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

At the age of thirteen he had finished his course of studies, which he began at the college of Bourdeaux, under Grouchy, the celebrated Buchanan, and Muret, all learned and eminent teachers, and his progress bore proportion to their care. Being designed for the bar by his father, he married the daughter of a counsellor of parliament at Bourdeaux, when in his thirty-third year, and for some time himself sustained that character, but afterwards abandoned a profession to which he probably was never cordially attached. His favourite study was that of human nature, to pursue which he travelled through various parts of France, Germany, Swisserland, and Italy, making his observations on every thing curious or interesting in society, and receiving many marks of distinction. At Rome, in 1581, he was admitted a citizen; and the same year he was chosen mayor of Bourdeaux, and in this office gave such satisfaction to his fellow-citizens, that in 1582 they employed him in a special mission to courj; on important affairs, and after his mayoralty expired, they again elected him into the same office. In 1588 he appeared to advantage at the assembly of the states of Blois, and although not a deputy, took a share in their proceedings and cabals. During one of his visits at court, Charles IX. decorated him with the collar of the order of St. Michael, without any solicitation, which, when young, he is said to nave coveted above all things, it being at that time the highest mark of honour among the French nobility, and rarely bestowed.

Returning afterwards to his family residence, he devoted himself to study, from which be suffered some disturbance during the civil wars. On one occasion a stranger presented himself at the entrance of his house, pretending that while travelling with his friends, a troop of soldiers had attacked their party, taken away their baggage, killed all who made resistance, and dispersed the rest. Mon< taigne, unsuspectingly, admitted this man, who was the chief of a gang, and wanted admittance only to plunder the house. In a few minutes two or three more arrived, whom the first declared to be his friends that had made their escape, and Montaigne compassionately made them welcome. Soon after, however, he perceived the court of his chateau filled with more of the party, whose behaviour left him in no doubt as to their intentions. Montaigne preserved his countenance unaltered, and ordered them every refreshment the place afforded, and presented this with so nauch* kindness and politeness, that the captain of the troop had not the courage to give the signal for pillage.

In his old age Montaigne was much afflicted with the stone and nephritic colic, but could never be prevailed upon to take medicines, in which he never had any faith. The physicians, he used to say, “know Galen, but they know nothing of a sick person;” and such was his confidence in the powers of nature, that he refused even a common purgative, when the, indication was plain. He died Sept. 15, 1592, in his sixtieth year.

His reputation is founded on his “Essays,” which were at one time extremely popular, and which are still read with pleasure by a numerous class of persons. La Harpe says of him, “As a writer, he has impressed on our language (the French) an energy which it did not before possess, and which has not become antiquated, because it is that of sentiments and ideas. As a philosopher he has painted man as he is; he praises without compliment, and blames without misanthropy.” In 1774 was published at Rome (Paris), “Memoirs of a Journey into Italy,” &c. by Montaigne, the editor of which has given us a few less known particulars of the author. He says that “with a large share of natural vivacity, passion, and spirit, Montaigne’s life was far from being that of a sedentary contemplatist, as those may be inclined to think, who view him only in the sphere of his library and in the composition of his essays. His early years by no means passed in the arms of leisure. The troubles and commotions whereof he had been an eye-witness during five reigns, which he had seen pass successively before that of Henry IV. had not in any degree contributed to relax that natural activity and restlessness of spirit. They had been sufficient to call it forth even from indolence itself. He had travelled a good deal in France, and what frequently answers a better purpose than any kind of travel, he was well acquainted with the metropolis, and knew the court. We see his attachment to Paris in the third book of his Essays. Thuanus likewise observes, that Montaigne was equally successful in making his court to the famous duke of Guise, Henry of Lorraine, and to the king of Navarre, afterwards Henry IV. king of France. He adds, that he was at his estate at Blois when the duke of Guise was assassinated, 1558. Montaigne foresaw, says he, that the troubles of the nation would only end with the life of that prince, or of the king of Navarre; and this instance we have of his political sagacity. He was so well acquainted with the character and disposition of those princes, so well read in their hearts and sentiments, that he told his friend Thuanus, the king of Navarre would certainly have returned to the religion of his ancestors (that of the Romish communion) if he had not been apprehensive of being abandoned by his party. Montaigne, in short, had talents for public business and negociation, but his philosophy kept him at a distance from political disturbances; and he had the address to conduct himself without offence to the contending parties, in the worst of times.”

More recently, in 1799, his memory has been revived in France by an extravagant eloge from the pen of a French lady, Henrietta Bourdic-viot, who assures us that it was in the works of Montaigne that she acquired the knowledge of her duties.“But we rather incline to the more judicious character given of this author by Dr. Joseph Warton.” That Montaigne,“says this excellent critic,” abounds in native wit, in quick penetration, in perfect knowledge of the human heart, and the various vanities and vices that lurk in it, cannot justly be denied. But a man who undertakes to transmit his thoughts on life and manners to posterity, with the hope of entertaining and amending future ages, must be either exceedingly vain or exceedingly careless, if he expects either of these effects can be produced by wanton sallies of the imagination, by useless and impertinent digressions, by never forming or following any regular plan, never classing or confining his thoughts, never changing or rejecting any sentiment that occurs to him. Yet this appears to have been the conduct of our celebrated essayist; and it has produced many awkward imitators, who, under the notion of writing with the fire and freedom of this lively old Gascon, have fallen into confused rhapsodies and uninteresting egotisms. But these blemishes of Montaigne are trifling and unimportant, compared with his vanity, his indecency, and his scepticism. That man must totally have suppressed the natural love of honest reputation, which is so powerfully felt by the truly wise and good, who can calmly sit down to give a catalogue of his private vices, publish his most secret infirmities, with the pretence of exhibiting a faithful picture of himself, and of exactly pourtraying the minutest features of his mind. Surely he deserves the censure Quintilian bestows on Demetrius, a celebrated Grecian statuary, that he was nimius in veritate, ct similitudinis quam pulchritudinis amantior; more studious of likeness than of beauty."

The first edition of Montaigne’s Essays was published by himself in 1580, 8vo, in two books only, which were augmented afterwards to the present number. Of the subsequent editions, those by P. Coste are reckoned the best, and of these, Tonson’s edition, 1724, in 3 vols. 4to, is praised by the French bibliographers, as the most beautiful that has ever appeared. We have also two English translations. Montaigne’s life was first written by the president Bouhier, and prefixed to a supplementary volume of his works in 1740. Montaigne appeared once as the editor of some of the works of Stephen de la Boetie, in 1571; and ten years afterwards translated the “Natural Theologie” of Raimond de Sebonda, a learned Spaniard, and prefixed prefaces to both.

, senior member of the academy of sciences of France, was born July 16, 1714, at Angouleme. His family had been a long time rendered illustrious in arms by An. re* De Montalembert, count d'Esse“, lieutenant-general to the king, commander of his armies in Scotland, governor of Terouane near St. Omers, and who died on the breach, the 12th of June 1553. In 1732 the young Montalembert entered into the army, and distinguished himself at the sieges of Kehl and Philipsburg in 1736. He was afterwards captain of the guards to the prince of Conti. In peace he studied the mathematics and natural philosophy: he read a memoir to the academy of sciences, upon the evaporation of the water in the salt works at Turcheim, in the palatinate, which he had examined, and was made a member in 1747. There are in the volumes in the academy some memoirs from him upon the rotation of bullets, upon the substitution of stoves for fire-places, and upon a pool, in which were found pike purblind, and others wholly without sight. From 1750 to 1755 he established the forges at Angoumoisand Perigord. and there founded cannon for the navy. In 1777 three volumes were printed of the correspondence which he held with the generals and ministers, whilst he was employed by his country in the Swedish and Russian armies during the campaigns of 1757 and 1761, and afterwards in Britanny and the isle of Oleron, when fortifying it. He fortified also Stralsund, in Pomerania, against the Prussian troops, and gave an account to his court of the military operations in which it was concerned; and this in a manner which renders it an interesting part of the History of the Seven-years War. In 1776 he printed the first volume of an immense work upon Perpendicular Fortification, and the art of Defence; demonstrating the inconveniences of the old system, for which he substitutes that of casemates, which admit of such a kind of firing, that a place fortified after his manner appears to be impregnable. His system has been, however, uot always approved or adopted. His treatise was extended to ten volumes in quarto, with a great number of plates; the last volume was published in 1792, and will doubtless carry his name to posterity as an author as well as a general. He married, in 1770, Marie de Comarieu, who was an actress, and the owner of a theatre, for whom the general sometimes composed a dramatic piece. In 1784 and 1786 he printed three operatical pieces, set to music by Cambini and Tomeoni: they were,” La Statue,“” La Bergere qualite,“and” La Bohemienne." Alarmed at the progress of the revolution, he repaired to England in 1789 or 1790, and leaving his wife there, procured a divorce, and afterwards married Rosalie Louise Cadet, to whom he was under great obligation during the Robespierrian terror, and by whom he had a daughter born in July 1796. In his memoir published in 1790, it may be seen that he had been arbitrarily dispossessed of his iron forges, and that having a claim for six millions of livres clue to him, he was reduced to a pension, but ill paid, and was at last obliged to sell his estate at Maumer, in Angoumois, for which he was paid in assignats, and which were insufficient to take him out of that distress which accompanied him throughout his life. He was sometimes almost disposed to put an end to his existence, but had the courage to resume his former studies, and engaged a person to assist him in compleating some new models. His last public appearance was in the institute, where he read a new memoir upon the mountings (affect) of ship-guns. On this occasion he was received with veneration by the society, and attended to with religious silence: a man of eighty-six years of age had never been heard to read with so strong a voice. His memoir was thought of so much importance, that the institute wrote to the minister of marine, who sent orders to Brest for the adoption of the suggested change. He was upon the list for a place in the institute, and was even proposed as the first member for the section of mechanics, but learning that Bonaparte was spoken of for the institute, he wrote a letter, in which he expressed his desire to see the young conqueror of Italy honoured with this new crown. His strength of mind he possessed to the last, for not above a month before his death he wrote reflections upon the siege of St. John d'Acre, which contained further proofs of the solidity of his defensive system, but at last he fell ill of a catarrh, which degenerated into a dropsy, and carried him off March 22, 1802.

, an ancient heresiarch. among the Christians, founded a new sect in the second century of the church, which were called Montanists. They had also the name of Phrygians and Cataphrygians, because Montanus was either born, or at least first known, at Ardaba, a village of Mysia, which was situated upon the borders of Phrygia. Here he set up for a prophet, although it seems he had but lately embraced Christianity: but it is said that he had an immoderate desire to obtain a first place in the church, and that he thought this the most likely means of raising himself. In this assumed character he affected to appear inspired with the Holy Spirit, and to be seized and agitated with divine ecstacies; and, under these disguises he uttered prophecies, in which he laid down doctrines, and established rites and ceremonies, entirely new. This wild behaviour was attended with its natural consequences and effects upon the multitude some affirming him to be a true prophet others, that he was possessed with an evil spirit. To carry on his delusion the better, Montanus associated to himself Priscilla and Maximiila, two wealthy ladies, who acted the part “of prophetesses” and, it> by the power of whose geld,“as Jerome tells us,” he first seduced many churches, and then corrupted them with his abominable errors." He seems to have made Pepuza, a tawn in Phrygia, the place of his first residence; and he artfully called it Jerusalem, because he knew the charm there was in that name, and what a powerful temptation it would be in drawing from all parts the weaker and more credulous Christians. Here he employed himself in delivering obscure and enigmatical sayings, under the name of prophecies; and made no small advantage of his followers, who brought great sums of money and valuable presents, by way of offerings. Some of these prophecies of Montanus and his women are preserved by Epiphanius, in which they affected to consider themselves only as mere machines and organs, through which God spake unto his people.

The peculiarities of this sect of Christians are explicitly set forth by St. Jerome. They are said to have been very heterodox in regard to the Trinity; inclining to Sabellianism, “by crowding,” as Jerome expresses it, “the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, into the narrow limits of one person.” Epiphanius, however, contradicts this, and affirms them to have agreed with the church in the doctrine of the Trinity. The Montanists held all second marriages to be unlawful, asserting that although the apostle Paul permitted them, it was because he “only knew in part, and prophesied in part;” but tnat, since the Holy Spirit had been poured upon Montanus and his prophetesses, they were not to be permitted any longer. But the capital doctiines of the Montanists are these “God,” they say, “was first pleased to save the world, under the Old Testament, from eternal damnation by Moses and the prophets. When these agents proved ineffectual, he assumed flesb. and blood of the Virgin Mary, and died for us in Christ, under the person of the Son. When the salvation of the world was not effected yet, he descended lastly upon Montanus, Priscilla, and Maximilla, into whom he infused that fulness of his Holy Spirit*, which had not been vouchsafed to the apostle Paul; for, Paul only knew in part, and prophesied in part.” These doctrines gained ground very fast;, and Montanus soon found himself surrounded with a tribe of people, who would probably have been ready to acknowledge his pretensions, if they had been higher. To add to his influence over their minds, he observed a wonderful strictness and severity of discipline, was a man of mortification, and of an apparently most sanctified spirit. He disclaimed all innovations in the grand articles of faith; and only pretended to perfect what was left unfinished by the saints. By these means he supported for a long time the character of a most holy, mortified, and divine person, and the world became much interested in the visions and prophecies of him and his two damsels Priscilla and Maximilla; and thus the face of severity and saintship consecrated their reveries, and made real possession pass for inspiration. Several good men immediately embraced the delusion, particularly Tertullian, Alcibiades, and Theodotus, who, however, did not wholly approve of Montanus’s extravagancies; but the churches of Phrygia, and afterwards other churches, grew divided upon the account of these new revelations; and, for some time, even the bishop of Rome cherished the imposture. Of the time or manner of Montanus’s death we have no certain account. It has been asserted, but without proof, that he and his coadjutress Maximilla were suicides.

