke of Buckingham. These brief notices, meagre as they are, may show that our author enjoyed high favour in his day. Whatever we may think of king James as a “learned prince,” his patronage, as well as that of his predecessor, was sufficient to give celebrhy to the founder of a new stage. It may be added, that Shakspeare’s uncommon merit, his candour, and good-nature, are supposed to have procured him the admiration and acquaintance of every person distinguished for such qualities. It is not difficult, indeed, to suppose that Shakspeare was a man of humour, and a social companion, and probably excelled in that species of minor wit, not ill adapted to conversation, of which it could have been wished he had been more sparing in his writings.

“If tradition may be trusted, Shakspeare often baited at the Crown inn or tavern in Oxford, in his journey to and from London. The landlady was a woman of great beauty and sprightly wit, and her husband, Mr. John Davenant, (afterwards mayor of that city) a grave melancholy man; xvho, as well as his wife, used much to delight in Shaks^ peare’s pleasant company. Their son, young Will. Davenant, (afterwards sir William) was then a little school-boy in the town, of about seven or eight years old, and so fond also of Shakspeare, that whenever he heard of his arrival, he would fly from school to see him. One day an old townsman observing the boy running homeward almost out of breath, asked him whither he was posting in that heat and hurry. He answered to see his god-father Shakspeare. `There’s a good boy,‘ said the other, ’but have a care that you don‘t take God’s name in vain.’ This story Mr. Pope told me at the earl of Oxford’s table, upon occasion of some discourse which arose about Shakspeare’s monument then newly erected in Westminster abbey.”

In the year 1741, a monument was erected to our poet in Westminster Abbey, by the direction of the earl of Burlington, Dr. Mead, Mr. Pope, and Mr. Martyn. It was the work of Scheemaker (who received 300l. for it), after a design of Kent, and was opened in January of that year. The performers of each of the London theatres gave a benefit to defray the expences, and the Dean and Chapter of Westminster took nothing for the ground. The money received by the performers at Drury-Iane theatre amounted to above 200l. but the receipts at Covent-garden did not exceed 100l. From these imperfect notices, which are all we have been able to collect from the labours of his biographers* and commentators, our readers will perceive that less is known of Shakspeare than of almost any writer who has been considered as an object of laudable curiosity. Nothing could be more highly gratifying than an account of the early studies of this wonderful man, the progress of his pen, his moral and social qualities, his friendships, his failings, and whatever else constitutes personal history. But on all these topics his contemporaries and his immediate successors have been equally silent, and if aught can hereafter be discovered, it must be by exploring sources which have hitherto escaped the anxious researches of those who have devoted their whole lives, and their most vigorous talents, to revive his memory and illustrate his writings. In the sketch. we have given, if the dates of his birth and death be excepted, what is there on which the reader can depend, or for which, if he contend eagerly, he may not be involved in controversy, and perplexed with contradictory opinions and authorities

, archbishop of St. Andrew’s, and the third prelate of that see who suffered from popular or private revenge, was born of a good family in Banffshire in 1618. In his youth he displayed such a capacity as determined his father to dedicate him to the church, and to send him to the university of Aberdeen, whence, on account of the Scottish covenant, made in 1638, he retired into England, and was in a fair way of obtaining promotion from his acquaintance with doctors Sanderson, Hammond, Taylor, and other of our most eminent divines, when he was obliged to return to his native country on account of the rebellion, and a bad state of health. Happening by the way to fall into company with lord Oxenford, that nobleman was pleased with his conversation, and carried him to his own house in the country. Here he became known to several of the nobility, particularly to John Lesley, earl of Rothes, who patronized him on account of his merit, and procured him a professorship in St. Andrew’s. After some stay here with growing reputation, through the friendship of the earl of Cranford, he was appointed minister of Crail. In this town he acquitted himself of his ministry in an exemplary and acceptable manner; only some of the more rigid sort would sometimes intimate their fears that he was not sound; and it is very certain that he was not sincere.

The earl of Lauderdale and he had a meeting with ten of the chief presbyterian ministers in London, who all agreed upon the necessity of bringing in the king upon covenant terms. At the earnest desire of Monk and the leading presbyterians of Scotland, Sharp was sent over to king Charles to Breda, to solicit him to own the cause of presbytery. He returned to London, and acquainted his friends, “that he found the king very affectionate to Scotland, and resolved not to wrong the settled government of their church:” at last he came to Scotland, and delivered to some of the ministers of Edinburgh a letter from the king, in which his majesty promised to protect and preserve the government of the church of Scotland, “as it is settled by law.” The clergy, understanding this declaration in its obvious meaning, felt all the satisfaction which such a communication could not fail to impart; but Sharp, who had composed the letter, took this very step to hasten the subversion of the presbyterian church government, and nothing could appear more flagitious than the manner in which he had contrived it should operate. When the earl of Middleton, who was appointed to open the parliament in Scotland as his majesty’s commissioner, first read this extraordinary letter, he was amazed, and reproached Sharp for having abandoned the cause of episcopacy, to which he had previously agreed. But Sharp pleaded that, while this letter would serve to keep the presbyterians quiet, it laid his majesty under no obligation, because, as he bound himself to support the ecclesiastical government “settled by law,” parliament had only thus to settle episcopacy, to transfer to it the pledge of the monarch. Even Middleton, a man of loose morals, was shocked with such disingenuity, and honestly answered, that the thing might be done, but that for his share, he did not love the way, which made his majesty’s first appearance in Scotland to be in a cheat. The presbyterian government being overturned by the parliament, and the bishops restored, Sharp was appointed archbishop of St. Andrew’s; and still, in consistence with his treacherous character, endeavoured to persuade his old friends, that he had accepted this high office, to prevent its being filled with one who might act with violence against the presbyterians.

In 1693, he visited his diocese, when he found the collegiate church of Southwell in the greatest confusion, its government neglected, and its members in distraction and animosity. By the wisdom and moderation of his excellent “Injunctions,” he restored it to its former decency, order, and hospitality. In 1697, as metropolitan he represented to the king, that the see of Sodor and Man had continued vacant four years, with which his majesty perhaps might not be acquainted; that, of necessity, it ought to be filled; and that the patron of the bishopric should be reminded, that any further delay would preclude his nomination. The isle of Man was greatly indebted to the archbishop for this remonstrance, as it occasioned the earl of Derby, the patron of the see, to insist on the primitive Wilson’s acceptance of it: whose modesty had before declined the honour, and who could not even now receive it, without saying, “he was forced into the bishopric.”

, an ingenious poet, was born at Ravensworth, near Richmond in Yorkshire, about the year 1738 or 1739. His father was a person in low circumstances, and followed the occupation of a shoemaker. Our author was first put to school at Kirkbyhill, in his father’s neighbourhood; but he was soon removed to Scorton, five miles from Richmond, where, after having gone through a common course of education, he was appointed usher. Some lime after he became usher to the grammar-school at Darlington under Mr. Metcalf, and while there published his first poem, in 1756, called “Liberty. Humbly inscribed to the Right Hon. the Earl of Darlington,” 4to. During his residence at this place he began to shew that negligence of the dictates of prudence, and the rules of economy, which marked his future life, insomuch that he was obliged to quit his post and the country; and with nothing but his talents came in quest of fortune to the metropolis.

About this time he wrote an account of the virtues of a then popular medicine, called “The Beaume de Vie,” and was admitted as a partner to a proportion of the profits arising from it. He had hitherto led a dissipated life, but becoming sensible of it married, and for a short time had the care of the last earl of Chesterfield, then an infant, to instruct him in the first rudiments of literature. He also issued proposals for publishing his poems by subscription; but this was never executed, and he returned the money he had received. In 1768, he lost his wife in child bed, of her first child, and on this occasion wrote his best performance, entitled “A Monody to the memory of a young Lady, by an afflicted Husband,” 4to. The child, which was a daughter, lived but a short time after its, mother, and Mr. Shaw again lamented his second loss in strains not inferior to the former, inserted in vol. III. of Pearch’s Poems. The publication of these introduced him to the notice of the first lord Lyttelton, but it does not appear that he derived any advantage from his lordship’s acquaintance.

, duke of Buckinghamshire, a poet and wit of the seventeenth century, was born in 1649, and Was the son of Edmund^ earl of Mulgrave. At nine years of age he lost his father, and his mother marrying again soon after, the care of his education was left entirely to the conduct of a tutor, who, though himself a mau of learning, had not that happy manner of communicating his knowledge by which his pupil could reap any great improvement under him. In consequence of which, when he came to part from his governor, after having travelled with him into France, he quickly discovered, in the course of his conversation with men of genius, that though he had acquired the politer accomplishments of a gentleman, yet that he was still greatly deficient in every part of literature, and those higher excellencies, without which it is impossible to rise to any considerable degree of eminence. He therefore resolved to educate himself, and dedicate for some time a certain number of hours every day to study. Such a purpose, 'says Dr. Johnson, formed at such an age, and successfully prosecuted, delights as it is strange, and instructs as it is real. By this means he very soon acquired a degree of learning which entitled him to the character of a scholar; and his literary acquisitions are the more wonderful, as those years in which they are commonly made were spent by him in the tumult of a military life, or the gaiety of a court. When war was declared against the Dutch, he went at the age of seventeen on board the ship in which princ Rupert and the duke of Albemarle sailed, with the command of the fleet; but by contrariety of winds they were restrained from action. His zeal, however^ for the king’s service was recompensed by the command of one of the independent troops of horse, then raised to protect the coast,

Next year he received a summons to parliament, which, as he was then but eighteen years old, the earl of Northumberland censured as at least indecent, and his objection was allowed. When the second Dutch war broke out in 1672, he went again a volunteer in the ship which the celebrated lord Ossory commanded, and who represented his behaviour so favourably, that he was advanced to the command of the Catharine, the best second-rate ship in the navy. He afterwards raised a regiment of foot, and commanded it as colonel. The land forces were sent ashore by prince Rupert: and he lived in the camp very familiarly with Schomberg. He was then appointed colonel of the old Hollaud regiment, together with his own, and had the promise of a garter, which he obtained in his twenty-fifth year. He was likewise made gentleman of the bed-chamber. He afterwards went into the French service, to learn the art of war under Turenne, but staid only a short time. Being by the duke of Monmouth opposed in his pretensions to the first troop of horseguards, he, in return, made Monmouth suspected by the duke of York. He was not long after, when Monmouth fell into disgrace, recompensed with the lieutenancy of Yorkshire, and the government of Hull.

When in 1680, the Moors besieged Tangier, lord Mulgrave was sent to its relief, with two thousand men. And now, says Dr. Johnson, a strange story is told of the danger to which he was intentionally exposed in a leaky ship, to gratify some resentful jealousy of the king. For this jealousy historians assign different causes. Some imagine that the king had discovered an intrigue between lord Mulgrave and one of his mistresses; a*nd others attribute his majesty’s resentment to proposals of marriage, which his lordship was bold enough to make to the princess Anne. It is added, that " be the cause what it would, it is apparent it was intended that lord Mul grave should be lost in the passage; a vessel being provided to carry him over, which had been sent home as unserviceable, and was in so shattered a condition, that the captain of her declared he was afraid to make the voyage. On this his lordship applied, not on)y to the lord high admiral, but to the king himself. These remonstrances, however, were in vain no redress was to be had and the earl, who saw the trap laid for him by his enemies, was compelled to throw himself into almost inevitable danger to avoid the imputation of cowardice, which of all others he had the greatest detestation of. He, however, dissuaded several volunteers of quality from accompanying him in the expedition; only the earl of Plymouth, the king’s natural son, piqued himself on running the same hazard with a man, who, in spite of the ill treatment he met with from the ministry, could so valiantly brave every danger in the service of his father.

In the revolution he acquiesced, though he did not promote it, and when king James, in opposition to the advice of his friends, did quit the kingdom, he appears to have been one of the lords who wrote such letters to the fleet, the army, and all the considerable garrisons in England, as persuaded them to continue in proper order and subjection. To his humanity, direction, and spirited behaviour in council also, his majesty stood indebted for the protection he obtained from the lords in London, upon his being seized and insulted by the populace at Feversham in Kent. There was once a design of associating him in the invitation of the prince of Orange; but the earl of Shrewsbury discouraged the attempt, by declaring that Mulgrave would never concur. This king William afterwards told him and asked what he would have done if the proposal had been made “Sir,” said he, “I would have discovered it to the king whom I then served.” To which king William replied, “I cannot blame you.”

In 1710, the whig ministry beginning to give ground, his grace, who was strongly attached to tory principles, joined with Mr. Harley, afterwards earl of Oxford, in such measures as brought about a change in the ministry, shook the power, of the duke and duchess of Marlborough, and introduced Mr. Harley, the earl of Shrewsbury, lord Bolingbroke, &c. into the administration. Her majesty now offered to make him chancellor, which he refused, but in 1711 was appointed steward of her majesty’s household, and president of the council, and on her decease, in 1713, was nominated one of the lords justices in Great Britain, till the arrival of king George I. from Hanover.