, a very learned Spaniard, was born at Frexenel, in Estremadura, in 1527, and was the son of a notary. He studied in the university of Alcala, where he made great proficiency in the learned languages. Having taken the habit of the Benedictines, he accompanied, in 1562, the bishop of Segovia to the council of Trent, where he first laid the foundation of his celebrity. On his return to Spain, he retired to a hermitage situated on the top of a rock, near Aracena, where it was his intention to have devoted his life to meditation, but Philip It. persuaded him to leave this retreat, and become editor of a new Polyglot, which was to be printed by Christopher Plantin at Antwerp. On this employment he spent four years, from 1568 to 1572, and accomplished this great work in 8 volumes folio. The types were cast by the celebrated William Lebe, whom Plantin had invited from Paris for this purpose. This Polyglot, besides what is given in the Alcala Bible, contains the Chaldaic paraphrases, a Syriac version of the New Testament, in Syriac and Hebrew characters, with a Latin translation, &c. While Montanus was beginning to enjoy the reputation to which his labours in this work so well entitled him, Leo de Castro, professor of oriental languages at Salamanca, accused him before the inquisitions of Rome and Spain, as having altered the text of the holy Scriptures, and confirmed the prejudices of the Jews by his Chaldaic paraphrases. In consequence of this, Montanus was obliged to take several journies to Rome, to justify himself, which he did in the most satisfactory manner. Being thus restored, Philip II. offered him a bishopric; but he preferred his former retirement in the hermitage at Aracena, where he hoped to finish his days. There he constructed a winter and a summer habitation, and laid out a pleasant garden, &c. but had scarcely accomplished these comforts, when Philip II. again solicited him to return to the world, and accept the office of librarian to the Escurial, and teach the oriental languages. At length he was permitted to retire to Seville, where he died in 1598, aged seventy-one.

Arias was one of the most learned divines of the sixteenth century. He was a master of the Hebrew, Chaldaic, Syriac, Arabic, and Greek and Latin languages, and spoke fluently in German, French, and Portuguese. He was sober, modest, pious, and indefatigable. His company was sought by the learned, the great, and the pious; and his conversation was always edifying. Besides the Antwerp Polyglot, he was the author of, 1. “Index correctorius Lib. Theologicorum, Catholici regis anthoritate editus,” Antwerp, 1571, 4to. 2. “Commentaria in duodecim prophetas minores,” ibid. 1571, 4to; reprinted 1582. 3. “Elucidationes in quatuor Evangelia & in Act. Apost.” ibid. 1575, 4to. 4. “Elucidationes in omnia S. S. apostolorum scripta, &c.” ibid. 1588, 4to. 5. “De optimo imperio, sive in Librum Josue commentarius,” ibid. 1583. 6. “De varia Republica, sive Comment, in librum Judicum,” ibid. 1592, 4to. 7. “Antiquitatum Judaicarum, lib. novem,” Leyden, 1593. 8. “Liber generationis et regenerationis Adam, sive historia generis humani,” Antwerp, 1593, 4to; a second' part in 1601. y. “Davidis, aliorumque Psalmi ex Heb. in Lat. carmen conversi,” ibid. 1574, 4to. 10. “Conimentarii in triginta priores Psalmos,” ibid. 1605: with a few other works enumerated by Antonio and Niceron.

, was an Italian physician of so much reputation, that he was regarded by his countrymen as a second Galen. He was born at Verona in 1488, of the noble family of Monte in Tuscany, and sent to Padua by his father, to study the civil law. But his bent lay towards physic; which, however, though he made a vast progress in it, so displeased his father, that he entirely withdrew from him all support. He therefore travelled abroad, and practised physic in several cities with success, and increased his reputation among the learned, as an orator and poet. He lived some time at Home, with cardinal Hyppolitus; then removed to Venice; whence, having in a short time procured a competency, he retired to Padua. Here, within two years after his arrival, he was preferred by the senate to the professor’s chair; and he was so attached to the republic, which was always kind to him, that, though tempted with liberal offers from the emperor, Charles V. Francis I. of France, and Cosmo duke of Tuscany, he retained his situation. He was greatly afflicted with the stone in his latter days, and died in 15'5l. He was the author of many works; part of which were published by himself, and part by his pupil John Crato after his death. They were, however, principally comments upon the ancients, and illustrations of their theories; and have therefore ceased to be of importance, since the originals have lost their value. He translated into Latin the works of Aetius, which he published at the desire of cardinal Hyppolitus. He also translated into Latin verse the poem of Museus; and made translations of the Argonautics attributed to Orpheus, and of Lucian’s Tragopodagra.

, a French naturalist, was born in 1720, at Semur, in Auxois. He spent the early part of his youth at Dijon, and afterwards came to Paris, where he made himself known as a man of science. He continued with reputation, the “Collection Academique,” a periodical work, which gave a view of every thing interesting contained in the “Memoirs” of the different learned societies in Europe. He was chosen by Buffon to be his associate in his great work on natural history, and the continuation of his ornithology was committed to him. He is described by Buffon, “as of all men, the person whose manner of seeing, judging, and writing, was most conformable to his own.” When the class of birds was finished, Montbeliard undertook that of insects, relative to which he had already furnished several articles to the New Encyclopedia, but his progress was cut short by his death, which took place at Semur, Nov. 28, 1785.

, a very celebrated Austrian general, was born in 1608, of a distinguished family in the Modenese. Ernest Montecuculi, his uncle, who was general of artillery in the imperial troops, made him pass through aJl the military ranks, before he was raised to that of commander. The young man’s first exploit was in 1634, when at the head of 2000 horse, he surprised 10,000 Swedes who were besieging Nemeslaw, in Silesia, and took their baggage and artillery; but he was shortly after defeated and made prisoner by general Bannier. Having obtained his liberty at the end of two years, he joined his forces to those of J. de Wert, in Bohemia, and conquered general Wrangel, who was killed in the battle. In 1627, the emperor appointed Montecuculi marechal de camp general, and sent him to assist John Casimir, king of Poland. He defeated Razolzi, prince of Transylvania, drove out the Swedes, and distinguished himself greatly against the Turks in Transylvania, and in Hungary, by gaining the battle of St. Gothard, in 1664. Montecuculi commanded the imperial forces against France in 1673, and acquired great honour from the capture of Bonn, which was preceded by a march, conducted with many stratagems to deceive M. Turenne. The command of this army was nevertheless taken from him the year following, but he received it again in 1675, that he might oppose the great Turenne, on the Rhine. Montecuculi had soon to bewail the death of this formidable enemy, on whom he bestowed the highest encomiums: “I lament,” said he, “and I can never too much lament, the loss of a man who appeared more than man; one who did honour to human nature.” The great prince of Cond6 was the only person who ould contest with Montecuculi, the superiority which M. de Turenne’s death gave him. That prince was therefore sent to the Rhine, and stopped the imperial general’s progress, who nevertheless considered this last campaign as his most glorious one; not because he was a conqueror, but because he was not conquered by two such opponents as Turenne and Conde. He spent the remainder of his life at the emperor’s court, devoting himself to the belles lettres; and the academy of naturalists owes its establishment to him. He died October 16, 1680, at Linez, aged seventy-two. This great general left some very excellent “Memoires” on the military art; the best French edition of which is that of Strasburg, 1735; to which that of Paris, 1746, 12mo, is similar.

, a celebrated Castillian poet, was born at Monte-mayor, whence he took his name, probably in the early part of the sixteenth century, one authority says in 1520. It is thought he owed his reputation more to genius than study; in his early years he was in the army, and amidst the engagements of a military life, cultivated music and poetry. He appears to have afterwards obtained an employment, on account of his musical talents, in the suite of Philip II.; and was also patronized by queen Catherine, sister to the emperor Charles V. He died in the prime of life in 1562. His reputation now rests on his “Diana,” a pastoral romance, which has always been admired on the continent, and translated into various languages. The last edition of the original is that of Madrid, 1795, 8vo. Caspar Polo published a continuation, “La Diana enamoradacinco libros que prosequen los VII. de Jorge de Montemayor,” Madrid, 1778, 8vo, a work which, Brunet says, is more esteemed than that of Montemayor.

, a very celebrated French writer, was descended of an ancient and noble family of Guienne, and born at the castle of Brede near Bourdeaux, Jan. 18, 1639. The greatest care was taken of his education; and, at the age of twenty, he had actually prepared materials for his “Spirit of Laws,” by a well-digested extract from those immense volumes which compose the body of the civil law; and which he had studied both as a civilian and a philosopher. Maupertuis informs us that he studied this science almost from his infancy, and that the first product of his early genius was a work, in which he undertook to prove, that the idolatry of most part of the pagans did not deserve eternal punishment, but this he thought fit to suppress. In Feb. 1714, he became a counsellor of the parliament of Bourdeaux, and was received president amortier, July 13, 1716, in the room of an uncle, who left him his fortune and his office. He was admitted, April 3, 1716, into the academy of Bourdeaux, which was then only in its infancy. A taste for music, and for works of entertainment, had, at first, assembled the members who composed it; but the societies for belles lettres being grown, in his opinion, too numerous, he proposed to have physics for their chief object; and the duke de la Force, having, by a prize just founded at Bourdeaux, seconded this just and rational proposal, Bourdeaux acquired an academy of sciences.

Montesquieu is said not to have been eager to shew himself to the public, but rather to wait for “an age ripe for writing.” It was not till 1721, when he was thirty-two years of age, that he published his “Persian Letters.” The description of oriental manners, real or supposed, of the prirle and phlegm of Asiatic love, is but the smallest object of these “Letters;” which were more particularly intended as a satire upon French manners, and treat of everai important subjects, which the author investigates rather fully, while he only seems to glance at them. Though this work was. exceedingly admired, yet he did not openly declare himself the author of it. He expresses himself sometimes freely about matters of religion, and therefore as soon as he was known to be the author, he had to encounter much censure and serious opposition, for at that time the philosophizing spirit was not tolerated in France. In 1725, he opened the parliament with a speech, the depth and eloquence of which were convincing proofs of his great abilities as an orator; and the year following he quitted his charge.

A place in the French academy becoming vacant by the death of monsieur de Sacy, in 1728, Montesquieu, by the advice of his friends, and supported also by the voice of the public, offered himself for it. Upon this, the minister, cardinal Fleury, wrote a letter to the academy, informing them, that his majesty would never agree to the election of the author of the “Persian Letters” that he had not himself read the book but that persons in whom he placed confidence, had informed him of its dangerous tendency. Montesquieu, thinking it prudent immediately to encounter this opposition, waited on the minister, and declared to him, that, for particular reasons, he had not owned the “Persian Letters,” but that he would be still farther from, disowning a work, for which he believed he had no reason to blush; and that he ought to be judged after a reading, and not upon information. At last, the minister did what he ought to have begun with; he read the book, loved the author, and learned to place his confidence better. The French academy, says D'Alembert, was not deprived of one of its greatest ornaments, nor France of a subject, of which superstition or calumny was ready to deprive her; for Montesquieu, it seems, had frankly declared to the government, that he could not think of continuing in France after the affront they were about to offer, but should seek among foreigners for that safety, repose, and honour, which he might have hoped in his own country. He was received into the academy, Jan. 24, 1728; and his discourse upon that occasion, which was reckoned a very fine one, is printed among his works. As before his admission into the academy, he had giveatip his civil employments, and devoted himself entirely to his genius and taste, he resolved to travel, and went first, in company with lord Waldegrave our ambassador, to Vienna, where he often saw prince Eugene; in whom he thought he could discover some remains of affection for his native country. He left Vienna to visit Hungary; and, passing thence through Venice, went to Rome. There he applied himself chiefly to examine the works of Raphael, of Titian, and of Michael Angelo, although he had not made the fine arts a particular study. After having travelled over Italy, he came to Switzerland, and carefully examined 1 those vast countries which are watered by the Rhine. He stopped afterwards some time in the United Provinces; and, at last, went to England, where he stayed three years, and contracted intimate friendships with many of the most distinguished characters of the day. He in particular received many marks of attention from queen Caroline. In the portrait of Montesquieu, written by himself, and published lately among some posthumous pieces, he gives the following proof of his gallantry in reply “Dining in England with the duke of Richmond, the French envoy there La Boine, who was at table, and was ill qualified for his situation, contended that England was not larger than the province of Guienne. I opposed the envoy. In the evening, the queen said to me, `I am informed, sir, that you undertook our defence against M. de la Boine.‘ `Madam,’ I replied, `I cannot persuade myself that a country over which you reign, is not a great kingdom.'”

During his travels to gain a personal acquaintance with the manners, genius, and laws of the different nations of Europe, he met with some singular adventures. Whilst he was at Venice he wrote much and inquired more: his writings, which he did not keep sufficiently secret, had alarmtd the state; he was informed of it, and it was hinted to him that he had some reason to be apprehensive that in crossing from Venice to Fucina, he might probably be arrested. With this information he embarked: about the middle of the passage, he saw several gondolas approach, and row round his vessel: terror seized him, and in his panic he collected all his papers which contained his observations on Venice, and cast them into the sea. The author of the “New Memoirs of Italy” says, that the state had no design against his person, but only to discover what plans he might have formed.

After his return, he retired for two years to his estate at Brede, and there finished his work “On the Causes of the Grandeur and Declension of the Romans,” which appeared in 1734, and in which he has rendered a common topic highly interesting. By seizing only the most fruitful branches of his subject, he has contrived to present within G small compass a great variety of objects. But whatever reputation he acquired by this work, it was but preparatory to the more extensive fame of his “Spirit of Laws,” of which he had, as already noticed, long formed the design. Yet scarcely was it published, in 1748, when it was attacked by the same adversaries who had objected to the “Persian Letters,” who at first treated it with levity, and even the title of it was made a-subject of ridicule; but the more serious objections made to it on the score of religion alarmed the author, who therefore drew up “A Defence* of the Spirit of Laws;” in which, while he could not pretend that it was without faults, he endeavoured to prove that it had not all the faults ascribed to it. It is said that when the “Spirit of Laws” made its appearance, the Sorbonne found in it several propositions contrary to the doctrine of the catholic church. These doctors entered into a critical investigation of the work, which they generally censured; but as among the propositions condemned, there were found some concerning ecclesiastical jurisdiction which were attended with many difficulties, and as Montesquieu had promised to give a new edition, in which he would correct any passages that had appeared against religion, this censure of the Sorbonne did not appear.

The systematical part of the “Spirit of Laws” was that of which Montesquieu seemed the most tenacious; this indeed was the most important and the most difficult. His system, however, of the climates, inconclusive and illfounded as it is, appears borrowed from Bodin’s “Method of studying History,” and Charron’s “Treatise on Wisdom.” Still the numerous useful observations, ingenious reflections, salutary plans, and strong images, that are diffused through the work, added to the admirable maxims we there meet with for the good of society, gave the work a very high reputation in France, as well as throughout Europe in general. It has now lost much of its popularity, but at one time no book was more read and studied.

The admirers of Montesquieu have wished that he had applied himself to the writing of history; but it may be doubted whether his imagination would not have proved too lively for that attention to facts and authorities which is absolutely necessary to historical narrative. He had, however, finished the history of Lewis XI. of France, and the public was upon the point of reaping the benefit of his labours, when a singular mistake deprived them of it. Montesquieu one day left the rough draught and the copy of this history upon his table, when he ordered his secretary to burn the draught, and lock up the copy. The secretary obeyed in part, but left the copy upon the table: Montesquieu returning some hours after into his study, observed this copy, which he took for the draught, and threw it into the fire. On this and the preceding anecdote, one of his countrymen, in the true spirit of French compliment, observes, “that the elements, as well as men in power, seemed jealous of his superior merit, as water and fire deprived us of two of his most valuable productions.”

In 1751, a literary dispute arose concerning the translation of the Bible into French: the question was, whether the second person singular, which is dismissed in all polite conversation, should be preserved Fontenelle was on the affirmative side, as well as Montesquieu. Remarks were written on this determination, in which the writer, among other things, observes, “That the author of the Persian Letters with his eastern taste, could not fail being an advocate for thou.”

About this time, among other marks of esteem bestowed on Montesquieu, Dassier, who was celebrated for cutting of medals, and particularly the English coin, went from London to Paris, to engrave that of the author of the Spirit of Laws; but Montesquieu modestly declined it. The artist said to him one day, “Do not you think there is as much pride in refusing my proposal, as if you accepted it?” Disarmed by this pleasantry, he yielded to Dassier’s request.

Montesquieu was peaceably enjoying that esteem which his merits had procured him, when he fell sick at Paris in 1755. His health, naturally delicate, had begun to decay for some time, partly by the slow but sure effect of deep study, and partly by the way of life he was obliged to lead at Paris. He was oppressed with cruel pains soon after he fell sick, nor had he his family, or any relations, near him; yet he preserved to his last moments great firmness and tranquillity of mind. “In short,” says his elogist, " after having performed every duty which decency required, he died with the ease and well-grounded assurance of a man who had never employed his talents but in the cause of virtue and humanity.' 7 His last hours are said to have been disturbed by the Jesuits, who wished him to retract some of his opinions on religion; and some say he made a formal disavowal of these. He died February 10, 1755, aged 66.

Besides the works already mentioned, Montesquieu wrote others of less reputation, but which might have conferred celebrity on a tvriter of inferior merit. The most remarkable of them is the “Temple of Gnidus,” which was published soon after the “Persian Letters.” Montesquieu, says D'Alembert, after having been Horace, Theophrastus, and Lucian, in those, was Ovid and Anacreon in this new essay. In this he professes to describe the delicacy and simplicity of pastoral love, such as it is in an inexperienced heart, not yet corrupted with the commerce of the world and this he has painted in a sort of poem in prose for, such we may reasonably call a piece so full of images and descriptions as the “Temple of Gnidus.” Its voluptuous style at first made it be read with avidity, but it is now considered as unworthy of the author. Besides this, there is a small piece, called “Lysimachus,” and another, still smaller, " On Taste;' 1 but this is indeed only a fragment. Several of his works have been translated at different times into English, but are not now much read in this country. In France, however, he is still considered as one of their standard authors, and within these few years, several splendid editions of his collected works have been published both in 4to and 8vo, with additions from the author’s manuscripts.

To the personal character of Montesquieu, as given by his eulogists and biographers, we have never heard any objection. He was not less amiable, say they, for the qualities of his heart, than those of his mind. He ever appeared in the commerce of the world with good humour, cheerfulness, and gaiety. His conversation was easy, agreeable, and instructive, from the great number of men he had lived with, and the variety of manners he had studied. It was poignant like his style, full of salt and pleasant sallies, free from invective and satire. No one could relate a narration with more vivacity, readiness, grace, and propriety. He knew that the close of a pleasing story is always the chief object; he therefore hastened to reach it, and always produced a happy effect, without creating too great an expectation. His frequent flights were very entertaining; and he constantly recovered himself by some unexpected stroke, which revived a conversation when it was drooping; but they were neither theatrically played off, forced, or impertinent. The fire of his wit gave them birth; but his judgment suppressed them in the course of a serious conversation: the wish of pleasing always made him suit himself to his company, without affectation or the desire of being clever. The agreeableness of his company was not only owing to his disposition and genius, but also to the peculiar method he observed in his studies. Though capable of the deepest and most intricate meditations, he never exhausted his powers, but always quitted his lucubrations before he felt the impulse of fatigue. He had a sense of glory; but he was not desirous of obtaining without meriting it. He never attempted to increase his reputation by those obscure and shameful means which dishonour the man, without increasing the fame of the author. Worthy of the highest distinction and the greatest rewards, he required nothing, and was not astonished at being forgotten: but he dared, even in the most critical circumstances, to protect, at Court, men of letters who were persecuted, celebrated, and unhappy, and obtained them favour. Although he lived with the great, as well from his rank as a taste for society, their company was not essential to his happiness. He sequestered himself, whenever he could, in his villa: there with joy, he embraced philosophy, erudition, and ease. Surrounded in his leisure hours with rustics, after having studied man in the commerce of the world and the history of nations, he studied him even in those simple beings, whose sole instructor was nature, and in them he found information. He cheerfully conversed with them: like Socrates he traced their genius, and he was as much pleased with their unadorned narrations as with the polished harangues of the great, particularly when he terminated their differences, and alleviated their grievances by his benefactions. He was in general very kind to his servants: nevertheless, he was compelled one day to reprove them; when turning towards a visitor, he said with a smile, “These are clocks that must be occasionally wound up.” Nothing does greater honour to his memory than the ceconomy with which he lived; it has "indeed been deemed excessive in an avaricious and fastidious world, little formed to judge of the motive of his conduct, and still less to feel it. Beneficent and just, Montesquieu would not injure his family by the succours with which he aided the distressed, nor the extraordinary expence occasioned by his travels, the weakness of his sight, and the printing of his works. He transmitted to his children, without diminution or increase, the inheritance he received from his ancestors: he added nothing to it but his fame, and the example of his life.

Montesquieu married, in 1715, Jeanne de Lartigue, daughter to Peter de Lartigue, lieutenant-colonel of the regiment of Maulevrier. By this lady he had two daughters and a son, John. Baptista de Secondat, counsellor of the parliament of Bourdeaux, who died in that city in 1796, at the age of seventy-nine. He was author of many works; particularly of “Observations de Physique et d'Histoire Naturelle sur les Eaux Minerales de Pyrenees,” 1750; “Considerations sur la Commerce et la Navigation de la Grande Bretagne,” 1740; “Considerations sur la Marine Militaire de France,” 1756. He resided a considerable time in London, and was elected a member of the Royal Society.

, a Scotch historian, was born at Salmonet, between Airth and Grange, on the suuch-side of the Firth-of-Forth, whence he was called abroad Salmonettus Scoto-Britannus. Of his life we fcave been able to discover very few particulars. The tradition is, that he was obliged to leave Scotland upon his being suspected of adultery with the wife of sir James Hamilton of Preston-field. Monteith appears to have been a chaplain of cardinal de Retz, who also made him a canon of Notre Dame, and encouraged him in writing his history. See Joli, Memoires, torn. Ij. page 86, where he is called “homme scavant & de merite.” Cardinal de Retz also mentions him, vol. III. p. 323. His brother was lieutenant-colonel of Douglas’s regiment (the royal), and killed in Alsace. In the privilege for printing Monteith’s History, granted the 13th of September 1660, to Jaques St. Clair. de Roselin, he is styled “le defunct St. Montet” In the title-page he is called Messire. This work embraces the period of Scotch history from the coronation of Charles I. to the conclusion of the rebellion. In his preface he professes the utmost impartiality, and as far as we have been able to look into the work, he appears to have treated the history of those tumultuous times with much candour. His leaning is of course to the regal side of the question. In 17.35 a translation of this work, which was originally published in French, and was become very rare, was executed at London in one vol. fol. by J. Ogilvie, under the title of a “History of the Troubles of Great Britain.” The author was held in high esteem by Menage, who wrote two Latin epigrams in his praise. The time of his death we have not been able to discover. He must be distinguished from a Robert Monteith, the compiler of a scarce and valuable collection of all the epitaphs of Scotland, published in 1704, 8vo, under the title of “An Theater of Mortality.”

, a Benedictine of the congregation of St. Maur, and one of the most learned antiquaries France has produced, was born Jan. 17, 1655, at Soulage in Langnedoc, whither his parents had removed on some business; and was educated at the castle of Roquetaillade in the diocese of Alet, where they ordinarily resided. His family was originally of Gascony, and of the ancient lords of Montfaucon-le-Vieux, first barons of the comte de Comminges. The pedigree of a man of learning is not of much importance, but Montfaucon was an antiquary, and has given us his genealogy in his “Bibl. Bibliothecarum manuscriptorum,” and it must not, therefore, be forgotten, that besides his honourable ancestors of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, he was the son of Timoleon de Montfaucon, lord of Roquetaillacle and Conillac in the diocrse of Alet, by Flora de Maignan, daughter of the baron d'Albieres. He was the second of four brothers. From his early studies in his father’s house he was removed to Limoux, where he continued them under the fathers of the Christian doctrine, and it is said that the reading of Plutarch’s Lives inspired him first with a love for history and criticism. A literary profession, however, was not his original destination, for we find that he set out with being a cadet in the regiment of Perpignan, and served one or two campaigns in Germany in the army of marshal Turenne. He also gave a proof of his courage by accepting a challenge from a brother bfficer who wished to put it to the tfcst. About two years after entering the army, the death of his parents, and of an officer of distinction under whom he served, with other circumstances that occurred about the same time, appear to have given him a dislike to the military life, and induced him to enter the congregation of St. Maur in 1675 at the age of twenty. In this learned society, for such it was for many years, he had every opportunity to improve his early education, and follow the literary pursuits most agreeable to him. The first fruits of his application appeared in a kind of supplement to Cottelerius, entitled “Analecta Graeca sive vuria opuscula, Gr. & Lat.” Paris, 4to, 1688, with notes by him, Antony Pouget and James Lopin. In 1690 he published a small volume 12mo, entitled “La verite de l'Histoire de Judith,” in which he attempts to vindicate the authenticity of that apocryphal book, and throws considerable light on the history of the Medes and Assyrians. His next publication of much importance was a new edition in Gr. & Lat. of the works of St. Athanasius, which came out in 1698, 3 vols. fol. This, which is generally known by the name of the Benedictine edition, gave the world the first favourable impression of Montfaucon’s extensive learning and judgment. He had some assistance in it from father Lopin, before-mentioned, who, however, died before the publication.

In the same year, Montfaucon, who had turned his thoughts to more extensive collections of antiquities than had ever yet appeared, determined to visit Italy for the sake of the libraries, and employed three years in consulting their manuscript treasures. After his return, he published in 1702, an account of his journey and researches, under the title of “Diarium Italicum, sive monumentum veterum, bibliothecarum, musitorum, &c. notitias singulares, itinerario Itaiico collects; additis schematibus et figuris,” Paris, 4to. Of this an English translation was published in 1725, folio, by as great a curiosity as any that father Montfaticon had met with in his travels, the famous orator Henley, who had not, however, at that time disgraced his character and profession. In 1709, Ficorini published a criticism on the “Diarium” which Montfaucon answered in the “Journal des Scavans,” and some time after he met with a defender in a work entitled “Apologia del diario Itaiico,” by father Busbaldi, of Mont-Cassin. During Montfau con’s residence at Rome, he exercised the function of procurator-general of his congregation at that court; and it was also while there, in 1699, that he had occasion to take up his pen in defence of an edition of the works of St. Augustine published by some able men of his order, but which had been attacked, as he thought, very illiberally. His vindication was a 12mo volume, entitled “Vindiciae editionis sancti Augustiui a Benedictis adornata, adversus epistolam abbatis Germani autore D. B. de Hiviere.” The edition referred to is that very complete one by the Benedictions, begun to be published in 1679, at Antwerp, and completed in 1700,11 vols. folio.

In 1706, Montfaucon published in 2 vols. folio, a collection of the ancient Greek ecclesiastical writers, with a Latin translation, notes, dissertations, &c. The most considerable part of this collection is “Eusebius of Caesarea’s Commentary upon the Psalms,” mentioned by St. Jerome, and which we overlooked in our account of Eusebius. Here is also Eusebius’s commentary on Isaiah, and some inedited works of St. Athanasius, for which reason this ic Collectio nova patrum“(for such is its title) is recommended as a companion to Montfaucon’s edition of Athanasius’s works. A second edition of both was published at Padua in 1777, 4 vols. folio; but although it professes to be improved” curis novissimis,“it does not enjoy the reputation of the originals. In 1708 he published one of his most important works, and which alone would have given him strong claims on the learned world, his” PaltEOgraphia Graeca, sive de ortu et progressu literarum Graecarum, et devariis omnium sasculorum scriptionis Graecye generibus; itemque de abbreviationibus et notis variarum artiam et disciplinarum. Additis figuris et schematibus ad fidem manuscriptorum codicum,“folio. This invaluable work has done the same in reference to the discovery of the age of Greek Mss. which the” De re diploir.atica" of Mabillon has done to ascertain the age of those in Latin. At the end of this work, are John Comnenus’s description of Mount Athos, Gr. and Lat. with a learned preface; and a dissertation by the president Bouhier on the ancient Greek and Latin letters.