, archbishop of Canterbury, was youngest son of Roger Sheldon of Stanton in Staffordshire, and was born there July 19, 1593. His Christian name was given him at his baptism by Gilbert earl of Shrewsbury, to whom his father was a menial servant, although descended from the ancient family of the Sheldons of Staffordshire. In the latter end of 1613 he was admitted a commoner of Trinity college, Oxford, and took the degree of bachelor of arts Nov. 27, 1617, and that of master, May 20, 1620. In 1622 he was elected fellow of All Souls’ college, and about the same time entered into holy orders, and afterwards became domestic chaplain to the lord keeper Coventry, who gave him a prebend of Gloucester. The lord keeper had a high esteem for him, and employed him^ in various affairs relating both to church and state. Lord Clarendon, who mentions this, adds, that Sheldon was very early looked upon as equal to any preferment the church could yield; and sir Francis Wen man would often say, when Sheldon visited at lord Falkland’s house, that “he was born and bred to be archbishop of Canterbury.” Lord Coventry therefore recommended him to Charles I, as a person well versed in political affairs. He was some time rector of Ickford in Bucks, and presented to the rectory of Newington by archbishop Laud. November 11, 1628, he proceeded bachelor of divinity; and, May 2, 1632, he was presented by the king to the vicarage of Hackney in Middlesex, then void by the promotion of David Dolben to the bishopric of Bangor. On June 25, 1634, he compounded for his degree of doctor of divinity; and in the middle of March 1635, was elected warden of All Souls* college. About the same time he wrote some letters to Mr. Chilling-worth concerning subscription to the thirtynine articles, who had some scruples on that obligation (see Chillingworth). Dr. Sheldon became chaplain in ordinary to his majesty, and was afterwards clerk of the closet, and was intended for master of the Savoy; but the commotions which ensued prevented those promotions. During the rebellion he adhered to the royal cause, and in Feb. 1644- was one of the, king’s chaplains sent by his majesty to attend his commissioners at the treaty of Uxbridge, vvUere he argued so earnestly in favour of the church, as to incur the resentment of the parliamentary commissioners, which they afterwards made him feel. In April 1646 he attended the king at Oxford, and was witness to a remarkable vow which his majesty made there, the purport of which was, that when it should please God to re-establish his throne, he would restore to the church all impropriations, lands, &c. which were taken from any episcopal see, cathedral, collegiate church, &c. This vow, which is in the appendix to Echard’s history, was preserved thirteen years under ground by Dr. Sheldon. In August 1647 there passed some letters between Dr. Sheldon and several gentlemen, then prisoners in the Tower of London for the royal cause, who had scruples about applying for their liberty to the usurping powers, if in the king’s opinion such application should seem prejudicial to his majesty’s interest. On submitting this matter to the king, he gave them permission to act as they should think fit.

During the commotions excited by the popish plot, attempts were made to remove him from his place in the ordnance, as a suspected papist, but these were ineffectual; and his majesty, who appears to have been satisfied with his character and conduct, conferred on him the honour of knighthood, Jan. 6, 1682, As, however, he could not take the oaths on the revolution, he quitted his public employment, and by this step sacrificed his property to his principles. For some time he lived a retired and probably a comfortable life, but poverty at length induced him to seek relief. In 1696, he presented a supplicatory memorial to the earl of Romney, then master general of the ordnance, and another to the king. In both, he represented, in very earnest but modest language, his long and faithful services, his total loss of fortune in the cause of royalty, his extreme indigence, and his advanced age (he being then upwards of eighty-two years old), and concluded with an humble request that an annual stipend for his support might be granted upon the quarter books of the office. The writer to whom we are indebted for this account has not been able to discover that this request was ever complied with. He adds, that sir Edward was well acquainted with the duties of his station, to the discharge of which he dedicated a long life, and was the principal person concerned in drawing up the “Rules, orders, and instructions” given to the office of ordnance in 1683, which with very few alterations, have been confirmed at the beginning of every reign since, and are those by which the office is now governed.

, was born in 1613, at Oxton, in Wirral, in the county of Chester. He received part of his education at Magdalen-hall, in Oxford, whence he removed to Trinity-college, Dublin. He was some time a minister of several parishes in Ireland; but during the civil war he came to England, and was made chaplain to one of his majesty’s regiments at Nantwich, in Cheshire. He was afterwards curate to Dr. Jasper Mayne, 6f Christchurch, at Cassington, an obscure village near Woodstock. About the year 1652, he was retained as chaplain to sir Robert Bindloffe, of Berwick-hall, in Lancashire, where he was much troubled with the Quakers, against whom he wrote several polemical pieces; a species of divinity that ill suited his disposition, as practical Christianity was his delight. About the time of the Restoration he was made doctor of divinity in the university of Dublin; and was, by favour of his patron, James earl of Derby, preferred to the rich benefice of Winwick, which has been valued at 1400l. per annum. He was afterwards the same pious and humble man that he had been before, and seemed to have only this advantage from his preferment, the constant exertion of that charity towards the poor and distressed, which was before a strong, but latent principle with him. His chief work is his “Practical Christian;” to which, in the sixth edition, is prefixed his life, written by Dr. Thomas Wilson, the primitive bishop of Sodor and Man. Hedied June 20, 1689, aged 76.

, a celebrated traveller, second son of Thomas Shirley of Weston, in Sussex, was born in 1565. He studied at Hart-hall, Oxford, where he took his bachelor’s decree in 1581, and in the same year was elected probationer fellow of All Souls College. Leaving the university, he spent some time in one of tru 1 inns of court, after which he travelled on the continent, and joined the English troops, which, at that time, were serving in Holland. In 1596 he was one of the adventurers who went against the Spaniards in their settlements in the West Indies; and on his return, the earl of Essex, with whom he was a great favourite, employed him in the wars in Ireland, for his services in which he was knighted. After this he was sent by the queen into Italy, in order to assist the people of Ferrara in their contest with the pope: but finding that before he arrived, peace had been, signed, he proceeded to Venice, and travelled from thence to Persia, where he became a favourite with Shah Abbas, who sent him as his ambassador to England in 1612. By the 'emperor of Germany he was raised to the dignity of count, and by the king of Spain he was appointed admiral of the Levant seas. Such honours excited the jealousy of James I. who ordered him to return, but this he thought proper to disobey, and is supposed to have died in Spain about the year 1630. There is an account of his West Indian expedition in the third volume of Hakluyt’s collection, under the following title: “A true Relation of the Voyage undertaken by Sir Anthony Shirley, Knight, in 1596, intended for the island San Tome, but performed to St. Jago, Dominica, Margarita, along the Coast of Tien a Firma to the Isle of Jamaica, the Bay of Honduras, thirty leagues up Rio Dolce, and homewards by Newfoundland, with the memorable Exploits achieved in all this Voyage.” His travels into Persia are printed separately, and were published in London in 1613, 4to; and his travels over the Caspian sea, and through Russia, were inserted in Purchas’s Pilgrimages.

, an English dramatic writer and poet, was of an antient family, and born about 1594, in the parish of St. Mar) Wool-church, London. He was educated at Merchant-Taylors school, and thence removed to St. John’s college in Oxford; where Laud, then president of that college, had a good opinion of his talents, yet would often tell him, as Wood relates, that “he was an unfit person to take the sacred function upon him, and should never have his consent;” 'because Shirley had then a large mole upon his left cheek, which appeared a great deformity. Afterwards, leaving Oxford without a degree, he went to Katherine-hall, Cambridge, where he formed a close attachment with Bancroft, the epigrammatist, who has recorded their friendship in one of his epigrams. At Cambridge, Wood supposes he took the degree in arts, as he soon after entered into orders, and took a cure at or near St. Alban’s, in Hertfordshire; but, becoming unsettled in his principles, changed his religion for that of Rome, left his living, and taught a grammar school in the town of St. Alban’s. This employment being after some time uneasy to him, he retired to London, lived in Gray’s-inn, and commenced dramatic writer, which recommended him to the patronage of various persons of rank, especially Henrietta Maria, Charles the First’s queen, who made him her servant. His first comedy is dated 1629, after which he wrote nine or ten, between that year and 1637, when he went to Ireland, under the patronage of George earl of Kildare, to whom he dedicated his tragi-comedy of the “Royal Master,” and by whose influence that comedy was acted in the castle at Dublin, before the lord deputy. From Ireland he returned to England in 1638; but Wood says, that when the rebellion broke out, he was obliged to leave London and his family (for he had a wife and children), and, being invited by his patron, William earl of Newcastle, to accompany him in the wars, he attended his lordship. Upon the decline of the king’s cause, he retired to London; where, among other of his friends, he found Thomas Stanley, esq. author of the “Lives of Philosophers,” who supported him for the present. The acting of plays being now prohibited, he returned to his old occupation of teaching school, which he carried on in White Friars; and educated many youths, who afterwards proved eminent men. At the Restoration, several of his plays were brought upon the theatre again; and it is probable he subsisted very well, though it does not appear how. In 1666 he was forced, with his second wife Frances, by the great fire in September, from his house near Fleet-street, in the parish of St. Giles’s in the fields, where, being extremely affected with the loss and terror that fire occasioned, they both died within the space of twentv-four hours, and were both interred in the same grave, Oct. the 29th.

Besides thirty-seven plays, tragedies and comedies, printed at different times, he published a volume of poems in 1646, some beautiful specimens of which Mr. Ellis has recommended in his judicious selection. He was also the author of three tracts relating to grammar. He assisted his patron the earl, afterwards duke of Newcastle, in composing several plays, which the duke published; and wrote notes for Ogilby’s translations of Homer and Virgil. Wood tells us, that “he was the most noted dramatic poet of his time;” and Langbaine calls him “one of such incomparable parts, that he was the chief of the second-rate poets, and by some even equal to Fletcher himself,” and modern critics tell us that his comedies possess many features of the genuine drama, and deserve republication.

, a strenuous champion for repub-­lican government, who set up Marcus Brutus for his pattern, and died like him in the cause of liberty, was second son of Robert, earl of Leicester, by Dorothy, eldest daughter of Henry Percy, earl of Northumberland; and was born about 1617, or as some say, 1622. Of his education, and how he spent the younger part of his life, we know little. It appears that his father, when he went as ambassador to Denmark in 1632, took him with him, when a mere boy, and again in 1636, when he went as ambassador to France. During the rebellion he adhered to the interest of the parliament, in whose army he was a colonel; and was nominated one of the king’s judges, and as some say, sat on the bench, but was not present when sentence was passed, nor: did he sign the warrant for his execution. His admirers, however, assure us that he was far from disapproving of that atrocious act. He was in truth such a zealous republican, that he became a violent enemy to Cromwell, after “he had made himself protector. In June 1659 he was appointed, by the council of state, to go with sir Robert Houeywood, and Bulstrode Whitelocke, esq. commissioners to the Sound, to mediate a peace between the kings of Sweden and Denmark: but Whitelocke observes, that himself was unwilling to undertake that service,” especially,“says he,” to be joined with those that would expect precedency of me, who had been formerly ambassador extraordinary to Sweden alone; and I knew well the over-ruling temper and height of colonel Sidney. I therefore endeavoured to excuse myself, by reason of my old age and infirmities; but the council pressed it upon me:" which at last he evaded. While Sidney was at the court of Denmark, M. Terlon, the French ambassador there, had the 1 confidence to tear out of the university Album this verse; which the colonel, when it was presented to him, had written in it

Among the fashionable amusements in the court of Elizabeth, tournaments were most in vogue. In 1580, Philip earl of Arundel, and sir William Drury his assistant, challenged all comers to try their feats of arms in those exercises. This challenge was given in the genuine spirit of chivalry in honour of the queen. Among those who gallantly offered themselves as defenders, were Edward Vere, earl of Oxford, lord Windsor, Mr. Philip Sidney, and fourteen others. The victory Was adjudged by her majesty to the earl of Oxford. With this earl of Oxford Sidney had afterwards a serious quarrel, having received a personal insult from him. The queen interposed to prevent a duel, with which Sidney was much dissatisfied, and to compose his mind retired to Wilton, the seat of his brother-in-law the earl of Pembroke. In this seat of rural beauty (and not at Houghton-house, as asserted in Gough’s Camden, which was not built until after his death) he planned the design of the “Arcadia.” It has been conjectured that the Ethiopic history of Heliodorus, which had been recently translated into English prose by Thomas Underdowne, suggested that new mode of writing romance which is pursued in this work; but it seems more probable that he derived the plan of his work from the “Arcadia” of Sannazarius, a complete edition of which was printed at Milan in 1504. The persons introduced by the Italian author are shepherds, and their language, manners, and sentiments are such as suit only the innocence and simplicity of pastoral life. This species of composition may be considered as forming the second stage of romance-writing. The heroism and the gallantry, the moral and virtuous turn of the chivalry-romance, were still preserved; but the dragons, the necromancers, the enchanted castles were banished, and some small resemblance to human nature was admitted. Still, however, there was too much of the marvellous in them to please an age which aspired to refinement. The characters were discerned to be strained, the style swollen, the adventures incredible, and the books themselves were voluminous and tedious. With respect to the “Arcadia,” Sidney formed a just estimate when he characterized it as “an idle composition, as a trifle, and triflingly handled.” He appears indeed to have written it chiefly for his sister’s amusement, to whom he sent it in portions as it came from his pen. He never completed the third book, nor was any part of the work printed during his life. It is said he intended to arrange the whole anew* and to have changed the subject by celebrating the prowess and military deeds of king Arthur, The whole, imperfect as he left it, was corrected by his sister’s pen, and carefully perused by others under her direction, so that it was very properly called “The countess of Pembroke’s Arcadia.” It now lies neglected on the shelf, and has almost sunk into oblivion; yet the reception it obtained from the public, having gone through fourteen impressions, and having been translated into the French, Dutch, and other European languages, clearly evinces that it was once held in very high estimation. “There are,” says his biographer, “passages in this work exquisitely beautiful, and useful observations on life and manners, a variety and accurate discrimination of characters, fine sentiments expressed in strong and adequate terms, animated descriptions, equal to any that occur in the ancient or modern poets, sage lessons of morality, and judicious reflexions on government and policy.”

In 1583 he married Frances, the only surviving daughter and heir of sir Francis Walsingham, a young lady of great beauty and worth, who is said to have endeared herself to him by those lovely qualities which embellish and improve the female character; and about the same time the queen conferred on him the honour of knighthood. She also gave him a sinecure in Wales of the yearly value of 120l. but at what time is uncertain. About 1584 several plots and conspiracies formed against the queen’s person, both at home and abroad, greatly alarmed her. To remove her fears of danger, the nobility and gentry, and indeed men of all degrees and conditions, instituted an association under the direction of the earl of Leicester, binding themselves under the most solemn obligations to prosecute even to death those enemies of their country who should attempt any thing against their sovereign. Of the zeal of sir Philip Sidney at this momentous crisis no doubt can be entertained. While the efforts of Leicester exposed him to the rude censures and severe aspersions of anonymous writers, his nephew took up the pen to vindicate his fame. With this view he composed an answer to a publication, entitled “Leicester’s Commonwealth,” the reputexl author of which was Parsons the noted Jesuit; but sir Philip’s production has not been thought conclusive as to the chief points in dispute, and it remained in ms. until the publication of the Sidney papers in 1746.