In 1709 Montfaucon published Philo-Juda&us an a contemplative life, in French, “Le Livre de Philon de la vie contemplative, &c.” translated from the Greek with notes, and an attempt to prove that the Therapeutee of whom Philo- speaks were Christians. Having sent a copy of this to president Bouhier, the latter returned him a polite letter of thanks, but stated that he could not agree with, him in his opinion respecting the religion of the Therapeutse. This brought on a correspondence which was published at Paris in 17 12, 12mo, under the title of “Lettres pour & contre sur la fameuse question, si les solitaires appelles Therapeutes etoient Chretiens.” The learned Gisbert Cuper was also against the opinion of Montfaucon on this question; and it is, we believe, now generally thought that his arguments were more ingenious than convincing. In 1710^ Montfaucon published an “Epistola” on the fact, mentioned by Rufinus, that St. Athanasius baptised children when himself a child. In this work he investigates the date of the death of St. Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, and that of the death of St. Athanasius. This was followed in 1713 by an edition of what remains of the “Hexapla of Origen,” 2 vols. folio, and a fine edition of the works of St. Chrysostom, begun in 1718, and completed in 1738 in 13 vols. folio.

In 1715 appeared his “Bibliotheca Cosliniana, olim Seguieriana, seu Mss. omnium Graecorum quae in ea conjinentur accurata descriptio,” Paris, folio. This contains a list of 400 Greek Mss. with the age of each, and often a specimen of the style, &c. In 1719, the year in which he was chosen a member of the academy of inscriptions and belles lettres, appeared his great work, and such as no nation had yet produced, entitled “L'Antiquite expliquee et representee en figures,” Paris, 5 vols. usually bound in 10; to which wa, added in 1724, a supplement, in 5 vob. the whole illustrated by a vast number of elegant, accurate, and expensive engravings, representing nearly 40,000 objects of antiquity, engraved from statues, medals, &c. in the various cabinets of Europe. In such a vast collection as this, it is as unnecessary to add that there are many errors, as it would be unjust to censure them with all the parade of criticism. In the case of a work which so many hundred recent scholars and antiquaries have quoted, and which laid the foundation for the improvements of later times, it would be fastidious to withhold the praises so justly due to the laborious author. Whole societies, indeed, would think much of their joint efforts, if they had accomplished a similar undertaking. It remains to be noticed, however, that the first edition of the above dates, is the most valuable. That reprinted in 1722 with the supplement of 1757 is by no means of equal reputation. Some copies made up from the edition in 10 vols. of 1719, and the supplement of 1757, are also in little esteem. This was followed by another interesting work, which is now become scarce, “Les Monumens de la monarchic Francoise, avec les fig. de chaque regne, que Pinjure du temps a epargnees,” Paris, 1729 1733, 5 vols. folio. This collection, of which he published a prospectus in 1725, may be properly called “The Antiquities of France,” and includes all those classes, civil, ecclesiastical, warlike, manners, &c. which form a work of that title in modern language. His last, and not the least important of his works, was published in 1739, 2 vols. folio, under the title of “Bibliotheca bibliothecarum Mss. nova, ubi quae innumeris pcene manuscriptorum bibliothecis continentur ad quod vis litteraturx genus spectantia et notatu digna, describuntur, et indicantur.” Two years after the learned author died suddenly at the abbey of St. Germain des Pres, Dec. 21, 1741, at the advanced age of eighty-seven. Besides the works above mentioned, Montfaucon contributed many curious and valuable essays on subjects of antiquity, &c. to the memoirs of the academy of inscriptions and belles lettres, and other literary journals.

Montfaucon enjoyed during his long life the esteem of the learned world, and was not more regarded for the extensive learning than the amiable qualities of his private character. He was modest, polite, affable, and always ready to communicate the information with which his indefatigable studies and copious reading supplied him. Foreigners who sought to be introduced to him, returned from his conversation, equally delighted with his manners, and astonished at his stores of learning. The popes Benedict XIII. and Clement XL and the emperor Charles VI. honoured him with particular marks of their regard; but honours or praise, in no shape, appeared to affect the humility and simplicity of his manners.

, born in 1686, at Paris, was the son of Guy Carre“, maitre des requetes. He was but twenty-five when he purchased a counsellor’s place in the parliament, and acquired some degree of credit in that situation by his wit and exterior accomplishments. He had, by his own account, given himself up to all manner of licentiousness, for which his conscience frequently checked him, and although he endeavoured to console himself with the principles of infidelity, his mind was still harassed, when accident or design led him to visit the tomb of M. Paris the deacon, September 7, 1731, with the crowd which, from various motives, were assembled there. If we may believe his own account, he went merely to scrutinize, with the utmost severity, the (pretended) miracles wrought there, but felt himself, as he says, suddenly struck and overwhelmed by a thousand rays of light, which illuminated him, and, from an infidel, he immediately became a Christian, but in truth was devoted from that moment to fanaticism, with the same violence and impetuosity of temper which had before led him into the most scandalous excesses. In 1732 he was involved in a quarrel which the parliament had with the court, and was, with others, banished to Auvergne. Here he formed a plan for collecting the proofs of the miracles wrought at the tomb of the abbe Paris, making them clear to demonstration, as he called it, and presenting them to the king. At his return to Paris, he prepared to put this plan in execution, went to Versailles, July 29, 1737, and presented the king with a quarto volume magnificently bound, which he accompanied with a speech. In consequence of this step Montgeron was sent to thebastile, then confined some months in a Benedictine abbey belonging to the diocese of Avignon, removed soon after to Viviers, and carried from thence to be shut up in the citadel of Valence, where he died in 1754, aged sixty-eight. The work which he presented to the king is entitled” La Verite des Miracles operes par l'Intercession de M. de Paris,“&c. 4to. This first volume by M. Montgeron has been followed by two more, and he is said also to have left a work in ms. against the incredulous, written while he was a prisoner. De Montgeron would, however, have scarcely deserved a place here, if bishop Douglas, in his” Criterion," had not bestowed so much pains on examining the pretended miracles which he records, and thus rendered his history an object of some curiosity.

, the inventor of air-balloons, was born at Aunonay, and was originally a paper-maker, and the first who made what is called vellumpaper. Whence he took the hint of the aerostatic balloons seems uncertain, but in 1782 he made his first experiment at Avignon, and after other trials, exhibited before the royal family on Sept. 19, 1783, a grand balloon, near sixty feet high and forty-three in diameter, which ascended with a cage containing a sheep, a cock, and a duck, and conveyed them through the air in safety to the distance of about 10,000 feet. This was followed by another machine of Montgolfier’s construction, with which a M. Pilatre de Rozier ascended. This daring adventurer lost his life afterwards along with his companion Romain, by the balloon catching fire, an event which did not prevent balloons from being introduced into this and other countries. After repeated trials, however, the utility of these expensive and hazardous machines seems doubtful, and for some years they have been of little use, except to fill the pockets of needy adventurers. Montgolfier was rewarded for the discovery by admission into the academy of sciences, the ribbon of St. Michael, and a pension. He died in 1799.

, an able mathematician, was born at Paris in the year 1678, and intended for the profession of the law, to enable him to qualify for a place in the magistracy. From dislike of this destination, he withdrew into England, whence he passed over into the Low Countries, and travelled into Germany, where he resided with a near relation, M. Chambois, the plenipotentiary of France at the diet of Ratisbon. He returned to France in 1699, and after the death of his father, who left him an ample fortune, devoted his talents to the study of philosophy and the mathematics, under the direction of the celebrated Malehranche, to whom he had, some years before, felt greatly indebted for the conviction of the truth of Christianity, by perusing his work on “The Search after Truth.” In 1700 he went a second time to England, and on his return, assumed the ecclesiastical habit, and was made a canon in the church of Notre-Dame, at Paris. About this time he edited, at his own expence, the works of M. Guisnee on “The Application of Algebra to Geometry,” and that of Newton on the “Quadrature of Curves.” In 1703 he published his “Analytical Essay on Games of Chance,” and an improved edition in 1714. This was most favourably received by men of science in all countries. In 1715 he paid a third visit to England, for the purpose of observing a solar eclipse, and was elected a fellow of the Royal Society, to which learned body he soon afterwards transmitted an important treatise on “Infinite Series,'” which was inserted in the Philosophical Transactions for the year 1717. He was elected an associate of the Royal Academy of Sciences at Paris in 1716, and died at the early age of forty-one, of the small-pox. He sustained all the relations of Hie in the most honourable manner, and though subject to fits’ of passion, yet his anger soon subsided, and he was ever ashamed of the irritability of his temper. Such was his steady attention that he could resolve the most difficult problems in company, and among the noise of playful children. He was employed several years in writing “A History of Geometry,” but he did not live to complete it.

, a celebrated mathematician, was born at Lyons in the year 1725, and giving early indications of a love of learning, was placed under the instructions of the Jesuits, with whom he acquired an intimate acquaintance with the ancient and modern languages, and some knowledge of the mathematics. At the age of sixteen he went to Toulouse to study the law, and was admitted an advocate, though without much intention of practising at the bar. Having completed his studies, he went to Paris, cultivated an acquaintance with the most distinguished literary characters, and it was owing to his intercourse with them, that he was induced to undertake his “History of the Mathematical Sciences.” But in the interim he published new editions, with additions and improvements, of several mathematical treatises which were already held in the highest estimation. The first of these was “Mathematical Recreations,” by M. Ozanam, which has been since translated into English, and published in London, in 4 vols. 8vo. To all the works which he edited, after Ozanam’s, he gave the initials of his name. He also contributed his assistance for some years to “The French Gazette;” and in 1755 he was elected a member of the Royal Academy of Sciences at Berlin. In the following year, when the experiment of inoculation was about to be tried on the first prince of the blood, Montucla translated from the English an account of all the recent cases of that practice, which had been sent from Constantinople, by lady Mary Wortley Montague. This translation he added to the memoir of De la Condamine on the subject. Previously to this publication, he had given to the world his “History of Inquiries relative to the Quadrature of the Circle.” The encouragement which this met with from very able judges of its merit, afforded him great encouragement to apply with ardour to his grand design, “The History of the Mathematics;” and in 1758 he published this “History,” in two volumes, 4to, which terminates with the close of the 17th century. It answered the expectations of all his friends, and of men of science in all countries, and the author was instantly elevated to a high rank in the learned world. His fame was widely diffused, and he was pressed from all quarters to proceed with the mathematical history of the 18th century, which he had announced for the subject of a third volume, and for which he had made considerable preparations; but he was diverted from his design, by receiving the appointment of secretary to the Intendance at Grenoble. Here he spent his leisure hours chiefly in retirement, and in scientific pursuits. In 1764, Turgot, being appointed to establish a colony at Cayenne, took Montucla with him as his “secretary,” to which was added the title of “astronomer to the king,” and although he returned without attaining any particular object with regard to the astronomical observations, for which he went out, he had an opportunity of collecting some valuable tropical plants, with which he enriched the king’s hothouses at Versailles. Soon after his return, he was appointed chief clerk in an official department, similar to that known in this country by the name of the “Board of Works,” which he retained till the place was abolished in 1792, when he was reduced to considerable pecuniary embarrassments. Under the pressure of these circumstances, he began to prepare a new and much enlarged edition of his “History,” which he presented to the world in 1799, in two volumes, quarto. In this edition are many important improvements; and many facts, which were barely announced in the former impression, are largely detailed and illustrated in this. After the publication of these two volumes, the author proceeded with the printing of the third; but death terminated his labours, when he had arrived at the 336th page. The remainder of the volume, and the whole of the fourth, were printed under the inspection of Lalande. Montucla had been a member of the National Institute from its original establishment. He had obtained various employments under the revolutionary government, though he was but meanly paid for his labour, and had to struggle with many difficulties to furnish his family with the bare necessaries of life. At length he was reduced to seek the scanty means of support by keeping a lottery-office, till the death of Saussure put him in the possession of a pension of about one hundred pounds per annum, which he enjoyed only four months. He died in December 1799, in the 75th year of his age. He was a man of great modesty, and distinguished by acts of generosity and liberality, when it was in his power. He was also friendly, cheerful, and of very amiable manners.

, an excellent portrait-painter, was born atLeyden, in 1656, and at first was a disciple of Gerard Douw, and afterwards of Abraham Vanden Tempel, whose death compelled him to return to Leyden from Amsterdam, where he studied awhile with Francis Mieris, and at last went to Dort, to practise with Godfrey Schalcken, to whom he was superior as a designer; but he coveted to learn Schalcken’s manner of handling. As soon as Moor began to follow his profession, the public acknowledged his extraordinary merit; and he took the most effectual method to establish his reputation, by working with a much itronger desire to acquire fame, than to increase his fortune. He painted portraits in a beautiful style, in some of them imitating the taste, the dignity, the force, and the delicacy of Vandyck; and in others, he shewed the striking effect and spirit of Rembrandt. In his female figures, the carnations were tender and soft; and in his historical compositions, the air of his heads had variety and grace. His draperies are well chosen, elegantly disposed in very natural folds, and appear light, flowing, and unconstrained. His pictures are always neatly and highly finished; he designed them excellently, and grouped the figures of his subjects with great skill. His works were universally admired, and some of the most illustrious princes of Europe seemed solicitous to employ his pencil. The grand duke :of Tuscany desired to have the portrait of DeMoor, painted by himself, to be placed in the Florentine gallery; and, on the receipt of it, that prince sent him, in return, a chain of gold, and a large medal of the same metal. The Imperial ambassador count Sinzendorf, by order of his master, engaged him to paint the portraits of prince Eugene, and the duke of Marlborough, on horseback; and in that performance, the dignity and expression of the figures, and also the attitudes of the horses, appeared so masterly, that it was beheld with admiration, and occasioned many commendatory poems, in elegant Latin verse, to be published to the honour of the artist; and the emperor, on seeing that picture, created De Moor a knight of the empire. He died in 1738, in his eighty-second year.

, a very learned divine of the Roman catholic persuasion, was born in Dublin in 164O. After being taught at a grammar-school for some time, he was sent to France, and had his first academical learning at the college of Nantz, whence he removed to Paris, and completed his studies in philosophy and divinity, in both which he attained great reputation, as he did likewise for his critical skill in the Greek language. He taught philosophy and rhetoric in the Grassin college for some years: but at length returning to Ireland, was, with considerable reluctance, prevailed upon to take priest’s orders, and had some preferment while the popish bishops had any influence. When James II. came to Ireland, Dr. Moor was recommended to him, often preached before him, and had influence enough to prevent his majesty from conferring Trinity-college, Dublin, on the Jesuits, to which he had been advised by his confessor father Peters. Dr. Moor being made provost of this college, by the recommendation of the Roman catholic bishops, was the means of preserving the valuable library, at a time when the college was a popish garrison, the chapel a magazine, and many of the chambers were employed as prisons for the protestants. But the Jesuits could not forgive him for preventing their gaining the entire property of the college, and took advantage to ruin him with the king, from a sermon he preached before James II. at Christ Church, His text was, Matt, xv, 14. “If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.” In this discourse Dr. Moor had the boldness to impute the failure of the king’s affairs to his following too closely the councils of the Jesuits, and insinuated that they would be his utter ruin. Father Peters, who had a defect in his eyes, persuaded the king that the text was levelled at his majesty through his confessor, and urged that Moor was a dangerous subject, who endeavoured to stir tip sedition among the people. James was so weak as to believe all this, and ordered Dr. Moor immediately to quit his dominions. Moor complied, as became an obedient subject, but hinted at his departure, “that he only went as the king’s precursor, who would soon be obliged to follow him.” Moor accordingly went to Paris, where the reputation of his learning procured him a favourable reception; and king James, after the battle of the Boyne, followed him, as he had predicted. But here it appears that the king had influence enough to oblige Moor to leave France as he had done Ireland, probably by misrepresenting his conduct to the Jesuits.

Moor now went to Rome, where his learning procured him very high distinction. He was first made censor of booksj and then invited to Montefiascone, and appointed rector of a seminary newly founded by cardinal Mark Antony Barbarigo, and also professor of philosophy and Greek. Pope Innocent XII. was so much satisfied with his conduct in the government of this seminary, that he contributed the sum of two thousand Roman crowns yearly towards its maintenance; and Clement XI. had such a high opinion of Moor that he would have placed his nephew under his tuition, had he not been prevented, as was supposed, by the persuasions of the Jesuits. On the death of James II. Dr. Moor was invited to France, and such was his reputation there, that he was made twice rector of the university of Paris, and principal of the college of Navarre, and was appointed regius professor of philosophy, Greek, and Hebrew. He died, in his eighty-fifth year, at his apartments in the college of Navarre, Aug. 22, 1726. It is evident he could have been no common character, who attained so many honours in a foreign land. His writings, however, are perhaps not much known. One of them, “DeExistentiaDei, et humanae mentis immortalitaie,” &c. published at Paris, 1692, 8vo, is said by Harris to have been translated into English by Mr. Blackmore, perhaps sir Richard, but we have not been able to find this work in any of our public libraries. Dr. Moor also published “Hortatio ad studium lingua; Graecae et Hebraicae,” Montefiascone, 1700, 12mo; and “Vera sciendi Methodus,” Paris, 1716, 8vo, against the philosophy of Des Cartes.

, an English poetical and miscellaneous writer, was the grandson of the rev. John Moore of Devonshire, one of the ejected non-conformists, who died Aug. 23, 1717, leaving two sons in the dissenting ministry. Of these, Thomas, the father of our poet, removed to Abingdon Hi Berkshire, where he died in 1721, and where Edward was born March 22,. 1711-12, and for some time brought up under the care of his uncle. He was afterwards placed at the school of East Orchard in Dorsetshire, where he probably received no higher education than would qualify him for trade. For some years he followed the business of a linen-draper, both in London and in Ireland, but with so little success that he became disgusted with his occupation, and, as he informs us in his preface, “more from necessity than inclination,” began to encounter the vicissitudes of a literary life. His first attempts were of the poetical kind, which still preserve his name among the minor poets of his country. In 174-4, he published his “Fables for the Female Sex,” which were so favourably received as tointroducehim into the society of some learned and some opulent contemporaries. The hon. Mr. Pelham was one of his early patrons; and, by his “Trial of Selim,” he gained the friendship of lord Lyttelton, who felt himself flattered by a compliment turned with much ingenuity, and decorated by wit and spirit. But as, for some time, Moore derived no substantial advantage from patronage, his chief dependance was on the stage, to which, within five years, he supplied three pieces of considerable, although unequal, merit. “The Foundling,” a comedy, which was first acted in 1748, was decried from a fancied resemblance to the “Conscious Lovers.” His “Gil Bias,” which appeared in 1751, met with a more severe fate, and, notwithstanding the sprightliness of the dialogue, not altogether unjustly. “The Gamester,” a tragedy, first acted Feb. 7, 1753, was our author’s most successful attempt, and is still a favourite. In this piece, however, he deviated from the custom of the modern stage, as Lilio had in his “George Barnwell,” by discarding blank verse; and perbaps nothing short of the power by which the catastrophe engages the feelings, could have reconciled the audience to this innovation. But hisobject was the misery of the life and death of a gamester, to which it would have been difficult to give a heroic colouring; and his language became what would be most impressive, that of truth and nature. Davies, in his Life of Garrick, seems inclined to share the reputation of the “Gamester” between Moore and Garrick. Moore acknowledges, in his preface, that he was indebted to that inimitable actor for “many popular passages,” and Davies believes that the scene between Lewson and Stukely, in the fourth act, was almost entirely his, because he expressed, during the time of action, uncommon pleasure at the applause given to it. Whatever may be in this conjecture, the play, after having been acted to crowded houses for eleven nights, was suddenly withdrawn. The report of the day attributed this to the intervention of the leading members of some gaming clubs. Davies thinks this a mere report “to give more consequence to those assemblies than they could really boast.” From a letter, in our possession, written by Moore to Dr. Warton, it appears that Garrick suffered so much from, the fatigue of acting the principal character as to require some repose. Yet this will not account for the total neglect, for some years afterwards, of a play, not only popular, but so obviously calculated to give the alarm to reclaimable gamesters, and perhaps bring the whole gang into discredit. The author mentions, in his letter to Dr. Warton, that he expected to clear about four hundred pounds by his tragedy, exclusive of the profits by the sale of the copy. It is asserted by Dr. Johnson, in his life of lord Lyttelton, that, in return for Moore’s elegant compliment, “The Trial of Selim,” his lordship paid him with “kind words, which, as is common, raised great hopes, that at last were disappointed.” It is possible, however, that these hopes were of another kind than it was in his lordship’s power to gratify*; and it is certain that he substituted a method of serving Moore, which was not only successful for a considerable time, but must have been agreeable to the feelings of a delicate and independent mind. Abouttheyears 175 1-2, periodical writing began to revive in its most pleasing form, but had hitherto been executed by men of learning only. Lord Lyttelton projected a paper, in concert with Dodsiey, which should unite the talents of certain men of rank, and receive such a tone and consequence from that circumstance, as mere scholars can seldom hope to command or attain. Such was the origin of the “World,” for every paper of which Dodsiey stipulated to pay Moore three guineas, whether the papers were written by him, or by the volunteer contributors. Lord Lyttelton, to render this bargain more productive to the editor, solicited and obtained the assistance of the earls of Chesterfield, Bath, and Corke, and of Messrs. Walpole, Cambridge, Jenyns, and other men of rank and taste, who gave their assistance, some with great regularity, and all so effectually as to render the “World” far more popular than any of its contemporaries.

* Of this Moore was not always sen- know that Walpole had written the

a manner to his patron as to occasion mediator. Walpole’s Letters, in Works, cTeath. When the papers were collected into volumes for a second edition, Moore superintended the publication, and actually died while this last number was in the press; a circumstance which induces the wish that death may be less frequently included among the topic’s of wit.

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

This divine was, after his advancement to the episcopal dignity, one of the most eminent patrons of learning and learned men in his time; and his name will be carried down to posterity, not only by his sermons published by Dr. Samuel Clarke, his chaplain (1715, 2 vols. 8vo), but by the curious and magnificent library collected by him, and purchased after his death by George I. who presented it to the university of Cambridge. Burnet ranks him among those who were an honour to the church and the age in which they lived. He assisted him (as he did many learned men) from his valuable library, when writing his History of the Reformation. He contributed also to Clark’s Caesar, and to Wilkins’s “Ecclesiastes,” by pointing out a multitude of celebrated authors who deserved notice in that useful, but now much-neglected work. His sermons were held in such estimation as to be translated into Dutch, and published at Delft in 1700. His library, consisting of 30,000 volumes, fills upthe rooms on the north and west sides of the court over the philosophy and divinity schools, and is arranged in 26 classes. It ought not to be omitted that his present majesty gave 2000l. towards fitting up this library.

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

After his return from his third and last journey to France, he resided the remainder of his days in his house in Clifford-street, where he died Feb. 20, 1802, leaving a daughter and five sons. Dr. Moore was a man of considederable general knowledge, but excelled in no particular branch of science. After he had once begun his travels as tutor, he assumed the character of a man of wit and humour, both which entered largely into the composition of his subsequent publications. His travels were at one time very popular, on account of the frequent recurrence of scenes of dry humour, but his constant attempts in this way made them be read, more for sprightliness of narrative than accuracy of information, or depth of remark. Of his novels, “Zeluco” only has stood its ground.

, a gallant English officer, was one of the sons of the preceding, and born at Glasgow, Nov. 13, 1761, and was educated principally on the continent, while his father travelled with the duke of Hamilton, who in 1776 obtained for him an ensigncy in the 51st regiment of foot, then quartered at Minorca. He afterwards obtained a lieutenancy in the 82d, in which he served in America during the war, and in 1783, at the peace, was reduced with his regiment. He was soon after brought into parliament for the boroughs of Lanerk, &c. by the interest of the duke of Hamilton. In 1787 or 1788 he obtained the majority of the 4th battalion of the 60th regiment, then quartered at Chatham, and very soon after negociated an exchange into his old regiment, the 51st. In 1790 he succeeded, by purchase, to the lieutenant-colonelcy, and went the following year with his regiment to Gibraltar. After some other movements he was sent to Corsica, where general Charles Stuart having succeeded to the command of the army in 1794, appointed colonel Moore to command the reserve. Here he particularly distinguished himself at the siege of Calvi, and received his first wound in storming the Mozzello fort. These operations made Moore’s character known to general Stuart, and a friendship commenced, which continued during the general’s life; and the situation of adjutant-general in the army in Corsica becoming vacant at this time, he bestowed it on his friend Moore, and ever after showed him every mark of confidence and esteem.

In consequence of a disagreement with the viceroy, who had occasioned the recall of general Stuart, colonel Moore arrived in England in Nov. 1795, and was immediately appointed a brigadier-general in the West Indies, and attached to a brigade of foreign corps, which consisted of Choiseul’s hussars, and two corps of emigrants. On Feb. 25, 1796, he received an order to take charge of, and embark with general Perryn’s brigade, going out with the expedition to the West Indies, under sir Ralph Abercrombie; that officer having unexpectedly sailed in the Vengeance, 74, and left his brigade behind. General Moore, although he had no previous intimation that he was to embark, hurried to Portsmouth, and having time only to prepare a few necessaries, sailed for the West Indies with the fleet at day-light on the 28th, with no other baggage than a small portmanteau, and not one regiment of his own brigade was in the fleet. On his arrival at Barbadoes, on the 13th of April, 1796, having had an opportunity of waiting on the commander-in-chief, sir Ralph Abercrombie, that sagacious and attentive observer very soon distinguished him, and in the course of the operations against St. LuciCj wjiich immediately followed, employed him in very arduous and difficult service which occurred. He had, in particular, opportunities, during the siege of Morne Fortunée at St. Lucie, which lasted from the 26th of April to the same day in May, of eminently distinguishing himself; and his conduct, as sir Ralph expressed in his public orders, was the admiration of the whole army. Sir Ralph, immediately on the capitulation, bestowed the command and government of the island on general Moore, who did all he could to induce sir Ralph to keep him with the army, and employ him in the reduction of the other islands, but without effect. Sir Ralph, in a manner, forced this important command upon him, at the same time giving him the most flattering reasons for wishing him to accept of it. The admiral and general sailed from St. Lucie on the 3d of June, leaving brigadier-general Moore in a situation which required, from what remained to be done in such a climate, perhaps more military talent, and a greater degree of exertion and personal risk, than even there had been occasion for during the reduction of the island; for, although the French commanding officer, and the principal post in the island, had surrendered, numerous bands of armed negroes remained in the woods; yet he at length succeeded in completely reducing these. Having, however, had two narrow escapes from violent attacks of yellovr fever, the last rendered it necessary that he should be relieved from the command of the island, and he returned to England in the month of July or August 1797. In Nov. following, sir Ralph Abercrombie having been appointed commander of the forces in Ireland, desired that brigadier-­general Moore might be put upon the staff in that country, which was done, and he accompanied sir Ralph to Dublin on the 2ddayof December 1797. During the period immediately preceding the rebellion in 1798, Moore had an important command in the south of Ireland, which was very disaffected, and was also the quarter where the enemy were expected to make a landing. His head-quarters were at Bandon, and his troops, amounting to 3000 men, were considered as the advanced corps of the south. When the rebellion broke out, he was employed first under major-general Johnstone, at New Ross, where the insurgents suffered much, and immediately afterwards was detached towards Wexford, at that time in the hands of the rebels. He had on this occasion only the 60th yagers, or sharp shooters, 900 light infantry, 50 of Hompesch’s cavalry, and six pieces of artillery. With these he had not marched above a mile before a large body of rebels appeared on the road, marching to attack him. He had examined the ground, as well as the short time would allow, in the morning, and thus was able to form his men to advantage. The rebels attacked with great spirit, but, after an obstinate contest, were driven from the field, and pursued with great loss. They amounted to about 6000 men, and were commanded by general Roche, a priest. After the action, the two regiments under lord Dalhousie arrived from Duncannon fort. It then being too late to proceed toTaghmone, which was his intention, the brigadier took post for the night on the ground where the action began. Next day on his march he was met by two men from Wexford with proposals from the rebels to lay down their arms, on certain conditions. As general Moore had no power to treat, he made no answer, but proceeded on to Wexford, which he delivered from the power of the rebels, who had piked or shot forty of their prisoners the day before, and intended to have murdered the rest if they had not been thus prevented.