The protestant inhabitants of the Netherlands being grievously oppressed by the cruelties of the duke of Alva, implored the assistance of queen Elizabeth, who promised to send a military force to their relief, and on this occasion indulged the martial disposition of sir Philip Sidney, who was now a privy counsellor, by appointing him governor of Flushing, one of the most important places in the Netherlands. Sir Philip, who entered heartily into the cause of the protestant religion, prepared himself cheerfully to sacrifice his life and fortune in this service, and on his arrival at Flushing, Nov. 18, 1585, was immediately appointed colonel of all the Dutch regiments, and captain of a small band of English soldiers amounting to 300 horse and foot. Not long after, the earl of Leicester was sent, with an army of 5000 foot and 1000 horse, to the United Provinces, as general of the English auxiliaries, and sir Philip, promoted to the office of general of the horse under his uncle, joined himself to this army. It would be foreign to our purpose to recount the different causes which obstructed the success of the auxiliaries, or the mischiefs which arose from dissentions among the commanders. Sir Philip, we are told, attempted by wise counsels to reconcile them. In July 1586, accompanied by the young prince Maurice, he took Axell, a town in Flanders, without the loss of a single man; but on September 22, 1586, having engaged with a convoy sent by the enemy to Zutphen, a strong town in Guelderland, then besieged by the Spaniards, the English troops, far inferior in number to those of the enemy, though they gained a decisive victory, sustained an irreparable loss by the death of sir Philip Sidney. Having one horse shot under him, he mounted a second, and seeing lord Willoughby surrounded by the enemy, and in imminent danger, he rushed forward to rescue him. Having accomplished his purpose, he continued the fight with great spirit, until he received a bullet in the left thigh, which proved fatal.

The concluding period of life not seldom presents us with the most prominent features of genuine goodness; and it may be truly said that history does not afford an incident more noble or affecting than the following. As sir Philip was returning from the field of battle, pale, languid, and thirsty with excess of bleeding, he asked for water to quench his thirst. The water was brought, and had no sooner approached his lips, than he instantly resigned it to a dying soldier, whose ghastly countenance attracted his notice, speaking these memorable words: “This man’s necessity is still greater than mine.” He languished until Oct. 17, when he expired in the arms of his secretary and friend Mr. William Temple. He had just arrived at the age of thirty-two years, and had attained in that short period, more fame, more esteem, more admiration, both at home and throughout Europe, than any man of the sixteenth century, and for many years after employed more pens to celebrate his excellent qualities of head and heart. In England a general mourning was observed among those of highest rank, “no gentleman, for many months, appearing in a gay or gaudy dress, either in the city or the court.” His body being brought to England, was interred, with great pomp, in St. Paul’s cathedral. No memorial, however, was erected to him, except a tablet with some very indifferent lines, but his fame did not require aid from brass or marble. For the many testimonies to his uncommon worth and excellence, both by his contemporaries and their successors, we must refer to Dr. Zouch’s elaborate “Memoirs of the Life and Writings of sir Philip Sidney.” There also the petty objections of lord Orford to this illustrious character are fully answered. Both the universities of England lamented the death of sir Philip Sidney in three volumes of elegiac poems, in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Italian. His widow afterwards married Robert Devereux, earl of Essex; and after his death, she married Richard de Burgh, the fourth earl of Clanrickard in the kingdom of Ireland. She became a convert to popery after the death of her second husband, the earl of Essex. There seems little that is very estimable in the marriages and conversion of this lady, and certainly nothing respectful to the memory of her first husband.

, countess of Pembroke, sister of the preceding, manied in 1676, Henry earl of Pembroke; and her eldest son, William, who succeeded to the titles and estates of his father, is the ancestor of the present family. She had received a liberal education, and was distinguished among the literary characters of the age for a highly cuLtivaied mind and superior talents. Congenial qualities and pursuits united her vith her brother sir Pnilip Sidney, in bonds of strict friendship; and, as we have mentioned in his article, he wrote the “Arcadia” for her amusement. To her also Mr. Abraham Fraunce devoted his poetic and literary labours. The countess por 5 sessed a talent for poetical composition, which she assiduously cultivated. She translated from the Hebrew into English verse many of the Psalms, which are said to be preserved in the library at Wilton, and in this was assisted by her brother. She also translated and published “A Discourse ok Life and Death, written in French by Phiiip Mornay, done into English by the countess of Pembroke, dated May 13, 1590, Wilton:” Lond. 1600, 12mo. Likewise, “The Tragedie of Antonie: done into English by the countess of Pembroke,” Lond. 1595, Umo. This little work contains, though not paged, 54 leaves. To these we may add “An Elegy on Sir Philip Sidney,” printed in Spenser’s “Astrophel,” 1595, and a “Pastoral Dialogue in praise of Astrsea,” i. e. queen Elizabeth, published in Davison’s “Poetical Rapsody,” 1602. A long poem in six-line stanzas, entitled “The Countesse of Pembroke’s Passion,” occurs among the Sloanian Mss. No. 1303.

After, however, he took leave of astrology and its emoluments, he was driven to hardships for the subsistence of his family, having married the taylor’s widow with two children, who soon brought him two more. He, therefore, came up to London in 1735 or 1736, and for some time wrought at his business in Spitalfields, and taught mathematics when he had any spare time. His industry soon became so productive, that he was enabled to bring up his wife and children to settle in London. The number of his scholars increasing, and his abilities becoming in some measure known to the public, he issued proposals for publishing, by subscription, “A new Treatise of Fluxions, wherein the Direct and Inverse Method are demonstrated after a new, clear, and concise manner; with their application to Physics and Astronomy. Also the Doctrine of infinite Series and reverting Senes universally and amply explained; fluxionary and exponential Equations solved,” &c. When he first proposed his intentions of publishing such a work, he did not know of any English book founded on the true principles of fluxions, that contained any thing material, especially the practical part; and, though some progress had been made by several learned and ingenious gentlemen, the principles were nevertheless left obscure and defective, and all that had been done by nny of them in “infinite series” very inconsiderable. The book was not published till 1737, 4to; the author having been frequently interrupted from furnishing the press so fast as he could have wished, through his unavoidable attention to his pupils for his immediate support. In 1740 he published “A Treatise on the Nature and Laws of Chance,” in 4to; to which are annexed full and clear Investigati ns of two important Problems added in the second edition of Mr. De Moivre’s “Book on Chances, and two new Methods for summing of Series.” His next performance was, “Essays on several curious and useful subjects in speculative and mixed Mathematics. Dedicated to Francis Blake, esq. since fellow of the Royal Society, and his very good Friend and Patron,” 174-0, 4to. Soon after the publication of this book he was chosen a member of the Royal Academy at Stockholm. Our author’s next work appeared in 1742, 8vo, “The Doctrine of Annuities and Reversions deduced from general and evident Principles: with useful Tables, shewing the values of single and joint lives, &c. at different rates of interest,” &c. This, in 1743, was followed by “An Appendix, containing some Remarks on a late Book on the same subject (by Mr. Abr. De Moivre, F. R. S.) with answers to some personal and malignant representations in the Preface thereof.” To this De Moivre never thought fit to reply. In 1743 he published also “Mathematical Dissertations on a variety of Physical and Analytical subjects,” 4to. This work he dedicated to Martin Folkes, esq. president of the Royal Society. His next book was, “A Treatise of Algebra, wherein the fundamental principles are fully and clearly demonstrated, and applied to the solution of a variety of problems.” To which he added, “The Construction of a great number of geometrical Problems, with the method of resolving them numerically.” This work was designed for the use of young beginners; inscribed to William Jones, esq. F. R. S. and printed in 1745, 8vo. A new edition appeared in 1755, with additions and improvements. This is dedicated to James earl of Morton, F. R. S. Mr. Jones being dead; and there was a sixth edition in 1790. His next work was, “Elements of Geometry, with their application to Mensuration of Superficies and Solids, to the determination of Maxima and Minima, and to the construction of a great variety of Geometrical Problems,” 1747, 8vo, reprinted in 1760, with large alterations and additions, designed for young beginners; particularly for the gentlemen at the king’s academy at Woolwich, and dedicated to Charles Frederick, esq. surveyor-general of the ordnance; and other editions have appeared since*. In 1748 came out his “Trigonometry, Plane and Spherical, with the construction and application of Logarithms,” 8vo. This little book contains several things new and useful. In 1750 appeared in 2 vols. 8vo, “The doctrine and application of Fluxions, containing, besides what is common on the subject, a number of new improvements in the Theory,and the solution of a variety of new and very interesting Problems, in different branches of the Mathematics.” In the preface the author offers this to the world as a new book rather than a second edition of that published in 1737; in which he acknowledges, that, besides errors of the press, there are several obscurities and defects, for want of experience, in his first attempt. This work is dedicated to George earl of Mat-clesfield. In 1752 appeared in 8vo, “Select Exercises for young proficients in Mathematics,” dedicated to John Bacon, esq. F. R. S. His “Miscellaneous Tracts,” printed in 1757, 4to, was his last legacy to the public; a most valuable bequest, whether we consider the dignity and importance of the subjects, or his sublime and accurate manner of treating them. These are inscribed to the earl of Macclesfield, and are ably analyzed in Dr. Hutton’s Dictionary.

During the remaining ten years of his life, he enjoyed a pretty equal share of good health; and continued to occupy himself in correcting and arranging some of his mathematical papers, and occasionally for amusement, in the solution of problems, and demonstration of theorems, which occurred from his own studies, or from the suggestions of others. His conversation on mathematical and other subjects continued to be clear and accurate; yet he had some strong impressions of the decline of his memory, of which he frequently complained; and this probably protracted, and finally prevented his undertaking the publication of some of his works, which were in so advanced a state, that with little trouble they might have been completed for the press. So that his only publication, after resigning his office, was a new and improved edition of Euclid’s Data, which in 1762 was annexed to the 2d edition of the Elements. But from that period, though much solicited to bring forward some of his other works on the ancient geometry, though he knew well how much it was desired, and though he was fully apprised of the universal curiosity excited respecting his discovery of Euclid’s Por-> isms, he resisted every importunity on the subject. A life like Dr. Simson’s, purely academical and perfectly uniform, seldom contains occurrences, the recording of which could be either interesting or useful. But his mathematical labours and inventions form the important part of his character; and with respect to them, there are abundant materials of information in his printed works; and some circumstances also may be gathered from a number of ms papers which he left; and which, by the direction of his executor, are deposited in the library of the college of Glasgow. It is to be regretted, that, of the extensive correspondence which he carried on through life, with many distinguished mathematicians, a small portion only is preserved. Through Dr. Jurin, then Secretary of the Royal Society, he had some intercourse with Dr. Halley, and other distinguished members of that Society. And both about the same time, and afterwards, he had frequent correspondence with Mr. Maciaurin, with Mr. James Stirling, Dr. James Moor, Dr. Matthew Stewart, Dr. Wm. Trail, and Mr. Williamson of Lisbon. In the latter part of his life, his mathematical correspondence was chiefly with that eminent geometer the late earl Stanhope, and with George Lewis Scott, esq.

1. Two general propositions of Pappus, in which many of Euclid’s Porisms are included, vol. Xxxij. ann. 1723. These two propositions were afterwards incorporated into the author’s large posthumous works, published by earl Stanhope. 2. On the Extraction of the Approximate Roots of Numbers by Infinite Series, vol.XLVIII. ann. 1753. The separate publications in his life-time, were, 3. “Conic Sections,” 1735, 4to. 4. “The Loci Plani of Apollonius, restored,” 1749, 4to. 5. “Euclid’s Elements,” 1756, 4to, of which there have been since many editions in octavo, with the additions of Euclid’s Data. In 1776, earl Stanhope printed, at his own expence, several of Dr. Simson’s posthumous pieces: 1. Apollonius’s determinate section. 2. A treatise on Porisms. 3. A tract on Logarithms. 4. On the limits of quantities and ratios; and, 5. Some geometrical problems. Besides these. Dr. Simson’s Mss. contained a great variety of geometrical propositions and other interesting observations on different parts of the mathematics: though not in a state fit for publication. Among other designs, was an edition of the works of Pappus, in a state of considerable advancement, and which, had he lived, he might perhaps have published. What he wrote is in the library of the college of Glasgow, and a transcript was obtained by the delegates of the Clarendon press.

“J. Sceltonus Vates Pierius hie situs est.” Skelton appears to have been a more considerable personage, at one time at least, than his contemporaries would have us to believe. It is certain that he was esteemed a scholar, and that his classical learning recommended him to the office of tutor to prince Henry, afterwards king Henry VIII., who, at his accession, made him royal orator, an office so called by himself, the nature of which is doubtful, unless it was blended with that of laureat. As to his general reputation, Erasmus, in a letter to Henry VIII. styles him “Britannicarum literarum decus et lumen,” a character which must have either been inferred from common opinion, or derived from personal knowledge. Whatever provocation he gave to the clergy, he was not without patrons who overlooked his errors and extravagancies for the sake of his genius, and during the reign of Henry VII. he had the enviable distinction of being almost the only professed poet of the age. Henry Algernon Percy, fifth earl of Northumberland, one of the very few patrons of learned men and artists at that time, appears to have entertained a high regard for our author. In a collection of poems magnificently engrossed on vellum for the use of this nobleman, is an elegy on the death of the earl’s father, written by Skelton. This volume is now in the Bullish Museum, but the elegy may be seen in Skelton’s works, and in Dr. Percy’s Relics.

In 1741, he resumed his useful publications, “The Necessity of Tillage and Granaries, in a letter to a member of parliament,” and a paper published in the Philosophical Transactions, entitled “A curious production of Nature,” giving an account of a species of caterpillar which appeared on the trees at Monaghan. In 1742 he accepted the office of tutor to the late earl of Charlemout; but, owing to a difference with his lordship’s guardian, soon resigned this charge, and returned to his curacy. He had, however, a very high opinion of lord Chariemont, and, in 1743, dedicated to him his “Truth in a Mask,” a pamphlet in which he professes to “give religious truth such a dress and mask as may perhaps procure it admittance to a conference with some of its opposers and contemners:” his biographer, however, does not think he has been very successful in this attempt.