Brigadier-general Moore continued to serve in Ireland, where he succeeded to the rank of major-general, and had a regiment given him, until the latter end of June 1799, when he was ordered to return to England to be employed in the expedition under sir Ralph Abercrombie, which sailed August 13, and was destined to rescue Holland from the tyranny of the French' government. The general result, owing to circumstances which could not be foreseen, was unfavourable; but the English troops had an opportunity of displaying the greatest valour, and none were more distinguished than those under the more immediate command of general Moore, who, after being twice wounded, in the hand, and in the thigh, received a musket-ball through his face, by which he was disabled, and was brought from the ground with some difficulty. He was now carried back to his quarters, a distance of ten miles, and as soon, as he could be moved, he was taken to the Helder, where he embarked on board the Amethyst frigate, and arrived at the Nore on the 24th; from thence he proceeded to London. Soon after his return to England from the Helder, a second battalion was added to the 52d regiment, of which the command was bestowed oa him by the king, in the most gracious manner. Being of an excellent constitution, and temperate habits, his wounds closed in the course of five or six weeks. He joined his brigade at Chelmsford on the 24th of December, 1799. In the early part of 1800 it had been intended to send a body of troops to the Mediterranean under sir Charles Stuart; he wrote to general Moore, and proposed to him to serve under him, which was accepted with the greatest pleasure. It was at first intended that sir Charles should take out of England 15,000 men, but it was afterwards found that the regiments allotted for this service, and which had been part of the expedition to Holland, were insufficient, and only amounted to 10,000 effective. About the middle of March, the first division, amounting to 5000 men, embarked under major-general Pigot. At this time a change took place in the plan of the expedition; sir Charles had some disagreement with ministers, and resigned his situation. Sir Ralph Ahercrombie was appointed to the command, and majorgeneral Moore was named as one of his major-generals, with Hutchinson and Pigot, who sailed about the end of April* with the 5000 men. There was little opportunity during this expedition, the success of which was prevented by various unforeseen occurrences, for any exertions in which general Moore could distinguish himself, until, the armies being ordered to separate, his troops were ordered to go to Egypt under sir Ralph Abercrombie. Having arrived at Malta, major-general Moore was sent to Jaffa to visit the Turkish army, and form a judgment as to what aid was to be expected from it; but the result being unfavourable, sir Ralph determined to land in the bay of Aboukir, and march immediately upon Alexandria. Any satisfactory detail of this memorable expedition would extend this article too far we shall therefore confine oui selves to that part in which major-general Moore was more particularly concerned. As soon as the landing was begun, he, at the head of the grenadiers and light infantry of th< 40th, with the 23d and 28th regiments in line, ascencle< the sand-hill. They did not fire a shot until they gained the summit, when they charged the enemy, drove ther and took four pieces of cannon, with part of their hor& The French retreated to the border of a plain, where g< neral Moore halted, as upon the left a heavy fire of mus quetry was kept up. Brigadier-general Oakes, with tl left of the reserve, consisting of the 42d Highlanders, tin 58th regiment, and the Corsican rangers, landed to th< left of the sand-hill, and were attacked by both infantn and cavalry, which they repulsed and followed into thi plain, taking three pieces of artillery. The guards an< part of general Coote’s brigade landed to the left of tl reserve; they were vigorously opposed, but repulsed tt tenerhy, and followed them into the plain. The want ol cavalry and artillery (for it was some time before the gui that were landed could be dragged through the sand) saved the enemy from being destroyed. This was one of the most splendid instances of British intrepidity that perhaps ever happened. The enemy had eight days to assemble and prepare, and the ground was extremely favourable to them. The loss of the enemy was considerable, that of the British amounted to 600 killed and wounded, of which the reserve lost 400. In the course of the afternoon the rest of the army landed, and the whole moved forward a couple of miles, where they took post for the night.

On the morning of the 9th, major-general Moore and lieutenant-colonel Anstruther, the quarter-master-general, went forward with the 92d Highlanders, the Corsican, rangers, and some cavalry, to look fora new position. The country was unequal, sandy, and thickly interspersed with palm and date trees. He posted the 92d at a place about two miles in front, where there was a small redoubt, and where the space became more narrow than any where else, by the sea and lake Madie running up on each side. He then went forward with the cavalry, until they were met by a strong patrole of the" enemy, on which they retired. On reporting to sir Ralph, he directed major-general Moore to take post with the reserve on the ground where he had placed the 92d by noon he had taken possession of the post with the reserve, and placed his out- posts. On the lOth there was some skirmishing with the out-posts of the reserve and the enemy’s cavalry. The main body of the army was detained in their post-position till, by the exertions of the navy, the stores and provisions were landed and forwarded to them. On the llth sir Ralph went to the reserve, the brigade of guards moved forward, and took post half way between them and the rest of the army. The lake Madie was ordered to be examined, with a view to the practicability of conveying the army stores by it, which it was afterwards found could be done. On the 12th the army moved forward in two columns, each composed of a wing. The reserve, in two columns, formed the advanced guard to each column. The enemy’s cavalry retired, skirmishing as the army advanced. The army halted at a tower that they found evacuated, from the top of which a body of infantry was seen advancing. The line was instantly formed, and the army advanced with the utmost regularity and steadiness. The enemy, on seeing this movement, first halted, and afterwards retired to some heights which terminated a plain, where the British army took post for the night, and lay on their arms. Majorgeneral Moore had the direction of the advanced posts; and the 90th and 92d regiments, though not belonging to the reserve, were placed under his orders for the night. The out- posts of the enemy and the advanced guard of the British were so near each other, that it was impossible that either army could move without bringing on a general action. At six o'clock in the morning of the 13th the army moved forward in two columns from the left, each composed of a line. The reserve, in one column from the left, marched on the right of the other two, to cover the flank. Sir Ralph’s intention was to attack the enemy’s right, and, if possible, to turn it. The 90th and 92d regiments formed the advanced guards to the two columns of the army, and, having got too far a-head of the columns, were attacked by the main body of the enemy, and suffered severely before the columns could come to their support. These two regiments, however, maintained their ground, and defeated a body of cavalry that attempted to charge them. The action now became general along the line; the French, being forced back, retreated, covered by a numerous artillery, halting and firing wherever the ground favoured them. The British army advanced rapidly without artillery, as their guns, being dragged through sand by the seamen, could not keep up with the infantry. The reserve remained in column on the right flank covering the two lines, and though mowed down by the enemy’s cannon in front, and exposed to musketry from hussars and light infantry on their flank, continued to move forward with such steadiness and regularity, that at any time during the action and pursuit, they could have been wheeled to a flank without an interval. The two lines advanced with equal order until they reached a rising ground, where there were the ruins of an ancient building of considerable extent; from this height they saw the enemy retreating in confusion through a plain, under cover of the fortified heights in front of Alexandria. Sir Ralph followed them into the middle of the plain, where a consultation was held, and it was then intended that general Hutchinson, with part of the second line, which had been least engaged, should attack the enemy’s right, while major-general Moore, with the reserve supported by the guards, attacked their left near the sea.

General Hutchinson had a considerable circuit to make to get to the ground where he was to make his attack, and the attack of the reserve was to be regulated by his. When he got to his ground, the position of the French was found to be so strongly defended by a numerous artillery, and covered besides by the guns on the fortified heights near Alexandria, that the attempt was given up, and as the army were in their present position exposed to the enemy’s cannon without being able to retaliate, a position on the height in the rear was marked out, to which the army fell back as the evening advanced. This severe action cost the British army 1300 in killed and wounded. The situation of the British army at this period was certainly a very critical one, as it was quite evident that government had been deceived in their estimate of the French forces. Sir Raiph, therefore, was well aware of the difficult task he had to perform. The camp of the British was about four or five miles from Alexandria. In front of the reserve, which, formed the right of the army, was a very extensive ancient ruin, which the French called Caesar’s camp; it was twenty or thirty yards retired from the right flank of the redoubt, and commanded the space between the redoubt and the sea. In this redoubt and ruin major-general Moore had posted the 28th and 58th regiments. On the 21st the attack was made by the French, who were driven back by his troops, but he received a shot in the leg. The result, however, was, that every attack the French made was repulsed with great slaughter. In the early part of the action, and in the dark, some confusion was unavoidable, but wherever the French appeared, the British went boldly up to them, even the cavalry breaking in had not in the least dismayed them. As the day broke, the foreign brU gaJe, under brigadier-general, afterwards sir John Stuart, who fought the battle of Maida, came to the second line to the support of the reserve, shared in the action, and behaved with great spirit. Day-light enabled major-general Moore to get the reserve into order, but there was a great want of ammunition. The guns could not be fired for a very considerable time, otherwise the French must have suffered much more severely, while retreating from their different unsuccessful attacks, than they did. The enemy’s artillery continued to gall the British severely with shot and shells, after the infantry and cavalry had been repulsed. The British could not return a shot. Had the French attacked again, the British had nothing but their bayonets, which they unquestionably would have used, as never was an army more determined to do their duty. But the enemy laad suffered so severely, that the men could not be got to make another attempt. They continued in front at a distant musket-shot, until the ammunition for the English guns was brought up to enable them to fire, when theyvery soon retreated. While the attacks were made on the British right, a column attacked the guards on the left of the reserve, but were repulsed with loss. The French general, Menou, had concentrated the greatest part of the force in Egypt for this attack; the prisoners stated his force in the field at about 13,000 men, of whom between three and four thousand were killed or wounded. The British army lost about 1300 men, of which upwards of 500 belonged to the reserve. This battle commenced at half past four in the morning, and terminated about nine. The French made three different attacks, with superior numbers, the advantage of cavalry, and a numerous and well-served artillery. The British infantry here gave a decided proof of their superior firmness and hardihood. Sir Ralph, who always exposed his person very much, in this last battle carried the practice perhaps farther than he bad e?er done before. Major-general Moore met hjnv early in the anion, close in the rear of the 42d, without any of the officeFS of his family; and afterwards, when the French cavalry charged the second time, and penetrated the 42d, major-general Moore saw him again and waved to him to retire, but he was instantly surrounded by the hussars; he received a cut from a sabre ou the breast, which penetrated his clothes and just grazed the flesh. He received a shot in the thigh, but remained in the field until the battle was over, when he was conveyed on board the Foudroyant. Major-general Moore, at the close of the action, had the horse killed under him that major Honeyroan had lent him. Wnen the battle was over, the wound in his leg became so stiff and painful, that as soon as he could get a hurse, he gave the command of the reserve to coloi ei Spencer, and retired with brigadier-general Oakes, who commanded the reserve under him, and who was wounded in the leg also, to their tents in the rear. Brigadier-general Oakes was wounded nearly at the same time, and in the same part of the leg that major-general Moore was, but they both continued to head the reserve until the battle was over. When the surgeon had dressed their wounds, finding that they must be some time incapable of action, they returned to the Diadem troop-ship. Sir Ralph Abercrombie died of his wound on board the Foudroyant on the 28th day of March, and the command devolved on major-general Hutchinson. It is unnecessary here to detail the operations in Egypt that followed the battle of the 2 1st, as major-general Moore was confined on hoard the Diadem with his wound until the I Oth of May, when he was removed to Rosetta for the benefit of a change of air. He suffered very severely the ball had passed between the two bones of his leg he endured a long confinement and much torment, from inflammation and surgical operations. When at length he could move on crutches, and was removed to Rosetta, where he got a house on the banks of the Nile, agreeably situated, he began to recover rapidly, and afterwards continued to serve in the army of Egypt until after the surrender of Alexandria, when he returned to England, where he received the honour of knighthood, and the order of the bath. On the renewal of the war, the talents and services of sir John Moore pointed him out as deserving of the most important command. It was not, however, until 1808 that he was appointed to the chief command of an army to be employed in Spain, and Gallicia or the borders of Leon were fixed upon as the place for assembling the troops. Sir John was ordered to send the cavalry by land, but it was left to his own discretion to transport the infantry and artillery either by sea or land. He was also assured, that 15,000 men were ordered to Corunna, and he was directed to give such orders to sir David Baird, their commander, as would most readily effect a junction of the whole force. Both, however, soon discovered that little reliance could be placed on the Spaniards; and they had not got far into the country before their hopes were completely disappointed. Sir John Moore soon began to anticipate the result which followed. In the mean time the French army had advanced, and taken possession of the city of Valladolid, which is but twenty leagues from Salamanca. Sir John had been positively informed that his entry into Spain would be covered by 60 or 70,000 men; and that Burgos was the city intended for the point of union for the different divisions of the British army. But already not only Burgos, but Valladolid, was in possession of the enemy; and he found himself with an advanced corps in an open town, at three marches distance only from the French army, without even a Spanish piquet to cover his front He had at this time only three brigades of infantry, without a gun, in Salamanca. The remainder, it is true, vyere moving up in succession, but the whole could not arrive in less than ten days. At this critical time the Spanish main armies, instead of being united either among themselves, or with the British, were divided from each other almost by the whole breadth of the peninsula. The fatal consequences of this want of union were but too soon made apparent; Blake was defeated, and a report reached sir David Baird that the French were advancing upon his division in two different directions, so as to threaten to surround him. He, consequently, prepared to retreat upon Corunna; but sir John Moore, having ascertained that the report was unfounded, ordered sir David to advance, in order, if possible, to form a junction with him. On the 28th of November he received information that there was now no army remaining, against which the whole French force might be directed, except the British; and it was in vain to expect that they, even if they had been united, could have resisted or checked the enemy. Sir John Moore, therefore, determined to fall back on Portugal, to hasten the junction of general Hope, who had gone towards Madrid, and he ordered sir David Baird to regain Corunna as expeditiously as possible; and when he had thus determined upon a retreat, he communicated his design to the general officers, who, with the exception of general Hope, seemed to doubt the wisdom of his decision; he would, however, have carried it into execution, if he had not been induced, by pressing solicitations, and representations of encouragement, to advance to Madrid, which he was told not only held out, but was capable of opposing the French for a considerable length of time. Sir John, therefore, anxious to meet the wishes of his troops, by leading them against the enemy, determined to attack Soult, the French general, who was posted at Saldanha, by which he thought he should draw off the French armies to the north of Spain, and thus afford an opportunity for the Spanish armies to rally and re-unite. Soult was probably posted in that spot with so small a body of men for the purpose of enticing the British army farther into Spain, while Bonaparte, in person, with his whole disposable force, endeavoured to place himself between the British army and the sea. At length the two armies met; and the superiority of the British cavalry was eminently displayed in a most brilliant and successful skirmish, in which 600 of the imperial guards of Bonaparte were driven off the field by half the number of British, Reaving 55 killed and wounded, and 70 prisoners, among whom was general Le Febre, the commander of the imperial guard.

Yet, notwithstanding this and other advantages gained over the enemy, a retreat was become indispensably necessary: sir John’s troops did not amount to more than 27,000, while the French on the lowest calculation were 70,000, and so closely did this army, under Bonaparte, pursue the English, that the distance between them was scarcely thirty miles, while sir John was rather incommoded than benefited by the Spanish troops, and the Spanish peasantry offered no assistance to his troops, harassed by fatigue, and in want of every necessary. The difficulties and anxieties of the British commander were also increased by the relaxation which took place in the discipline of the army, arising from various causes, which compelled him to issue such orders as might unequivocally point out his knowledge of the extent to which the want of discipline Lad proceeded, the persons to whom he principally attributed it, and his positive and unalterable determination to punish it in the most severe and exemplary manner. At Lugo sir John Moore was anxious to engage the enemy; and he was satisfied that the general orders he had now given, had produced such an effect in his army, as to give an earnest of victory. A slight skirmish ensued, in which, the British rushed forward with charged bayonets, and drove the enemy’s column down the hill with considerable slaughter. After this, marshal Soult, having experienced the talents of the general, and the intrepidity of the troops he had to encounter, did not venture to renew the attack; from this it was concluded that his intention was to harass the British as much as possible during their march, and to defer his attack till the embarkation. Under these circumstances, the general quitted his ground in the night, leaving fires burning to deceive the enemy. The French did not discover their retreat till long after day-light, so that the British army got the start of them considerably. On the llth of January the whole of the British reached Corunna, the port where they hoped to embark, not, however, without the probability of a battle; and notwithstanding they were disappointed in not finding the transports at Corunna, the British army rejoiced that before they quitted the shores of Spain they should have an opportunity to front their enemies. The enemy gave no particular indipations of attack till about noon of the 16th of January: at this time sir John Moore was giving directions for the embarkation; but the moment intelligence was brought that the enemy’s line were getting under arms, he struck spurs to his horse, and flew to the field. The advanced piquets were already beginning to fire at the enemy’s light troops, who were pouring rapidly down the hill on the right wing of the British. Early in the action, sir David Baird, leading on his division, had his arm shattered with a grape-shot, and was forced to leave the field. At this instant the French artillery plunged from the heights, and the two hostile lines of infantry mutually advanced beneath a shower of balls. They were still separated from each other by stone-walls and hedges. A sudden and very able movement of the British gave the utmost satisfaction to sir John Moore, who had been watching the manoeuvre, and he cried out, “That is exactly what I wished to be done.” He then rode up to the 50th regiment, commanded by majors Napier and Charles Banks Stanhope, who had got over an inclosure in their front, and were charging most valiantly. The general, delighted with the gallantry of the two majors, who had been recommended by himself to the military rank they held, exclaimed, “Well done the 50th! Well done my majors!” The plaudits of their general and beloved friend excited them to new efforts, and they drove the enemy out of the village of Elvina with great slaughter. In the conflict, major Napier, advancing too far, was severely wounded and taken prisoner, and major Stanhope received a ball through his heart, which instantly put an end to a most valuable life. So instantaneous must have been the death of major Stanhope, that a sense of pain had not torn from his countenance the smile which the bravery of his soldiers and the applause of his commander had excited.

Sir John Moore proceeded to the 42d, and addressed them in these words, a Highlanders, remember Egypt.“They rushed on, driving the French before them. He sent captain Hardinge to order up a battalion of guards to the left flank of the Highlanders, upon which the oflicer commanding the light company, conceiving that, as their ammunition was nearly expended, they were to be relieved by the guards, began to fall back; but sir John, discovering the mistake, said,” My brave 42d, join your comrades, ammunition is coming, and you have your bayonets." They instantly obeyed, and moved forward. While the general was speaking, a cannon ball struck him to the ground. He raised himself, and sat up with an unaltered countenance, looking most intently at the Highlanders, who were warmly engaged; captain Hardinge assured him the 42d were advancing, upon which his countenance immediately brightened. The general was carried from the field, and on the way he ordered captain Hardinge to report his wound to general Hope, who assumed the command. Many of the soldiers knew that their two generals were carried off the field, yet they continued the fight till they had achieved a decisive and hrilliant victory, over a very superior force.

The fall of general Moore is thus described by captain Hardinge: “1 had been ordered by the commander-inchief to desire a battalion* of the guards to advance; which battalion was at one time intended to have dislodged a corps of the enemy from a large house and garden on the opposite side of the valley; and I was pointing out to the general the situation of the battalion, and our horses were touching, at the moment that a cannon-shot from the enemy’s battery carried away his left shoulder, and part of the collar-bone, leaving the arm hanging by the flesh. The violence of the stroke threw him off his horse on his back. Not a muscle of his face altered, nor did a sigh betray the least sensation of pain. I dismounted, and, taking his hand, he pressed mine forcibly, casting his eyes very anxiously towards the 42d regiment, which was hotly engaged; and his countenance expressed satisfaction when I informed him that the regiment was advancing. Assisted by a soldier of the 42d, he was removed a few yards behind the shelter of a wall. Colonel Graham Balgowan and captain Wood lord about this time came up, and, perceiving the state of sir John’s wound, instantly rode off for a surgeon. The blood flowed fast, but the attempt to stop it with my sash was useless, from the size of the wound. Sir John assented to being removed in a blanket to the rear. In raising him for that purpose, his sword, hanging on the wounded side, touched his arm, and became entangled between his legs. I perceived the inconvenience, and was in the act of unbuckling it from his waist, when he said in his usual tone and manner, and in a very distinct voice,” It is as well as it is; I. had rather it should go out of the field with me."

The account of this disaster was brought to sir David Baird while the surgeons were dressing his shattered arm. He ordered them instantly to desist, and run to attend on sir John Moore. When they arrived, he said to them, “you can be of no service to me, go to the soldiers, to whom you may be useful.” As the soldiers were carrying him slowly along in a blanket, he made them turn him round frequently to view the field of battle, and to listen to the firing, and was pleased when the sound grew fainter. On his arrival at his lodgings he was in much pain, and could speak but little, but at intervals he said to colonel Anderson, who for one-and-twenty years had been his friend and companion in arms “Anderson, you know that I always wished to die in this way.” He frequently asked “are the French beaten” and at length, when he was told they were defeated in every point, he said, te It is a great satisfaction for me to know we have beaten the French.“” I hope the people of England will be satisfied, I hope my country will do me justice." Having mentioned the name of his venerable mother, and the names of some other friends for whose welfare he seemed anxious to offer his last prayers, the power of utterance was lost, and he died in a few minutes without a struggle.

Thus fell, at the age of forty-seven, Jan. 16, 1809, at the conclusion of a critical victory, which preserved the remainder of his army from destruction, lieutenant-general sir John Moore, a name that must be long dear to his country, which was well disposed to do justice to his memory, and gratefully to acknowledge, in every possible way, the important services which he had achieved for it.

, a very respectable mathematician, fellow of the royal society, and surveyor-general of the ordnance, was born at Whitlee, or Whitle, in Lancashire, Feb. 8, 1617. After enjoying the advantages of a liberal education, he bent his studies principally to the mathematics, to which he had always a strong inclination, and in the early part of his life taught that science in London for his support. In the expedition of king Charles the First into the northern parts of England, our author was introduced to him, as a person studious and learned in those sciences; and the king expressed much approbation of him, and promised him encouragement; which indeed laid the foundation of his fortune. He was afterwards, when the king was at Holdenby-house, in 1647, appointed mathematical master to the king’s second son James, to instruct him in arithmetic, geography, the use of the globes, &c. During Cromwell’s government he appears to have followed the profession of a public teacher of mathematics; for he is styled, in the title-page of some of his publications, “professor of the mathematics;” but his loyalty was a considerable prejudice to his fortune. In his greatest necessity, he was assisted by colonel Giles Strangeways, then a prisoner in the Tower of London, who likewise recommended him to the other eminent persons, his fellow- prisoners, and prosecuted his interest so far as to procure him to be chosen surveyor in the work of draining the great level of the fens’. Having observed in his survey that the sea made a curve line on the beach, he thence took the hint to keep it effectually out of Norfolk. This added much to his reputation. Aubrey informs us, that he made a model of a citadel for Oliver Cromwell “to bridle the city of London,” which was in the possession of Mr. Wild, one of the friends who procured him the surveyorship of the Fens. Aubrey adds, what we do not very clearly understand, that this citadel was to have been the crossbuilding of St. Paul’s church.

After the return of Charles II. he found great favour and promotion, becoming at length surveyor-general of the king’s ordnance, and receiving the honour of knighthood. He was a great favourite both with the king and the duke of York, who often consulted him, and were advised by him upon many occasions; and he often employed his interest with the court to the advancement of learning and the encouragement of merit. Thus he got Flamsteed house built in 1675, as a public observatory, recommended Mr. Flamsteed to be the king’s astronomer, to make the observations there: and being surveyor-general of the ordnance himself, this was the reason why the salary of the astronomer royal was made payable out of the office of ordnance. Being a governor of Christ’s hospital, it was by his interest that the king founded the mathematical school there, allowing a handsome salary for a master to instruct a certain number of the boys in mathematics and navigation, to qualify them for the sea-service. Foreseeing the great benefit the nation might receive from a mathematical school, if rightly conducted, he made it his utmost care to promote the improvement of it. The school was settled; but there still wanted a methodical institution from which the youths might receive such necessary helps as their studies required: a laborious work, from which his other great and assiduous employments might very well have exempted him, had not a predominant regard to a more general usefulness engaged him to devote al the leisure hours of his declining years to the improvement of so useful and important a seminary of learning.

Having thus engaged himself in the prosecution of this general design, he next sketched out the plan of a course or system of mathematics for the use of the school, and then drew up and printed several parts of it himself, when death. put an end to his labours, before the work was completed. He died at Godalming, in his way from Portsmouth to London, August 27, 1679. Pieces of cannon, amounting to the number of his years, were discharged at the Tower, during his funeral. He was buried in the chapel of the Tower, where is a monument and inscription, which has enabled us to correct the mistakes 6f his biographers as to his age, place of birth, &c. In 1681, his great work was published by his sons-in-law, Mr. Hanway and Mr. Potinger. Of this work, the arithmetic, practical geometry, trigonometry, and cosmography, were written by sir Jonas himself, and printed before his death. The algebra, navigation, and the books of Euclid, were supplied by Mr. Perkins, the then master of the mathematical school. And the astronomy, or doctrine of the sphere, was written by Mr. Flamsteed, the astronomer royal. He always intended to have left his collection of mathematical books to the Royal Society, of which he was a fellow, but he died without a will. His only son, Jonas, had the honour of knighthood conferred on him, and the reversion of his father’s place of surveyor- general of the ordnance; “but,” adds Aubrey, “young sir Jonas, when he is old, will never be old sir Jonas, for all the gazette’s eulogie.”

, rector of Kirkbride, and chaplnin of Douglas in the Isle of Mann, a gentleman well known in the literary world, by his correspondence with men of genius in several parts of it, and by them eminently distinguished as the divine and scholar, was born in 1705. In the earlier part of a life industriously employed in promoting the present and future happiness of mankind, he served as chaplain to the right reverend Dr. Wilson, the venerable bishop of Mann, whose friend and companion he was for many years: at his funeral he was appointed to preach his sermon, which is affixed to the discourses of that prelate, in the edition of his works printed at Bath, 1781, in two volumes, quarto, and that in folio. At the request of the society for promoting Christian knowledge, he undertook the revision of the translation into Manks of the Holy Scriptures, the book of Common Prayer, bishop Wilson on the Sacrament, and other religious pieces, printed for the use of the diocese of Mann; and, during the execution of the first of these works, he was honoured with the advice of the tw*o greatest Hebrseans of the age, bishop Lowth and Dr. Kennicott. In the more private walks of life, he was not less beloved and admired; in his duty as a clergyman, he was active and exemplary, and pursued a conduct (as far as human nature is capable) “void of offence towards God and towards man.” His conversation, prompted by an uncommon quickness of parts, and refined by study, was at once lively, instructive, and entertaining; and his friendly correspondence (which was very extensive) breathes perhaps as much original humour as can, be met with in any writer who has appeared in public, Sterne not excepted, to whom he did not yield even in that vivid philanthropy, which the fictitious Sterne could so often assume. All the clergy in the island at the time of his death, had been (except four) educated by him, and by them he was always distinguished with peculiar respect and affection. His conduct operated in the same degree amongst all ranks of people, and it is hard to say, whether he won more by his doctrine or example; in both, religion appeared most amiable, and addressed herself to the judgments of men, clothed in that cheerfulness which is the result of firm conviction and a pure intention. It is unnecessary to add, that though his death, which happened at Douglas, Jan. 22, 1783, in his 78th year, was gentle, yet a retrospect of so useful and amiable a life made it deeply regretted. His remains were interred with great solemnity in Kirk Braddon church, attended by all the clergy of the island, and a great number of the most respectable inhabitants. In 1785, a monument was erected to his memory, at the expence of the rev. Dr. Thomas Wilson, son of the bishop, and prebendary of Westminster, &c.