, a poet of some, though not the highest celebrity, was born at Shipbourne, in Kent, April 11, 1722. His father was possessed of about three hundred pounds a year in that neighbourhood, and was originally intended for holy orders. Why he did not enter into holy orders, or what occupation he pursued, we are not told, except that at one time he had acted as steward of the Kentish estates of lord Barnard, afterwards earl of Darlington. His mother was a Miss Gilpin, of the family of the celebrated reformer, Bernard Gilpin; an ancestor, by the father’s side. Mr. Peter Smart had been a prebendary of Durham in the reign of Charles the First, and was accounted by the puritan party as the proto-martyr in their cause, having been degraded and deprived of all his ecclesiastical preferments, fined five hundred pounds, and imprisoned eleven years. When restored to liberty by the parliament, he appeared as a witness against archbishop Laud. The particular libel for which he suffered is written in Latin verse, and was published in 1643. This is probably what the author of the life prefixed to Smart’s poems (edit. 1791) calls “an interesting narrative in a pamphlet.” When our poet was at school his father died, and so much in debt, that his widow was obliged to sell the family estate at a considerable loss. As he had, however, received a liberal education, he is said to have communicated to his son a taste for literature, and probably that turn for pious reflection, which appears in many of hispoetical pieces, and was not interrupted with impunity by the irregularities of his life.

In the same year he published a small miscellany of “Poems on several occasions,” at the conclusion of which he complains again of the reviewers, and betrays that irritability of self-conceit which is frequently observed to precede, and sometimes to accompany derangement of mind. In other respects these poems added little to his fame, and, except one or two, have not been reprinted. In 1764, he published “Hannah,” an oratorio, the music of which was composed by Worgan, and -soon after in the same year, “An Ode to tht Earl of Northumberland,” on his bein<r appointed lord lieutenant of Ireland, with some other pieces. In all these his imagination, although occasionally fine, went often into wild excesses, and evinced that his iniiui had never recovered its sober tone. In his intervals of health and regularity, he still continued to write, and although he perhaps formed too high an opinion of his effusions, he spared no labour when employed by the booksellers, and formed, in conjunction with them, many schemes of literary industry which he did not live to accomplish. In 1765, he published “A Poetical Translation of the Fables of PliEedrus,” with the appendix of Gudius, and an accurate original text on the opposite page. This translation appears to be executed with neatness and fidelity, but has never become popular. His “Translation of the Psalms,” which followed in the same year, affords a melancholy proof of want of judgment and decay of powers. Many of his psalms scarcely rise above the level of Sternhold and Hopkins, and they had the additional disadvantage of appearing at the same time with Merrick’s more correct and chaste translation. In 1767, our poet republished his Horace, with a metrical translation, in which, although we find abundance of inaccuracies, irregular rhymes and redundancies, there are some passages conceived in the true spirit of the original.

During his being abroad, the university created him M. A. by diploma, March 1, 16'j6, a very high mi.rk of respect; and he was also elected to a fellowship, Oct. 31, 1698, though not in orders, the want of which qualification had been sometimes dispensed with in the case of men of eminence, as in that of sir Joseph Williamson himself, and Tickel the poet. While abroad, he visited some foreign courts along with his patron, and was no inattentive observer of the political state of each, as appears by some memoirs he left in ms. concerning the treaty of Ryswick; and he had also a s’hare in the publication of “The Acts and Negotiations, with the particular articles at large of that peace.” Those circumstances, with the talents he displayed both in conversation and correspondence, procured him very flattering offers of political employment!, both from the earl of Manchester and sir Philip Meadows, the one ambassador at the court of France, the other envoy to that of Vienna. But, although he had fully enjoyed the opportunities he had abroad of adding to his knowledge of the world, his original destination to the church remained unaltered, and to accomplish it he returned to Oxford in 1700, where he was gladly received. He was then ordained by Dr. Talbot, bishop of Oxford, and was heard to say, that when he laid aside his lay habit, he did it with the greatest pleasure, as looking upon holy orders to be the highest honour that could be conferred upon him. It was not long before be entered into the more active service of the church, Dr. Halton, then provost of Queen’s college, and archdeacon of the diocese, having presented him to the donative of Iffley near Oxford, and at the same time appointed him divinity-lecturer in the college. The lectures he read in this last character were long remembered to his praise.

These promotions requiring a residence in London, Mr. Smith was soon after appointed chaplain to Edward Villiers, earl of Jersey, then lord chamberlain, whom he had known at Ryswick, where his lordship was one of the plenipotentiaries. Lord Jersey now introduced him at court, and he preached several times before the' queen, and would have been otherwise promoted by his lordship’s interest had he lived. But he not only lost this patron by death, but another, William Henry Granviile, nephew to dean Granville, and the last earl of Bath of that family, who had a very high esteem for him.

On the accession of George I. he was again introduced at court by the earl of Grantham, lord chamberlain to the prince of Wales (Afterward George II.) and was made chaplain to the princess, in which office he continued, until her highness came to the throne, to give attendance in his turn; but at that period, although he was still her majesty’s chaplain, he had no farther promotion at court. For this two reasons have been assigned, the one that he was negligent in making use of his interest, and offered no solicitation; the other, that his Tory principles were not at that time very acceptable. He used to be called the Hanover Tory; but he was in all respects a man of moderation, and sincerely attached to the present establishment. As some compensation for the loss of court-favour, his old fellowstudent, Dr. Gibson, when bishop of Lincoln, promoted him to the prebend of Dunholm in that church, and upon his translation to London gave him the donative of Paddington, near London. In this place, Dr. Smith built a house for himself, the parsonage-house having been lost by his predecessor’s neglect, and afterwards retired here with his family for the benefit of his health. He also established an afternoon lecture, at the request of the inhabitants, and procured two acts of parliament, to which he contributed a considerable part of the expence, for twice enlarging the church-yard. The same patron also promoted him to the prebend of St. Mary, Newington, in the cathedral of St. Paul’s, which proved very advantageous to him; but, as he $ow held two benefices with cure of souls, namely, St. Dionisand Paddington, he gave the rectory of Newington, annexed to the prebend, to Dr. Ralph Thoresby, son to the celebrated antiquary. On the building of the new church of St. George’s, Hanover-square, he was chosen lecturer in March 1725, and was there, as every where else, much admired for his talents in the pulpit. He had before resigned the lectureship of Trinity chapel in Conduit-street, and in 1731 resigned also that of St. George’s, in consequence of having been, on Oct. 20, 1730, elected provost of Queen’s college, which owes much of its present splendor and prosperity to his zeal and liberality. We have already noticed that he had persuaded sir Joseph Williamson to alter his will in its favour, which had before been drawn up in favour of endowing a college in Dublin; and it was now to his interference that the college owed the valuable foundation of John Michel, esq. for eight master fellows, four bachelor scholars, and four undergraduate scholars or exhibitioners, besides livings, &c. Dr. Smith was also instrumental in, procuring queen Caroline’s donation of 1000l. lady Elizabeth Hastings’s exhibitions, and those of sir Francis Bridgman, which, without his perseverance, would have been entirely lost; and besides what he bequeathed himself, he procured a charter of mortmain, in May 1732, to secure these several benefactions to the college.

Sir Thomas, with all his talents and good sense, was much of a projector, and about this time engaged in a foolish scheme for transmuting iron into copper. Into this project, says Strype, “he brought sir William Cecil, secretary of state, who had a philosophical genius, the earl of Leicester, sir Humphrey Gilbert, and others. The first occasion of this business was from one Medley, who had by vitriol changed iron into true copper at sir Thomas Smith’s house at London, and afterwards at his house in Essex. But this was too costly, as sir Thomas saw, to make any profit from. He propounded, therefore, to find out here in England the Primum Ens Vitrivli, by which to do the work at a cheaper rate. Upon this sir Thomas Smith, sir Humphrey Gilbert, and Medley, entered into a company under articles to find this out; that is, that Medley should be employed in this business at the charge of the other two, till by the profit he should reap from the thing found out he might bear his proportion. The place where this was to be attempted was in the Isle of Wight, or at Poole, or elsewhere. But at Winchelsea he had made the first trial, on account of the plenty of wood there. He received of sir Thomas and sir Humphrey an hundred and one pounds a piece, for the buying of vessels and necessaries. They removed to Poole, thinking the Ens of vitriol to be there, and took a lease of the land of the lady Mountjoy of three hundred pounds per annum, for the payment of which sir Thomas, with the other two, entered into a bond of a thousand pounds. While these things were in this state, sir Thomas was sent ambassador to France in 1572; and a quarrel happening between sir Humphrey and Medley, who went to Ireland, the business was discontinued for some time. But sir Thomas revived it at his return, and persuaded the lord treasurer Burghley and the earl of Leicester to enter into society about December 1574, who deposited each a hundred pounds towards carrying on the project. Medley was now removed to Anglesey, where the fuel, earth, and water were proper for his business; and the things which he undertook to perform, were these two; first, to make of raw iron good copper, and c,f the same weight and proportion, abating one part in six; so that six hundred tons of iron should by boiling make five hundred tons of perfect copper; secondly, that the liquor, wherein the iron was boiled, should make copperas and alum ready for the merchant; which, keeping the price they then bore, should of the liquor of five hundred tons of copper be ten thousand pounds, that is, for every ton two thousand pounds. After several trials the patent of the society was signed in January 1574, in which the society was styled” The Society of the new Art;“but at last the project proved abortive;” and I make no doubt,“says Strype,” sir Thomas smarted in his purse for his chymical covetousness, and Gilbert seems to have been impoverished by it; and Medley was beggared."

, a learned English writer and divine, was born in the parish of Allhallows Barking, in London, June 3, 1638, and admitted of Queen’s college in Oxford at nineteen, where he took the degrees in arts. In 1663 he was made master of the free school joining to Magdalen college; and, in 1666, elected fellow of that college, being then famous for his skill in the oriental languages. In June 1668, he went as chaplain to sir Daniel Harvey, ambassador to Constantinople; and returned thence in 1671. In 1676, he travelled into France; and, returning after a short stay, became chaplain to sir Joseph Williamson, secretary of state. In 1679 he was designed to collate and publish the Alexandrian manuscript in St. James’s library, and to have for his reward (as Charles II. promised) a canonry of Windsor or Westminster; but that design was reserved for the industry and abilities of Mr. Woide, at a far distant period (1784). Mr. Smith published a great many works, and had an established reputation among the learned. So high an opinion was conceived of him, that he was solicited Ijr the bishops Pearson, Fell, and Lloyd, to return into the east, in order to collect ancient manuscripts of the Greek fathers. It was designed that be should visit the monasteries of Mount Athos, where there was said to be extant a great number of Mss. reposited there before the decline of the Greek empire. He was then to proceed to ^Smyrna, Nice, Nicornedia, Ancyra, and at last to Egypt; and to employ two or three years in this voyage; but he could not prevail on himself to undertake it, both on account of the dangers inevitably to be encountered, and of the just expectations he had from his patron Williamson of preferment in the church. These expectations, however, were disappointed; for Wood says, that, after living several years with him, and performing a great deal of drudgery for him, he was at length dismissed without any reward . In 1683, he took a doctor of divinity’s degree; and, the year after, was nominated by his college to the rectory of Stanlake in the diocese of Oxford, but upon some dislike resigned it in a month. In 1687, he was collated to a prebend in the church of Heytesbury in Wilts. In August 3688, he was deprived of his fellowship by Dr. GilTard, the Popish president of Magdalen college, because he refused to live among the new Popish fellows of that college. He had before resisted the intrusion of Antony Farmer into the office of president, and presented a petition to the earl of Sunderland, beseeching the king either to leave the college to a free election, or recommend a qualified person. This being refused, he was for presenting a second address, before they proceeded to the election, and at last he and Mr. Chernock were the only two fellows that submitted to the authority of the royal commissioners, yet this did not avail him when he refused to associate with the new popish fellows under GilTard. He was, however, restored in Octoher following; but, afterwards refusing to take the oaths to William and Mary, his fellowship was pronounced void, July 25, 1692. From this time he lived chiefly in sir John Cotton’s family. He died at London, May 11, 1710, and was buried in St. Anne’s church, Soho, privately, according to his desire.

The same obscurity envelopes his early years. Wood indeed says, that he was trained up in grammar-learning in his own country; but in what seminary, or whether his country at that time could boast of any institution deserving the name of a grammar-school, are subjects of conjecture. His late biographer, with equal acuteness and reason, has supposed him to have been educated in the household of Thomas, the first earl of Derby. The countess of Richmond, who was the second wife of this nobleman, according to a laudable custom in the houses of the nobility, provided in this manner for the instruction of young men of promising talents: and it is known, that she was an early patron of our founder.

For his tirst advancement he is supposed to have been indebted to the earl of Derby, who was one ol those friends of Henry VII. whom that monarch rewarded, after the crown was established in security. Probably also by his interest Smyth was appointed, September 20, 14-85, to the office of the clerk of the hanaper, with an annual stipend of 40l. and an additional allowance of eighteen-pence per day during his attendance, in person, or by his deputy, on the lord chancellor. This salary is worthy of notice, as the sum exceeds that which was attached to it, not only on a subsequent appointment in this reign, but for a century afterwards. It was, therefore, probably given as a special remuneration to Smyth, whose influence appears to have been increasing. It is certain that, while in this office, he was solicited by the university of Oxford to interpose, on a very critical occasion, when they had incurred the king’s displeasure; and such was his influence, that his majesty was pleased to remove their fears, and confirm their privileges. This occurred in the second year of Henry’s reign. While Smyth held this office, we also find his name in a writ of privy-seal for the foundation of Norbridge’s chantry in the parish church of the Holy Trinity at Guildford, along with Elizabeth, consort of Henry VII., Margaret, countess of Richmond, his mother, Thomas Bourchier and Reginald Bray, knights.

His next promotion was of the civil kind, that of president of the prince’s council within the marches of Wales. The unsettled state of Wales had engaged the attention of Henry VII as soon as he came to the throne; and the wisest policy, in order to civilize and conciliate the inhabitants of that part of the kingdom, appeared to consist in delegating such a part of the executive power as might give dignity and stability to the laws, and ensure subjection to the sovereign. With this view various grants and commissions were issued in the first year of his reign; and about 1492, Arthur, prince of Wales and earl of Chester, was included in a commission of the peace for the county of Warwick, with archbishop Morton, Smyth, bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, and others. There was a renewal of this commission in the 17th Henry VII. of which our prelate, who had then been translated to the see of Lincoln, was again lord president. The prince’s court was held chiefly at Ludlow-castle, long the seat of the muses, honoured at this time with a train of learned men from the universities, and afterwards immortalized by Milton and Butler. Here bishop Smyth, although placed in an office that seemed likely to divert him from the business of his diocese, took special care that his absence should be compensated by a deputation of his power to vicars-general, and a suffragan bishop, in whom he could confide: and here he conceived some of fhose generous and liberal plans which have conferred honour on his name. The first instance of his becoming a public benefactor was in rebuilding and re-endowing the hospital of St. John in Lichfield, which had been suffered to go to ruin by the negligence of the friars who occupied it. Accordingly, in the third year of his episcopate, 1495, he rebuilt this hospital, and gave a new body of statutes for the use of the society. Of tiiis foundation it is only necessary to add here, that the school attached to it, and afterwards joined to the adjacent seminary of Edward VI. has produced bishops Smalridge and Newton, the chief justices Willes and Parker, and those illustrious scholars, Joseph Addison and Samuel Johnson.

, a learned English divine and translator, was the son of the rev. Richard Smith, rector of AllSaints, and minister of St. Andrew, both in Worcester, who died in 1726. He was born at Worcester in 1711, and educated at the grammar-school of that city. In 1728 he was admitted of New-college, Oxford, where he proceeded B. A. in 1732, M. A. in 1737, and D. D. in 1758. In 1735 he was presented by his patron, James earl of Derby, in whose family he was reader, to the rectory of Trinity-church, Chester, and by his son and successor’s interest, whose chaplain he was, to the deanery of Chester in 1753. He held the mastership of Brentwood-school in Essex for one year, 1748; and in 1753 was nominated by the corporation of Liverpool one of the ministers of St. George’s church there, which he resigned in 1767. With his deanery he held the parish churches of Handley and Trinity, but in 1780 resigned the last for the rectory of West Kirkby. He died Jan. 12, 1787. His character is thus briefly drawn by his biographer: “He was tall and genteel; his voice was strong, clear, and melodious; he spoke Latin fluently, and was complete master not only of the Greek but Hebrew language; his mind was so replete with knowledge, that he was a living library; his manner of address was graceful, engaging, and delightful; his sermons were pleasing, informing, convincing; his memory, even in age, was wonderfully retentive, and his conversation was polite, affable, and in the highest degree improving.” He is known in the learned world, chiefly by his valuable translations of “Longinus on the Sublime,” 1739, 8vo, which went through four editions, the last of which, with the frontispiece designed by Dr. Wall of Worcester, is said to be the best; “Thucydides,” 1753, 2 vols. 4to, reprinted in 1781, 8vo; “Xenophon’s History of the Affairs of Greece,” 1770, 4to. In 1782 he published “Nine Sermons on the Beatitudes,” 8vo, very elegantly written. In 1791, appeared “The Poetic Works of the rev. William Smith, D. D. late dean of Chester; with some account of the life and writings of the Author. By Thomas Crane, minister of the parish church of St. Olave in Chester, &c.” This work we have not seen, and for the account of Dr. Smith’s life we are indebted to a review of it in the Gent. Mag.

Soon after his arrival from the continent, his health still decaying, he undertook a journey to Scotland, and renewed his attachment to his relations and friends. During this journey, Dr. Moore informs us that “he was greatly tormented with rheumatic pains, and afflicted besides with an ulcer on his arm, which had been neglected on its first appearance. These disorders confined him much to his chamber, but did not prevent his conversation from being highly entertaining, when the misery of which they were productive permitted him to associate with his friends.” From Scotland he went to Bath, and about the beginning of 1767 had recovered his health and spirits in a very considerable degree. His next production, which appeared in 1769, proved that br had not forgotten the neglect with which he was treated by that ministry in whose favour he wrote “The Briton.” This was entitled the “Adventures of an Atom.” Under fictitious names, of Japanese structure, he reviews the conduct of the eminent politicians who had conducted or opposed the measures of government from the year 1754, and retracts the opinion he ha i given of some of those statesmen in his history, particularly of the earl of Chatham and lord Bute. His biographer allows that many of the characters are grossly misrepresented, for which no other reason can be assigned than his own disappointment. The whole proves what has often been seen since his time, that the measures which are right and proper when a reward is in view, are wrong and abominable when that reward is withheld.

Afterwards he had a sinecure in Wales bestowed upon him by his patron the earl of Clarendon and, at that earl’s retirement into France in 1G67, became chaplain to James duke of York. In 1670, he was made canon of Christ church, Oxibrd. In 1676, he attended as chaplain Laurence Hyde, esq. ambassador extraordinary to the king of Poland; of which journey he gave an account, in a letter to Dr. Edward Pocock, dated from Dantzick the 16th of Dec. 1677; which is printed in the “Memoirs of his Life.” In 167S, iie was nominated by the dean and chapter of Westminster to the rectory of Islip in Oxfordshire; and, in 16SO, rebuilt the chancel of that church, as he did afterwards the rectory-house. He also allowed an hundred pounds per annum to his curate, and expended the rest in educating and apprenticing the poorer children of the parish. Jn I6bl he exhibited a remarkable example of accommodating his principles to those of the times. Being now one of the king’s chaplains in ordinary, he preached before his majesty upon these words, “The lot is cast into the lap, but the disposing of it is of the Lord.” In this sermon he introduced three remarkable instances of unexpected advancements, those of Agathocles, Massaniello, and Oliver Cromwell. Of the latter he says, “And who that had beheld such a bankrupt beggarly fellow as Cromwell, first entering the parliament house with a threadbare torn cloak, greasy hat (perhaps neither of them paid for), could have suspected that in the space of so few years, he should, by the murder of one king, and the banishment of another, ascend the throne r” At this, the king is said to have fallen into a violent tit of laughter, and turning to Dr. South’s patron, Mr. Laurence Hyde, now created lord Rochester, said, “Odds fish, Lory, your chaplain must be a bishop, therefore put me in mind of him at the next death!”

Wood observes, that Dr. South, notwithstanding his various preferments, lived upon none of them; but upon his temporal estate at Caversham near Reading, and, as the people of Oxford imagined, in a discontented and clamorous condition for want of more. They were mistaken, however, if the author of the Memoirs of his Life is to be depended on, who tells us, that he refused several offers of bishoprics, as likewise that of an archbishopric in Ireland, which was made him in James the Second’s reign, by his patron the earl of Rochester, then lord lieutenant of that kingdom. But this was only rumour; and there is little reason to suppose that it had any foundation. South’s nature and temper were violent, domineering, and intractable to the last degree; and it is more than probable, that his patrons might not think it expedient to raise him higher, and by that means invest him with more power than he was likely to use with discretion. There is a particular recorded, which shews, that they were no strangers to his nature. The earl of Rochester, being solicited by James II. to change his religion, agreed to be present at a dispute between two divines of the church of England, and two of the church of Rome; and to abide by the result of it. The king nominated two for the Popish side, the earl two for the Protestant, one of whom was South; to whom the king objected, saying, that he could not agree to the choice of South, who instead of arguments would bring railing accusations, and had not temper to go through a dispute that required the greatest attention and calmness: upon which Dr. Patrick, then dean of Peterborough, and minister of St. Paul’s, Covent garden, was chosen in his stead.

, an English dramatic writer, who has been very improperly admitted by Wood into the “Athenae Oxonienses,” and grossly misrepresented in every particular, was born at Dublin in 1659, and was admitted a student of Trinity college, March 30, 1676, where Dr. Whitenhall was his tutor. In his eighteenth year, he quitted Ireland, and removed to the Middle-Temple, London, where he devoted himself to play-writing and poetry, instead of law. His “Persian Prince, or Loyal Brother,” in 1682, was introduced at a time when the Tory interest was triumphant in England; and the character of the Loyal Brother was no doubt intended to compliment James duke of York, who afterwards rewarded him. After his accession to the throne, Southern went into the army, and served as ensign, upon the duke of Monmouth’s landing, in earl Ferrers’s regiment, before the duke of Berwick had it. This affair being over, he retired to his studies; and wrote several plays, from which he is supposed to have drawn a very handsome subsistence. In the preface to his tragedy called “The Spartan Dame,” he acknowledges, that he received from the booksellers as a price for this play 150l. which was thought in 1721, the time of its being published, very extraordinary. He was the first who raised the advantage of play-writing to a second and third night; which Pope mentions in these lines:

Wood says, he “was a learned man, a solid divine, well read in the fathers, and so much esteemed for his profoundness, gravity, and exemplary life and conversation, that the sages of the university thought it fit, after his death, to have his picture painted on the wall in the schoolgallery among the English divines of note there.” His works, besides what we have mentioned, were, “A comfortable treatise for a troubled conscience,” Lond. 1680, 8vo. 2. “Brief Catechism,” printed with the former, and a treatise on catechising, Oxon. 1588, 4to. 3. '“Answer to Mr. Job. deAlbine’s notable discourse against heresies,” ibid. 1591, 4to, 4. “The Highway to Heaven, &c. against Bellarmine and others, in a treatise on the 37, 38, and 39 verses of the 7 John,” Lond. 1597, 8vo; also a funeral sermon on the earl of Bedford, and another on lord Grey. Dr. Sparke left three learned sons, Thomas, fellow of New-college, Oxford, Andrew of Peterhouse in Caiiibridge, and William of Magdalen-college, Oxford, who succeeded his father in the living of Bletchley. He wrote “Vis naturae, et Virtus Vitae explicata, ad universum doctrine ordinem constituendum,” Lond. 1612, 8vo; and “The Mystery of Godliness,” Oxon. 1628, 4to. He was living at Bletchley in 1630.

, an English divine, and polite scholar, was born in 1698, we know not of what parents, and educated probably at Winchester school, whence he became a fellow of New college, Oxford, where he took the degree of M. A. Nov. 2, 1727 and in that year became first known to the learned world by “An Essay on Pope’s Odyssey; in which some particular beauties and blemishes of that work are considered, in two parts,” 12mo. “On the English Odyssey, says Dr. Johnson,” a criticism was published by Spence, a man whose learning was not very great, and whose mind was not very powerful. His criticism, however, was commonly just; what he thought, he thought rightly; and his remarks were recommended by his coolness and candour. In him Pope had the first experience of a critic without malevolence, who thought it as much his duty to display beauties as expose faults; who censured with respect, and praised with alacrity. With this criticism Pope was so little offended, that he sought the acquaintance of the writer, who lived with him from that time in great familiarity, attended him in his last hours, and compiled memorials of his conversation. The regard of Pope recommended him to the great and powerful, and he obtained very valuable preferments in the church.“Dr. Warton, in his” Essay on Pope,“styles Spence’s judicious Essay on the Odyssey” a work of the truest taste;“and adds, that” Pope was so far from taking it amiss, thut it was the origin of a lasting friendship betwixt them. I have seen,“says Dr. Warton,” a copy of this work, with marginal observations, written in Pope’s own hand, and generally acknowledging the justness of Spence’s observations, and in a few instances pleading, humourously enough, that some favourite lines might be spared. 1 am indebted,“he adds,” to this learned and amiable man, on whose friendship I set the greatest value, for most of the anecdotes relating to Pope, mentioned in this work, which he gave me, when I was making him a visit at Byfleet, in 1754.“He was elected, by the university, professor of poetry, July 11, 1728, succeeding the rev. Thomas War-, ton, B. D. father to the learned brothers, Dr. Joseph, and Mr. Thomas Warton each of these professors were twice ejected to their office, and held it for ten years, a period as long as the statutes will allow. Mr. Speu-.-e wrote an account of Stephen Duck, which was first published, as a pamphlet, in 1731, and said to he written hy” Joseph Spenre, esq. poetry professor.“From this circumstance it has been supposed th:it he was not then in orders, but this is a mistake, as he was ordained in 17 J4; and left this pamphlet in the hands of his friend, Mr Lowth , to be published as soon as he left England, with a Grubstreet title, which he had drawn up merely for a disguise, not choosing to have it thought that he published it himself. It was afterwards much altered, and prefixed io Duck’s poems. He travelled with the duke of Newcastle (then. earl of Lincoln) into Italy, where his attention to his noble pupil did him the highest honour f. In 1736, at Mr. Pope’s desire, he republished J” Gorboduc,“wit ha preface containing an account of the author, the earl of Dorset. He never took a doctor’s degree, hut quitteii his fellowship on being presented by the society of New college to the rectory of Great Horwood, in Buckinghamshire, in 1742. As he never resided upon his living, but in a pleasant house and gardens lent to him by his noble pupil, at Byfleet, in Surrey (the rectory of which parish he had obtained for his friend Stephen Duck), he thought it his duty to snake an annual visit to Horwood, and gave away several sums of money to the distressed poor, and placed out many of their children as apprentices. In June 174-2, he succeeded Dr. Holmes as his majesty’s professor of modern history, at Oxford. His” Polymetis, or an inquiry concerning the agreement between the works of the Roman Poets, andthe f remains of the ancient Artists, being an attempt: to illustrate them mutually from each other," was published in folio, in

The patronage of men of genius in Spender’s age was frequently exerted in procuring for them public employments, and Spenser, we find, was very early introduced into the business of active life. In July 1580, when Arthur lord Grey of Wilton departed from England, as lord lieutenant of Ireland, Spenser was appointed his secretary, probably on the recommendation of the earl of Leicester, Although the office of secretary was not at this time of the same importance it is now, and much might not be expected in official business from a scholar and a poet, yet Spenser appears to have entered with zeal into political affairs, as far as they were connected with the character of the lord lieutenant. In his “View of the State of Ireland,” which was written long after, he takes frequent opportunities to vindicate the measures and reputation of that nobleman, and has, indeed, evidently studied the polities of Ireland with great success.