, a learned Benedictine of the congregation of St. Maur, was born 1685, at Rheims, and died 1724, aged 39. He composed some hymns in Latin, which are much admired, and assisted father Constant in his “Collection of the Popes’ Letters,” to which he wrote the dedication and preface. This preface having displeased the court of Rome, Mopinot defended it by several letters. He also wrote the epistle dedicatory which is prefixed to the “Thesaurus Anecdotorum;” and had finished the second volume of the Collection of the Popes’ letters before his death.

, a man of letters, and secretary to the lieutenant-general of the police in Paris, was a native of La Flche, and died September 9, 1762. He published u A Translation of Cicero’s Treatise on Laws,“and of the dialogue on orators generally attibuted to Tacitus;” Histoire de l'Exil de Ciceron,“which is said to have been translated into English;” Histoire de Ciceron,“1745, 2 vols, quarto. This work appeared nearly at the same time with that of our own countryman Dr. Middleton on the same subject, and it is no small praise that it shared with it in reputation” Nomenclator Ciceronianus,“and” A Translation of Boetius de Consolatione." Morabin’s works shew him to have been a man of learning but his style is not good, and in his translations he fails of transfusing the spirit of the original.

, a pious and learned Spanish priest, born in 1513 at Cordova, was one of those who greatly contributed to restore a taste for the belles lettres in Spain. He taught with reputation in the university of Alcala, was appointed historiographer to Philip II. king of Spain, and died 1590, at Alcala, aged 77, leaving several works relative to Spanish antiquities besides other valuable books. The principal are, “The general Chronicle of Spain,” which had been begun by Florian Ocampo, 1574, and 1588, 2 vols. folio, in Spanish. “The Antiquities of Spain,” folio, in the same language, a curious and very valuable work “Scholia,” in Latin, on the works of Eulogius the “Genealogy of St. Dominick,” &c. He was originally a Dominican, but obliged to quit that order in consequence of having been induced, by a mistaken piety, to follow Origen’s example. He was unquestionably a man of learning, and had many of the best qualities of a historian, but he scarcely rose above the grossest superstitions of his age and religion. A complete edition of his works was published at Madrid in 1791—92.

, a French surgeon, was born in Paris in 1697, where his father was surgeon-major to the invalids. Sauveur received his literary education at the college Mazarin, and was instructed in his profession by his father at the hospital of the Invalids. He rose to the mastership of the company of St. Come (which was afterwards erected into the Royal Academy of Surgery), and was appointed demonstrator of surgical operations to that body in 1725. In 1728 he appeared as an author on the subject of lithotomy, and published his “Traite de la Taille au haut appareil, &c.” the high operation being then universally practised by the surgeons of Paris. But, in the following year he was commissioned by the Academy of Sciences to visit London, with a view of witnessing the lateral operation, as performed by Cheselden with so much success; and on his return to Paris, he introduced that mode of cutting for the stone, at the hospital of La Charite, which brought a crowd of pupils to his hospital, and multiplied his professional honours. He was admitted a member of many foreign societies, especially the Royal Society of London, into which he was admitted in 1728, and the academies of Stockholm, Petersburg!!, Florence, Bologna, and Rouen; and was nominated pensioner and professor of anatomy to the Royal Academy of Sciences at home. He held likewise several medical appointments in the army; and in 1751, was honoured with knighthood, of the order of St. Michael. He died in 1773, at the age of seventy-six.

Besides the treatise on lithotomy above mentioned, he published other works concerning the same subject, or connected with his profession, and was author of several papers, published in the Memoirs of the Academy of Sciences, as well as that of Surgery; and wrote a history of the latter academy, for the second and third volumes of their memoirs.

, son of the preceding, was born at Paris in April 1726, and after receiving the degree of doctor in medicine in 1750, was appointed professor of anatomy. He likewise obtained a high reputation in his profession, was elected into many learned bodies; and was appointed physician in ordinary to Stanislaus, king of Poland, and duke of Lorraine. He died in the year 1784. He wrote “Histoire de la Maladie singuliere, et de Pexamen d'une femme devenue en peu de terns contrefaite par un ramollissement general des os,” Paris, 1752. “Nouvelle description des grottes d'Arcy,” Lyons, 1752. “Lettre a M. le Hoi au sujet de I'Histoire de la femme Suppiot,” Paris, 1753. “Eclaircissement abrege sur la Maladie d'une fille de St. Geosme,” and “Recueil pour servir d'eclaircissement, &c.” relating to the same subject, Paris, 1754. “Lettre sur ^Instrument de Roonhuysen,” 1755. “Lettre sur la qustlite des Eaux de Luxeuil en Tranche Comte,” published m the Journal de Verdun, March 1756. “Memoire sur les Eaux Thermales de Bains en Lorraine,” &c. in the Journal de Medecine, torn. VI. 1757. “Du Charbon de terre et de ses Mines,” fol. 1769. He also wrote an “Eloge” of his father, and a “Memoire sur la qualite dangereuse de l'emetique des Apothecaires de Lyons.”

, M. A. and F. S. A. a learned and indefatigable antiquary and biographer, the son of Stephen Morant, was born at St. Saviour’s in the isle of Jersey, Oct. 6, 1700; and, after finishing his education at Abingdon-school, was entered Dec. 16, 1717, of Pembrokecollege, Oxford, where he took the degree of B. A. June 10, 1721, and continued till Midsummer 1722; when he was preferred to the office of preacher of the English church at Amsterdam, but never went to take possession. He took the degree of M. A. in 1724, and was presented to the rectory of Shellow Bowells, April 20, 1733; to the vicarage of Bromfield, Jan. 17, 1733-4; to the rectory of Chicknal Smeley, Sept. 19, 1735; to that of St. Mary’s, Colchester, March 9, 1737; to that of Wickham Bishops, Jan. 21, 1742-3; and to that of Aldham, Sept. 14, 1745. All these benefices are in the county of Essex. In 1748 he published his “History of Colchester,” of which only 200 copies were printed at the joint expence of Mr. Bowyer and himself. In 1751, Mr. Morant was elected F. S. A. In February 1768, he was appointed, by the lords subcommittees of the House of Peers, to succeed Mr. Blyke, in preparing for the press a copy of the rolls of parliament; a service to which he diligently attended to his death, which happened Nov. 25, 1770, in consequence of a cold, caught in returning by water from the Temple to Vauxhall, in his way to South Lambeth, where he resided for the convenience of attending to his parliamentary labours; for which, as a native of Jersey, and excellently skilled in the old Norman French, he was particularly well qualified. This work, after his death, devolved on Thomas Astle, esq. F. R. and A. Ss. who had married his only daughter, and who communicated to Mr. Nichols the following exact account of Mr. Morant’s writings, from a list of them drawn up by himself. 1. “An Introduction to the Reading of the New Testament, being a translation of that of Mess, de Beausobre and Lenfant, prefixed to their edition of the New Testament,” 1725, 1726, 4to. 2. “The Translation of the Notes of Mess, de Beausobre and Lenfant on St. Matthew’s Gospel,” 1727, 4to. N. Tindal translated the text printed therewith. 3. “The Cruelties and Persecutions of the Romish Church displayed, &c.” 1728, 8vo, translated into Welsh by Thomas Richards, curate of Coy church in Glamorganshire, 1746, with the approbation of Dr. Gilbert, the bishop of Landaff. 4. “1 epitomised those Speeches, Declarations, &c. which Rapin had contracted out of Rushworth in the Life of King James I. King Charles I. &c.” 1729, 1730. 5. “Remarks on the 19th Chapter of the Second Book of Mr. Selden’s Mare Clausum.” Printed at the end of Mr. Fallens “Account of Jersey,” 1731. 6. “1 compared Rapin’s History with the 20 volumes of Rymer’s Fcedera, and Acta Publica, and all the ancient and modern Historians, and added most of the notes that were in the folio edition,” 1728, 1734. This is acknowledged at the end of the preface in the first volume of Rapin’s History. 7. “Translation of the Notes in the Second Part of the Othman History, by Prince Cantemir,” 1735, fulio. 8. Revised and correeled “The History of England, by way of Question and Answer,” for Thomas Astley, 1737, 12mo. 9. Revised and corrected “Hearne’s Ductor Historicus,” and made large additions thereto, for J. Knapton. 10. “Account of the Spanish Invasion in 1588, by way of illustration to the Tapestry Hangings in the House of Lords and in the King’s Wardrobe. Engraved and published by J. Pine,” 1739, folio. 11. “Geographia Antiqua & Nova; taken partly from Dufresnoy’s ‘ Methode pour etudier la Geographic;’ with Ceilarius’s Maps,” 1742, 4to. 12. “A Summary of the History of England,” folio, and “Lists at the end of Mr. TindaPs Continuation of Rapin’s History, in vol. III. being 55 sheets. Reprinted in three volumes,” 8vo. 13. “The History and Antiquities of Colchester,” 1748, folio; second edition, 1768. 14. “All the Lives in the Biographia Britannica marked C. 1739, 1760, 7 vols. folio. I also composed Stiliingfleet, which hath no mark at the end.” 15. “The History of P:ssex,” 1760, 1768, 2 vols. folio. 16. “I prepared the Rolls of Parliament for the Press” (as far as the 16 Henry IV.) Other works in ms.: 17. “An Answer to the first Part of the Discourse of the Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Religion, in a Letter to a Friend, 1724. Presented in ms. to Edmund Gibson, bishop of London.” Never printed. This was the beginning of Mr. Morant’s acquaintance with the bishop, whom he acknowledged as his only patron, and who gave him several livings in the county of Essex. 18. “The Life of King Edward the Confessor.” 19. About 150 Sermons.

, a learned Italian lady, was born at Ferrara, in 1526. Her father taught the belles lettres in several cities of Italy: and his reputation as a teacher advanced him to be preceptor to the young princes of Ferrara, sons of Alphonsus I. The uncommon parts and turn for literature which he discovered in his daughter, induced him to cultivate them; and she soon made a very extraordinary progress. The princess of Ferrara was at that time studying polite literature, and a companion in the same pursuit being thought expedient, Morata was called to court; where she was heard, by the astonished Italians, to declaim in Latin, to speak Greek, to explain the paradoxes of Cicero, and to answer any questions that were put to her. Her father dying, and her mother being an invalid, she was obliged to return home, in order to tuke upon her the administration of the family affairs, and the education of three sisters and a brother, all which sho conducted with judgment and success. But some have said that the immediate cause of her removal from court, was a dislike which the duchess of Ferrara had conceived against her, by the misrepresentations of some of the courtiers. In the mean time, a young Oerman, named Grunthlcrus, who had studied physic, and taken his doctor’s degree at Ferrara, fell in love with her, and married her. Upon this she went with her hushand to Germany, and took her little brother with her, whom she carefully instructed in the Latin and Greek languages. They arrived at Augsburg in 1548; and, after a short stay there, went to Schweinfurt in Franconia, but had not been long there, before Schweinfurt was besieged and burnt. They escaped, however, with their lives, but remained in great distress until the elector Palatine invited Grunthler to be professor of physic at Heidelburg. He entered upon this new office in 1554, and be'gan to enjoy some degree of repose; when illness, occasioned by the hardships they had undergone, seized upon Morata, and proved fatal Oct. 26, 1555, before she was quite twenty-nine years old. She died in the Protestant religion, which she embraced upon her coming to Germany, and to which she resolutely adhered. Her husband and brother did not long survive her, and were interred in the same grave in the church of St. Peter, where is a Latin epitaph to their memory.

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

The merit of sir Robert. Moray, with regard to the Royal Society, was very eminent. Bishop Burnet asserts, that he was the first former of the society, and that, while he lived, he was the life and soul of that body. He was undoubtedly one of the first framers of it; and he was uncommonly assiduous in promoting its valuable purposes *. In this view, we meet with his name in almost every page of Dr. Birch’s. circumstantial History of tlxe Society; in which, likewise, are inserted some of sir Robert’s papers. Another of his papers, concerning the mineral of Liege, is printed in the early part of the Philosophical Transactions. Besides sir Robert Moray’s aids.and communications, relative to the scientific views and experiments of the Royal Society, he was singularly useful to it in other respects.

* The members, of whom it was academy at Paris, and dated 2 1 2 Julii, originally composed, held their first 1661, sir Robert Moray styled himself meeting, for the purpose of forming “Societatis at) tempus Praises.” From themselves into a regular philosophical all the circumstances we have been society, on the I 28ih of November, able to collect, sir Robert sheens to 1660. In the next week (Dec. 5.), sir have been the sole president of the soRobert Moray brought word from the ciety, till it was incorporated, exemptcourt, that the king had been acquaint- ing for one month, from May 14th, ed with the design of the meeting; that 1662, to June the 11th, during which, he well approved of it; and that he would time Dr. Wilkins possessed that hobe ready to give it encouragement. "nour. It is certain that sir Robert On the 6ih of March, 1660-61, sir Moray was again appointed to the ofRobert was chosen president of the so- fice, when Dr. Wilkins’s month was ciety, for a month only, as it appears out, and that he continued in it till the for, on the 10th of April, 1661, he was charter took place. T 1 ^ above acagain elected for another mon'.h. In count will reconcile the apparent conthis office he likewise continued by tradiction of our historians, who, when subsequent elections, though the time they speak of the Royal Society, sumeof making them is not particularly limes represent sir Robert Moray, and mentioned. In a Latin letter, addiessed sometimes lord Brouncker, as having to Mons, de Montmor, president of the been the first president. He had a very considerable share in obtaining its charters; was concerned in framing its statutes and regulations; and was indefatigably zealous in whatever regarded its interests. In both the charters of the Royal Society, he is first mentioned in the list of the council he was always afterward chosen of the council and his name sometimes occurs as vice-president.

Sir Robert Moray’s general character was excellent in the highest degree. He was beloved and esteemed by men of every party and station. His piety was such, that, in the midst of armies and courts, he spent many hours. of the day in the exercise of devotion. The equality of his temper could not be disturbed by any event: he was in practice a stoic, with a strong tincture of the persuasion of absolute decrees. He had a most diffusive love for. mankind; and whilst he delighted in every occasion of doing good, his benevolence was conducted with a discretion equal to his zeal. In reproving the faults of young people, he had the plainest, and yet the softest method of doing it