After holding this situation about two years, lord Grey returned to England, and was probably accompanied by his secretary. Their connection was certainly not dissolved, for in 1586, Spenser obtained, by his lordship’s interest, and that of Leicester and Sidney, a grant of three thousand and twenty-eight acres in the county of Cork, out of the forfeited lands of the earl of Desmond. As far as sir Philip Sidney was concerned, this was the last act of his kindness to our poet, for he died in October of the same year. Such were the terms of the royal patent, that Spenser was now obliged to return to Ireland, in order tO cultivate the land assigned him. He accordingly fixed his residence at Kilcolman, in the county of Cork, a place which topographers have represented as admirably accommodated to the taste of a poet by its romantic and diversified scenery. Here he was visited by sir Walter Raleigh, with whom he bad formed an intimacy on his first arrival in Ireland, who proved a second Sidney to his poetical ardour, and appears to have urged him to that composition which constitutes his highest fame. In 1590 he published “The Faerie Qneene disposed into Twelve Books, fashioning XII Morall Vertues.”

Spenser’s remains were interred in Westminster Abbey, near those of Chaucer, and the funeral expenses defrayed by the earl of Essex, a nobleman very erroneous in political life, but too much a friend to literature to have allowed Spenser to starve, and afterwards insult his remains by a sumptuous funeral. His monument, however, which has been attributed to the munificence of Essex, was erected by Anne, countess of Dorset, about thirty years after Spenser’s death. Stone was the workman, and had forty pounds for it. That at present in Westminster Abbey was erected or restored in 1778.

It does not appear what became of Spenser’s wife and children. Two sons are said to have survived him, Sylvanus and Peregrine. Sylvanus married Ellen Nangle, or Nagle, eldest daughter of David Nangle of Moneanymy in the county of Cork, by whom he had two sons, Edmund and William Spenser. His other son, Peregrine, also married and had a son, Hugolin, who, after the restoration of Charles II. was replaced by the court of claims in as much of the lands as could be found to have been his ancestor’s. Hugolin, however, attached himself to the cause of James II. and after the Revolution was outlawed for treason and rebellion. Some time after, his cousin William, son of Svlvanus, became a suitor for the forfeited property, and recovered it by the interest of Mr. Montague, afterwards earl of Halifax, who was then at the head of the Treasury. He had been introduced to. Mr. Montague by Congreve, who, with others, was desirous of honouring the descendant of so great a poet. Dr. Birch describes him as a man somewhat advanced in years, but unable to give any account of the works of his ancestor which are wanting. The family has been since very imperfectly traced.

nock,“expressive of gr it tudc- *.> hi; Adv.mc'd and snr.e,” fee. friendly patron. < >: p i'qiiiic, Squire published the following pieces: l. “An enquiry into the nature of the English Constitution; or, an historical essay on the Anglo-Saxon Government, both in Germany and England.” 2. “The ancient History of the Hebrews vindicated; or, remarks on the third volume of the Moral Philosopher,” under the name of F'iu-opiia.ies Cantabrigiensis, Cambridge, 1741. This, Leland says, contains many solid and ingenious remarks 3. “Two Assays, I. A defence of the ancient Greek Chronology; II. An enquiry into the origin of the Greek Language,” Cambridge, 1741. 4. “Plutarchi de Iside et Osirid, 1 liber, Graece et Anglice; Grseca recensuit, emendavit, Com.Tieni-ariis auxit, Versionem novam Anglicanam adjecit Samuel Squire, A.M. Archidiaconus Bathoniensis; acces.serunt Xylandri, Baxteri, Bentleii, Marklandi, Conjecturae et Emendationes,” Cantab. 1744. 5. “An Essay on the Balance of Civil Power in England,” 174, 8vo, which was added to the second edition of the Enquiry, &c. in 1753. 6. “Indifference for Religion inexcusable, or, a serious, impartial, and practical review of the certainty, importance, and harmony of natural and revealed Religion,” London, 1748, again in 1759, 12mo. 7. “Remarks upon Mr. Carte’s specimen of the General History of England, very proper to be read by all such as are contributors to that great work,” 1748, 8vo. 8. “The Principles of Religion made easy to young persons, in a short and familiar Catechism. Dedicated to the late Prince Frederick,” London, 1763. 9. “A Letter to the right hon. the earl of Halifax on the Peace,” 1763, 8vo, by Dr. Dodd, received great assistance from bishop Squire. He also left in ms. a Saxon Grammar compiled by himself. A just and welldrawn character of archbishop Herring, one of his early patrons, was prefixed by bishop Squire to the archbishop’s “Seven Sermons.”

strange,“says Dr. Warton in his notes Rocbefoucault.” him thither; which gave him an opportunity of gaining an accurate knowledge of the laws and customs of that country. He continued there some years, and thence made a tour to France, Italy, and other parts, where he made it his study to become acquainted with the laws and the constitutions, as well as the languages, of those places. He afterwards went into the confederate army in Flanders, where he served as a volunteer; and at the famous siege of Namur in 1695 distinguished himself to such advantage, that king William gave him a company of foot, and soon after a colonel’s commission. Though he was but young, being then about two and twenty years old, he had free access to that king, for whom he had always the highest reverence. In the first parliament of queen Anne he was chosen representative for the borough of Cockermouth in Cumberland, as he was likewise in the succeeding parliament, summoned to meet at Westminster June the 14th, 1705; in the beginning of which year he was promoted to the rank of brigadier- general, and gained great reputation in Spain under the earl of Peterborough at the siege of Barcelona, which surrendered to the allies October the 9tb, 1705. Immediately after the reduction of that place, the earl dispatched captain Norris express to England, on board the Canterbury man of war; in which ship brigadier Stanhope and the lord Shannon embarked likewise, and on the 22d of November 1705 arrived at St. Helen’s. Soon after brigadier Stanhope waited on her majesty, and delivered to her several letters, particularly one from the king of Spain, now emperor of Germany, which has this passage “I owe the same justice to your brigadier-general Stanhope upon account of his great zeal, attention, and most prudent conduct, of which he has given me proofs on all manner of occasions.” Towards the close of the first session of the new parliament he returned to Spain, and his presence was extremely acceptable to his catholic majesty. In the beginning of 1708, when a French invasion in favour of the Pretender was expected, brigadier Stanhope moved to bring in a bill to dissolve the clans in Scotland, and was seconded by sir David Dalrymple, and the bill was ordered to be brought in accordingly; but the enemy not landing at that time, the bill was laid aside. About this time he, with brigadier Cadogan and others, was advanced to the rank of major-general, and soon after appointed by her majesty envoy extraordinary and plenipotentiary to king Charles III. of Spain, and commander in chief of the British forces in that kingdom. He arrived at Barcelona May the 29th, 1708, and the same year reduced Port Mahon and the whole island of Minorca. In the first British parliament which met after the union of the kingdoms of England and Scotland, he was re-chosen member for Cockermouth. He was also advanced to the rank of lieutenant-general; and in 1710 was one of the managers of the House of Commons at the trial of Dr. Sacheverell, against whose doctrines he made an able speech. In the latter end of May that year he went to Spain, and on July 27, obtained a signal victory over the enemy near Almenara, as he did likewise on Aug. 20 near Saragossa; but Dec. 9 following he was taken prisoner at Brihuega.

Upon the change of administration, a new parliament being called, he was proposed candidate for the City of Westminster, together with sir Henry Dutton-Colt, but being unsuccessful, was chosen again for Cockermouth. He continued prisoner in Spain till 1712, when his imperial majesty made an exchange for the duke of Escalone, formerly viceroy of Naples; and in July the general set out on his return home by the way of France, and on the 16th of August arrived in England. In parliament he now opposed vigorously the measures of the court, and particularly the Bill of Commerce between Great Britain and France. Upon the calling a new parliament in 1713, he lost his election at Cockermouth by a small majority, but was soon after chosen unanimously for Wendover in Bucks; and opposed the Schism-bill with great spirit. Upon the arrival of king George I. in England, he was received by his majesty with particular marks of favour; and on the 27th of September 1714, appointed one of the principal secretaries of state, and October the 1st sworn one of the privy- council. On the 20th of the same month, the day of his majesty’s coronation, he, with the lord Cobham, set out with a private commission to the emperor’s court; where having succeeded in his negotiations, he returned to England in the latter end of December. A new parliament being summoned to meet at Westminster on the 17th of March 1714-15, he was unanimously chosen for Cockermouth, as he was likewise for Aldborough in Yorkshire. In July 1716 he attended his majesty to Germany, and was principally concerned in the alliance concluded at that time with France and the States-general, by which the Pretender was removed beyond the Alps, and Dunkirk and Mardyke demolished. He returned with his majesty in 1716, and the following year was appointed first lord of the treasury, and chancellor of the exchequer. He was afterwards created a peer of Great Britain, by the title of baron Stanhope of Elvaston, in the county of Derby, and viscount Stanhope of Mahon in the island of Minorca. In March 1718, he was appointed principal secretary of state, in the room of the earl of Sunderland, who succeeded lord Stanhope in the Treasury: and soon after was created earl Stanhope. The Spanish power growing more formidable, an alliance was set on foot between his Britannic majesty, the emperor, and the king of France, for which purpose earl Stanhope set out in June for Paris, and thence to Madrid, but finding nothing could be done with that court, he returned to England in September. In December following, he introduced a bill into the House of Lords “for strengthening the protestant interest in these kingdoms,” in which he proposed a repeal of the occasional-conformity bill, and the schism bill, and it passed by a majority of eighteen.

is attacked; as in thjs instance lord break a blood-vessel. time governor of Fort St. George in the East-Indies, by whom he had several children. The present earl is his grandson.

James, earl Stanhope, was, as a politician, possessed of great abilities, integrity, and disinterestedness; as a military man, he was thought to possess the duke of Mariborough’s talents, without his weaknesses. In private life he was very amiable. He is said to have been learned, and a curious inquirer into ancient history. About 1718 or 1719, he sent a set of queries to the abbe Vertot, respecting the constitution of the Roman senate, which the abbe answered, and both the letter and the answer were published in 1721, and long after animadverted upon by Mr. Hooke in the collection of treatises he published on that subject in 1758.

, fourth earl of Chesterfield, was born in London, on the 22d of September 1694. He was the son of Philip third earl of Chesterfield by his wife lady Elizabeth Savile, daughter of George marquis of Halifax. He received his first instructions from private tutors, under the care of his grandmother, lady Halifax and, at the age of eighteen, was sent to Trinity- hall, Cambridge. $ere he studied assiduously, and became, according to his own account, an absolute pedant. “When I talked my best,” he says, “I talked Horace; when I aimed at being facetious, I quoted Martial; and when I had a mind to be a fine gentleman, I talked Ovid. I was convinced that none but the ancients had common sense; that the classics contained every thing that was either necessary, or useful, or ornamental to men: and I was not without thoughts of wearing the toga virilis of the Romans, instead of the vulgar and illiberal dress of the moderns.” He was, however, only two years exposed to this danger, for in the spring of 1714, lord Stanhope left the university for the tour of Europe, but without a governor. He passed the summer of that year at the Hague, among friends who quickly laughed him out of his scholastic habits, but taught him one far more disgraceful and pernicious, as he himself laments, which was that of gaming. Still his leading object was that of becoming an eminent statesman, and of this, among all his dissipations, he never lost sight. From the Hague he went to Paris, where, he informs us, he received his final polish, under the tuition of the belles of that place.

On the accession of George I. general Stanhope, (afterwards earl Stanhope,) his great uncle, being appointed one of the principal secretaries of state, young lord Stanhope was sent for, and though he had intended passing the carnival at Venice, returned early in 1715, and was appointed one of the gentlemen of the bedchamber to the prince of Wales. In the first parliament of this reign he was elected for the borough of St. Germain’s in Cornwall; and soon became distinguished as a speaker. His ambition would not let him rest till he obtained this object; and Re tells his son, in one of his letters, that from the day he was elected, to the day that he spoke, which was a month after, he thought and dreamt of nothing but speaking. He formed about this time a friendship with lord Lumley, afterwards earl of Scarborough, which no conflicts of parties ever could impair. When he made his first speech in parliament, which was a violent one, he was actually under age, and receiving a hint of this from one of the opposite party, thought proper to give up his attendance for a time, and return to Paris. His biographer surmises that he might there be engaged in political services, as well as in pleasure, which was his apparent object. Having returned to England in 1716, he spoke in favour of the septennial bill, and from time to time came forward on other occasions. The division between the court and the prince of Wales soon after threw lord Stanhope, who was attached to the latter, into opposition, from which all the influence and offers of the general, now in the height of power and favour, could not recall him. The second borough for which he sat, was Lestwithiel in Cornwall; but in January 1726, the death of his father removed him into the House of Lords.

, an accomplished scholar and poet, connected, though in an oblique line, with the illustrious family of Derby, was the descendant of a natural son, Thomas Stanley, of Edward earl of Derby. His father was sir Thomas Stanley of Laytonstone, in Essex, and Cumberlow, in Hertfordshire, knight, by his second wife, Mary, daughter of sir William Hammond, of St. Alban’s-court in the parish of Nonington between Canterbury and Deal. He was born in 1625, and was educated in his father’s house, under the tuition of William Fairfax, son of Edward Fairfax, of Newhall, in the parish of Ottley, in Yorkshire, the celebrated translator of Tasso. From thence he was sent in 1639 as a fellow-commoner to Pembroke-hall, Cambridge, where he distinguished himself by his proficiency in polite learning; having still, as he had in more advanced years, the advantage of Mr. Fairfax’s society, as the director of his studies. In 1641, the degree of M. A. was conferred on him per gratiam, along with prince Charles, George duke of Buckingham, and others of the nobility.

a learned gentleman, of Cussington, Leicestershire, after having completed his academical education at Peter- house, Cambridge, was admitted of the Inner Temple, July 2, 1647, and called to the bar June 12, 1654. In 1656, he married Mary the youngest daughter of John Onebye, esq. of Hinckley, and steward of the records at Leicester, and succeeded his father-in-law in that office in 1672. In 1674, when the court espoused the cause of popery, and the presumptive heir to the crown openly professed himself a Catholic, Mr. Staveley displayed the enormous exactions of the court of Rome, by publishing in 1674, “The Romish Horseleech.” This work was reprinted in 1769. Some years before his death, which happened in 1683, he retired to Belgrave near Leicester, and passing the latter part of life in the study of English history, acquired a melancholy habit, but was esteemed a diligent, judicious, and faithful antiquary. His “History of Churches in England: wherein is shown, the time, means, and manner of founding, building, and endowing of Churches, both, cathedral and rural, with their furniture and appendages,” was first published in 1712, and reprinted 1773. It is a work of considerable research and learning, the result of having carefully examined many books and records; and contains a complete account of the sacred furniture of churches from the earliest origin. In one respect, however, he has too hastily adopted the notion that the Saxons had no stone buildings among them, while he is forced to acknowledge that Bede’s Candida casa was one of them. Besides this work, Mr. Staveley left a curious historical pedigree of his own family, drawn up in 1682, the year before he died, which is preserved at large in the work which furnishes this article; and also some valuable collections towards the “History and Antiquities of Leicester,” to which he had more particularly applied his researches. These papers, which Dr. Farmer, the late learned master of Emanuei-college, Cambridge, intended once to publish, were, by that gentleman’s permission, put into the hands of Mr. Nichols, who gave them to the world in the “Bibliotheca Topographia Britannica,” and since in his more elaborate “History of Leicestershire.” The younger Mr. S. Carte (an able antiquary, and an eminent solicitor), who had a copy of Mr. Staveley’s papers, says of them, in a ms letter to Dr. Ducarel, March 7, 1751: “His account of the earls of Leicester, and of the great abbey, appears to have been taken from Dugdale’s” Baronage,“and” Monasticon;“but as to his sentiments in respect to the borough, I differ with him in some instances. By the charter for erecting and establishing the court of records at Leicester, the election of the steward is granted to the mayor and court of aldermen, who likewise have thereby a similar power, in respect to a bailiff” for executing their writs. But afterwards, viz. Dec. 20, 7 Jac. I. the great earl of Huntingdon bavins: been a considerable benefactor to Leicester, the corporation came to a resolution of granting to him and his heirs a right of nominating alternately to the office of steward and bailiff, and executed a bond under their common seal, in the penalty of one thousand pounds, for enforcing the execution of their grant. And as John Major, esq. was elected by the court of aldermen to succeed Mr. Staveley, in December, 1684, I infer that Staveley was nominated by the earl of Huntingdon, and confirmed by the aldermen, in pursuance of the grant above-mentioned.

Vol. XXVIII. A A of both parliaments of the late kingdoms of England and Scotland, and confirmed by the parliament of Great-Britain. With some seasonable remarks on the danger of a popish successor.“He explains in his” Apology for himself,“the occasion of his writing this piece. He happened one day to visit Mr. William Moore of the Inner-Temple; where the discourse turning upon politics, Moore took notice of the insinuations daily thrown out, of the danger the Protestant succession was in; and concluded with saying-, that he thought Steele, from the kind reception the world gave to what he published, might be more instrumental towards curing that evil, than any private man in England. After much solicitation, Moore observed, that the evil seemed only to flow from mere inattention to the real obligations under which we lie towards the house of Hanover: if, therefore, continued he, the laws to that purpose were reprinted, together with a warm preface, and a well-urged peroration, it is not to be imagined what good effects it would have. Steele was much struck with the thought and prevailing with Moore to put the law- part of it together, he executed the rest; yet did not venture to publish it, till it had been corrected by Addison, Hoadly, afterwards bishop of Winchester, and others. It was immediately attacked with great severity by Swift, in a pamphlet published in 1712, under the title of,” The Public Spirit of the Whigs set forth in their generous encouragement of the author of the Crisis:“but it was not till March 12, 1715, that it fell under the cognizance of the House of Commons. Then Mr. John Hungerford complained to the House of divers scandalous papers, published under the name of Mr. Steele; in which complaint he was seconded by Mr. Auditor Foley, cousin to the earl of Oxford, and Mr. Auditor Harley, the earl’s brother. Sir William Wyndham also added, that” some of Mr. Steele’s writings contained insolent, injurious reflections on the queen herself, and were dictated by the spirit of rebellion.“The next clay Mr. Auditor Harley specified some printed pamphlets published by Mr. Steele,” containing several paragraphs tending to sedition, highly reflecting upon her majesty, and arraigning her administration and government.“Some proceedings followed between this and the 18th, which was the day appointed for the hearing of Mr. Steele; and this being come, Mr. Auditor Folejr moved, that before they proceed farther, Mr. Steele should declare, whether he acknowledged the writings that bore his name? Steele declared, that he” did frankly and ingenuously own those papers to he part of his writings; that he wrote them in behalf of the house of Hanover, and owned them with the same unreservedness with which he abjured the Pretender.“Then Mr. Foley proposed, that Mr. Steele should withdraw; but it was carried, without dividing, that he should stay and make his defence. He desired, that he might be allowed to answer what was urged against him paragraph by paragraph; but his accusers insisted, and it was carried, that he should proceed to make his defence generally upon the charge against him. Steele proceeded accordingly, being assisted by his friend Addison, member for Malmsbury, who sat near him to prompt him upon occasion; and spoke for near three hours on the several heads extracted from his pamphlets. After he had withdrawn, Mr. Foley said, that,” without amusing the House with long speeches, it is evident the writings complained of were seditious and scandalous, injurious to her majesty’s government, the church and the universities;“and then called for the question. This occasioned a very warm debate, which lasted till eleven o'clock at night. The first who spoke for Steele, was Robert Walpole, esq. who was seconded by his brother Horatio Walpole, lord Finch, lord Lumley, and lord Hinchinbrook: it was resolved, however, by a majority of 245 against 152, that” a printed pamphlet, entitled l The Englishman, being the close of a paper so called,‘ and one other pamphlet, entitled * The Crisis,’ written by Richard Steele, esq. a member of this House, are scandalous and seditious libels, containing many expressions highly reflecting upon her majesty, and upon the nobility, gentry, clergy, and universities of this kingdom; maliciously insinuating, that the Protestant succession in the house of Hanover is in danger under her majesty’s administration; and tending to alienate the good affections of her majesty’s good subjects, and to create jealousies and divisions among them:“it was resolved likewise, that Mr. Steele,” for his offence in writing and publishing the said scandalous and seditious libels, be expelled this House.“He afterwards wrote” An Apology for himself and his writings, occasioned by his expulsion,“which he dedicated to Robert Walpole, esq. This is printed among his” Political Writings/' 1715, I2i“. He had no'v nothing to do till the death of the queen, but to indulge himself svith his pen; and accordingly, in 1714, he published a treatise, entitled” The Romish Ecclesiastical History of late years.“This is nothing more than a description of some monstrous and gross popish rites, designed to hurt the cause of the Pretender, which was supposed to be gaining ground in England: and there is an appendix subjoined, consisting of particulars very well calculated for this purpose. In No. I. of the appendix, we have a list of the colleges, monasteries, and convents of men and women of several orders in the Low Countries; with the revenues which they draw from England. No. II. contains an extract of the” Taxa Cameroe,“or” Cancellariat Apostolicse,“the fees of the pope’s chancery; a book, printed by the pope’s authority, and setting forth a list of the fees paid him for absolutions, dispensations, indulgencies, faculties, and exemptions. No. 111. is a bull of the pope in 1357, given to the then king of France; by which the princes of that nation received an hereditary right to cheat the rest of mankind. No. IV. is a translation of the speech of pope Sixtus V. as it was uttered in the consistory at Rome, Sept. 2, 1589; setting forth the execrable fact of James Clement, a Jacohine friar, upon the person of Henry III. of France, to be commendable, admirable, and meritorious. No. V. is a collection of some popish tracts and positions, destructive of society and all the ends of good government. The same year, 1714, he published two papers: the first of which, called” The Lover;“appeared Feb. 25; the second,” The Reader," April 22. In the sixth number for May 3, we have an account of his design to write the history of the duke of Marlborough, from the date of the duke’s commission of captain general and plenipotentiary, to the expiration of those commissions: the materials, as he tells us, were in his custody, but the work was never executed.

Soon after the accession of George I. he was appointed surveyor of the royal stables at Hampton-court, and governor of the royal company of comedians; and was put into the commission of the peace for Middlesex; and, April 1715, was knighted upon the presenting of an address to Ins majesty by the lieutenancy*. In the first parliament, he was chosen member for Boroughbrigg in Yorkshire; and, after the suppression of the rebellion in the North, was appointed one of the commissioners of the forfeited estates in Scotland. The same year, 1715, he published in 8vo, “An Account of the state of the Roman Catholic Religion throughout the world. Written for the use of pope Innocent XI. and now translated from the Italian. To which is added, a Discourse concerning the state of Religion in England: written in French in the time of king Charles I. and now first translated. With a large dedication to the present pope, giving him a very particular account of the state of religion among protestants, and of several other matters of importance relating to Great Britain,” 12mo. The dedication is supposed to have been written by Hoadly, bishop of Winchester. The same year still, he published “A Letter from the earl of Mar to the king before his majesty’s arrival in England;” and the year following, a second volume of “The Englishman.” In 1718, came out “An Account of his Fish pool:” he had obtained a patent for bringing fish to market alive; for, Steele was a projector, and that was one circumstance, among many, xvhich kept him always poor. In 1719, he published “The Spinster,” a pamphlet; and “A Letter to the earl of Oxford, concerning the bill of peerage,” which bill he opposed in the House of Commons. In 1720, he wrote two pieces against the South Sea scheme; one called “The Crisis of Property,” the other “A Nation a Family.”

, an eminent antiquary, was the fourth sou of Richard Stephens, esq. of the elder house of that name atEastington in Gloucestershire, by Anne the eldest daughter of sir Hugh Cholmeley, of Whitby, in Yorkshire, baronet. His first education was at Wotton school, whence he removed to Lincoln-college, Oxford, May 19, 681. He was entered very young in the Middle Temple, applied himself to the study of the common law, and was called to the bar. As he was master of a sufficient fortune, it may be presumed that the temper of his mind, which was naturally modest, detained him from the public exercise of his profession, and led him to the politer studies, and an acquaintance with the best authors, ancient and modern: yet he was thought by all who knew him to have made a great proficience in the law, though history and antiquities seem to have been his favourite study. When he was about twenty years old, being at a relation’s house, he accidentally met with some original letters of the lord chancellor Bacon; and finding that they would greatly contribute to our knowledge of matters relating to king James’s reign, he immediately set himself to search for whatever might elucidate the obscure passages, and published a complete edition of them in 1702, with useful notes, and an excellent historical introduction. He intended to have presented his work to king William but that monarch dying before it was published, the dedication was omitted. In the preface, he requested the communication of unpublished pieces of his noble author, to make his collection more complete; and obtained in consequence as many letters as formed the second collection, published in 1734, two years after his death. Being a relation of Robert Harley earl of Oxford (whose mother Abigail, was daughter of Nathaniel Stephens of Eastington), he was preferred by him to be chief solicitor of the customs, in which employment he continued with unblemished reputation till 172C, when he declined that troublesome office, and was appointed to succeed Mr. Madox in the place of historiographer royal. He then formed a design of writing a history of king James the first, a reign which he thought to be more misrepresented than almost any other since the conquest: and, if we may judge by the good impression which he seems to have had of these times, his exactness and care never to advance any thing but from unquestionable authorities, besides his great candour and integrity, it could not but have proved a judicious and valuable performance. He married Mary the daughter of sir Hugh Cholmeley, a lady of great worth, and died at Gravesend, near Thornbury, in Gloucestershire, Nov. 12, 1732; and was buried at Eastington, the seat of his ancestors, where is an inscription to his memory.

, an English poet and statesman, was descended from a family at Pendigrast in Pembrokeshire, but born at London in 1663. It has been conjectured that he was either son or grandson of Charles third son of sir John Stepney, the first baronet of that family: Mr. Cole says his father was a grocer. He received his education at Westminster-school, and was removed thence to Trinity-college, Cambridge, in 1682; where he took his degree of A.B. in 1685, and that of M.A. in 1689. Being of the same standing with Charles Montague, esq. afterwards earl of Halifax, a strict friendship grew up between them, and they came to London together, and are said to have been introduced into public life by the duke of Dorset. To this fortunate incident was owing all the preferment Stepney afterwards enjoyed, who is supposed not to have had parts sufficient to have risen to any distinction, without such patronage. When Stepney first set out in life, he seems to have been attached to the tory interest; for one of the first poems he wrote was an address to James II. upon his accession to the throne. Soon after, when Monmouth’s rebellion broke out, the Cambridge men, to shew their zeal for the king, thought proper to burn the picture of that prince, who had formerly been chancellor of the university, and on this occasion Stepney wrote some good verses in his praise. Upon the Revolution, he embraced another interest, and procured himself to be nominated to several foreign embassies. In 1692 he went to the elector of Brandenburg’s court, in quality of envoy; in 1693, to the Imperial court, in the same character; in 1694, to the elector of Saxony; and, two years after, to the electors of Mentz, Cologn, and the congress at Francfort; in 1698, a second time to Brandenburg; in 1699, to the king of Poland; in 1701, again to the emperor; and in 1706, to the States General; and in all his negotiations, is said to have been successful. In 1697 he was made one of the commissioners of trade. He died at Chelsea in 1707, and was buried in Westminster-abbey; where a fine monument was erected over him, with a pompous inscription. At his leisure hours he composed poetical pieces, which are republished in the general collection of English poets. He likewise wrote some political pieces in prose, particularly, “An Essay on the present interest of England, in 1701: to which are added, the proceedings of the House of Commons in 1677, upon the French king’s progress in Flanders.” This is reprinted in the collection of tracts, called “Lord Somers’s collection.”

A few months after this introduction to the practice of his profession, he set out upon his travels, and made the tour of Holland, Germany, France, Spain, and Italy, which employed him for nearly five years after which, in 1740, he returned to Scotland, and two years after married lady Frances Wemyss, eldest daughter of the earl of Wemyss. One of his biographers observes, that his return to the bar was anxiously expected by his friends and countrymen, and his absence from it was imputed to the influence of certain connections of a political nature, which he had formed abroad, and particularly at Rome.

While sir James resided abroad, during the war between France and Great Britain, which terminated in 1763, he had the misfortune to have some letters addressed to him proceeding on the mistake of his person and character, by which he became innocently the object of suspicion, as furnishing intelligence to the enemy, which occasioned the imprisonment of his person until the mistake was discovered. Some time after the peace of Paris, he was permitted to come incognito to London, where a noli proseqm aucl pardon was solicited for him, through different channels, and particularly through that of lord Chatham, by the interposition of sir James’s nephew, the present earl of Buchan, then lord Cardross; and although this was not then successful, yet in 1767 sir James was fully restored to his native country, and to his citizenship, with the gracious approbation of his discerning sovereign. He then retired to his paternal inheritance, and continued to exert his faculties for the benefit of his country. He repaired the mansion of his ancestors, improved his neglected acres, set forward the improvements of the province in which he resided, by promoting high-roads, bridges, agriculture, and manufactures; publishing at this time, for the use of the public, an anonymous plan for the construction of an act of parliament to regulate the application of the statute labour of the peasants and others upon the public roads; the greatest part of which treatise has been since adopted in the framing of acts for the different counties in Scotland.

Having succeeded in this, he was entered in Michaelmas 1648, of St. John’s college, Cambridge, and in the beginning of November was admitted a scholar of the house, on the nomination of the earl of Salisbury. It may readily be believed that his application and progress in his studies were of no common kind, as he was so soon to give public proofs of both. He took his bachelor’s degree in 1652, and was now so much esteemed by his society, that at the very next election he was chosen into a fellowship, and admitted March 31, lf-53. While bachelor, he was appointed tripos, and was much applauded for his speech on that occasion, which was “witty and inoffensive,” a character not often given to those compositions.

The country was now no longer thought a proper field for the exertions of one who had already shown himself so able a champion for his church and nation. His first advance to London was in consequence of his being appointed preacher to the Rolls chapel, by sir Harbottle Grimston; and in Jan. 1665 he was presented by Thomas, earl of Southampton, to the living of St. Andrew’s, Holborn. With this he kept his preachership at the Rolls, and was at the same time afternoon lecturer at the Temple church, which procured him the esteem and friendship of many eminent men in the law, particularly sir Matthew Hale, and lord chief justice Vaughan. Nor were his discourses less adapted to the common understanding. The eminent non-conformist, Matthew Henry, was often his auditor and admirer.

About 1679 Dr. Stillingfleet turned his thoughts to a subject apparently foreign to his usual pursuits, but in which he displayed equal ability. This was the question as to the right of bishops to vote in capital cases, and was occasioned by the prosecution of Thomas Osborne, earl of Danby. Among others who contested that right, was Denzil lord Holies, who published “A Letter shewing that bishops are not to be judges in parliament in cases capital,” 1679, 4to. In answer to this, Dr. Stillingfleet published “The grand question concerning the bishop’s right to vote in parliament in cases capital, stated and argued from the parliament rolls and the history of former times, with an inquiry into their peerage, and the three estates in parliament.” Bishop Burnet observes that in this Stillingfleet gave a proof of his being able to make himself master of any argument which he undertook, and discovered more skill and exactness in judging this matter than all who had gone before him. Burnet adds that in the opinion of all impartial men he put an end to the controversy.

After twenty-five years labour in this way, and publishing his large “Summary,” as a specimen of his capacity, he addressed the lord-mayor and aldermen to grant him two freedoms, which perhaps he received, although we find no record of the fact. Some years after, he again petitioned the lord-mayor and aldermen, stating, “That he was of the age of threescore and four, and that he had for the space of almost thirty years last past, besides his Chronicles dedicated to the earl of Leicester, set forth divers” Summaries“dedicated to them, &c. He therefore prayeth them to bestow on him some yearly pension, or otherwise, whereby he might reap somewhat toward his great charges.” Whether this application had any success, is not known. There is no instance of his reaping any reward from the city, adequate to the extraordinary pains he underwent in the establishment of the reputation of it, unless his being promoted to the office of its Fee'd Chronicler; a post of no great consequence, and to which probably a very small salary was annexed. Whatever it might he, it was so far from retrieving his ruined circumstances, that it did not even afford him the means of subsistence; so that he was forced to beg a brief from king James I. to collect the charitable benevolence of well-disposed people. To the liberal feelings of the present age, it must appear very strange that such a man should have been reduced to such a situation; that neither the opulent city of London, whose service and credit he had so greatly advanced, by writing such an elaborate and accurate survey of it; nor the wealthy company of Merchant Taylors, of which he was a member; nor the state itself; should have thought it their duty to save a person from want, to whom they were all so highly indebted. The licence or brief which his majesty granted him to beg, was a libel upon his own bounty; and the produce of it, so far as we know, fixes an indelible reproach on the charity of the Londoners of that day. We may judge of the sum total collected on this occasion by what was gathered from the parishioners of St. Mary Wolnoth, which amounted to no more than seven shillings and sixpence.

He was a true antiquary, one who was not satisfied with reports, nor yet with the credit of what he found in print, but always had recourse to originals. He made use of his own Lgs (for he could never ride), travelling on foot to many cathedral churches, and other places, where ancient records and charters were, to read them, and made large transcripts into his collections. There is a volume of these notes, which first came into the possession of sir Simonds D'Ewes, and was afterward procured by the first earl of Oxford. Ii is now part of the Harleian collection.

When the vigilance of pursuit was somewhat abated, Strange left the Highlands, and returned to Edinburgh, where, for the first time, he began to turn his talents to account, and contrived to maintain himself, in concealment, by the sale of small drawings of the rival leaders in the rebellion, many of which must still be extant. They were purchased, at the time, in great numbers, at a guinea each. A fan also, the primary destination of which gave it in his eyes an additional value, and where he had, on that account, bestowed more than usual pains, was sold at this period, with a sad heart, “non hos quacsitum munus in usus,” to the earl of Wemyss; who was too sensible of its value to suffer it to be re-purchased, when that was proposed a short time afterwards. Tired of a life of alarm and privacy,lr. Strange, at length, after much difficulty, procured a safe conduct to London, intending to embark for France; but not till he had received the reward peculiarly due to the brave; and made that hand his own, for the sake of which he had risked his life in the field. The name of the lady to whom he was thus united in 1747, and in whose steady affection, through the whole of a long life, all those dangers were forgotten, was Isabella Lumisden, the daughter of an ancient and respectable family, and sister to a gentleman well known in the literary world for his instructive work on the antiquities of Rome.

, an antiquary of much celebrity, descended from an antient family in Lincolnshire, was born at Holbech in that county, November 7, 1687. After having had the first part of his education at the free-school of that place, under the care of Mr. Edward Kelsal, he was admitted into Bene't-college in Cambridge, Nov. 7, 1703, under the tuition of Mr. Thomas Favvcett, and chosen a scholar there in April following. While an under-graduate, he often indulged a strong propensity for drawing and designing; and began to form a collection of antiquarian books. He made physic, however, his principal study, and with that view took frequent perambulations through the neighbouring country, with the famous Dr. Hales, Dr. John Gray of Canterbury, and others, in search of plants; and made great additions to Ray’s “Catalogus Plantarum circa Cantabrigiam;” which, with a map of the county, he was solicited to print; but his father’s death, and various domestic avocations, prevented it. He studied anatomy under Mr. Rolfe the surgeon attended the chemical lectures of signor Vigani and taking the degree of M. B. in 1709, made himself acquainted with the practical part of medicine under the great Dr. Mead at St. Thomas’s hospital. He first began to practise at Boston in his native county, where he strongly recommended the chalybeate waters of Stanfield near Folkingham. In 1717 he removed to London, where, on the recommendation of his friend Dr. Mead, he was soon after elected F. R. S. and was one of the first who revived that of the Antiquaries in 1718, to which last he was secretary for many years during his residence in town. He was also one of the earliest members of the Spalding society. He took the degree of M. D. at Cambridge in 1719, and was admitted a fellow of the College of Physicians in the year following, about which time (1720) he published an account of “Arthur’s Oon” in Scotland, and of “Graham’s dyke,” with plates, 4to. In the year 1722, he was appointed to read the Gulstonian Lecture, in which he gave a description and history of the spleen, and printed it in folio, 1723, together with some anatomical observations on the dissection of an elephant, and many plates coloured in imitation of nature. Conceiving that there were some remains of the Eleusinian mysteries in free-masonry, he gratified his curiosity, and was constituted master of a lodge (1723), to which he presented an account of a Roman amphitheatre at Dorchester, in 4to. After having been one of the censors of the College of Physicians, of the council of the Royal Society, and of the committee to examine into the condition of the astronomical instruments of the Royal Observatory of Greenwich, he left London in 1726, and retired to Grantham in Lincolnshire, where he soon came into great request. The dukes of Ancaster and Rutland, the families of Tyrconnel, Gust, &c. &c. and most of the principal families in the country, were glad to take his advice. During his residence here, he declined an invitation from Algernon earl of Hertford, to settle as a physician at Marlborough, and another to succeed Dr. Hunter at Newark. In 1728 he married Frances daughter of Robert Williamson, esq. of Allington, near Grantham, a lady of good family and fortune. He was greatly afflicted with the gout, which used generally to confine him during the winter months. On this account, for the recovery of his health, it was customary with him to take several journeys in the spring, in which he indulged his innate love of antiquities, by tracing out the footsteps of Caesar’s expedition in this island, his camps, stations, &c. The fruit of his more distant travels was his “Itinerarium Curiosum; or, an Account of the Antiquities and Curiosities in his Travels through Great Britain, Centuria I.” adorned with one hundred copper-plates, and published in folio, London, 1724. This was reprinted after his death, in 1776, with two additional plates; as was also published the second volume, (consisting of his description of the Brill, or Caesar’s camp at Pancras,“IterBoreale,” 1725, and his edition of Richard of Cirencester , with his own notes, and those of Mr. Bertram of Copenhagen, with whom he corresponded, illustrated with 103 copper-plates engraved in the doctor’s lifetime. Overpowered with the fatigue of his profession, and repeated attacks of the gout, he turned his thoughts to the church; and, being encouraged in that pursuit hy archbishop Wake, was ordained at Croydon, July 20, 1720; and in October following was presented by lord-chancellor King to the living of All-Saints in Stamford . At the time of his entering on his parochial cure (1730), Dr. Rogers of that place had just invented his Oleum Artbriticum; which Dr. Stukeley seeing oihers use with admirable success, he was induced to do the like, and with equal advantage for it not only saved his joints, but, with the addition of a proper regimen, and leaving off the use of fermented liquors, he recovered his health and limbs to a surprising degree, ind ever after enjoyed a firm and active state of body, beyond any example in the like circumstances, to a good old age. This occasioned him to publish an account of the success of the external application of this oil in innumerable instances, in a letter to sir Hans Sloane, 1733; and the year after he published also, “A Treatise on the Cause and Cure of the Gout, from a new Rationale;” which, with an abstract of it, has passed through several editions. He collected some remarkable particulars at Stamford in relation to his predecessor bishop Cumberland; and, in 1736, printed an explanation, with an engraving, of a curious silver plate of Roman workmanship in basso relievo, found underground at Risley Park in Derbyshire; wherein he traces its journey thither, from the church of Bourges, to which it had been given by Exsuperius, called St. Swithin, bishop of Toulouse, about the year 205. He published also the same yea.- his “Palæographia Sacra, No. I. or, Discourses on the Monuments of Antiquity that relate to Sacred History,” in 4to, which he dedicated to sir Richard Kllys, bart. “from whom he had received many favours.” In this work (uhich was to have been continued in succeeding numbers) he undertakes to shew, how Heathen Mythology is derived from Sacred History, and that the Bacchus in the Poets is no other than the Jehovah in the Scripture, the conductor of the Israelites through the wilderness. In his country retirement he disposed his collection of Greek and Roman coins according to the order of the Scripture History; and cut out a machine in wood (on the plan of an Orrery), which shews the motion of the heavenly bodies, the course of the tide, &c. In 1737 he lost his wife and in 1738, married Elizabeth, the only daughter of Dr. Gale, dean of York, and sister to his intimate friends Roger and Samuel Gale, esquires; and from this time he often spent his winters in London. In 1740, he published an account of Stonehenge, dedicated to the duke of Ancaster, who had made him one of his chaplains, and given him the living of Somerby near Grantham the year before. In 1741, he preached the Thirtieth of January Sermon before the House of Commons; and in that year became one of the founders of the Egyptian society, composed of gentlemen who had visited Egypt. In 1743 he printed an account of lady Roisia’s sepulchral cell, lately discovered at Royston, in a tract, entitled “Palseographia Britannica, No. I.” to which an answer was published by Mr. Charles Parkin, in 1744. The doctor replied in “Palasographia Britannica, No. II.” 1746, giving an account of the origin of the universities of Cambridge and Stamford, both from Croylandabbey; of the Roman city Granta, on the north-side of the river, of the beginning of Cardike near Waterbeach, &c. To this Mr. Parkin again replied in 1748; but it does not appear that the doctor took any further notice of him. In 1747, the benevolent duke of Montagu (with whom he had become acquainted at the Egyptian society) prevailed on him to vacate his preferments in the country, by giving him the rectory of St. George, Queen-square, whence he frequently retired to Kentish-town, where the following inscription was placed over his door: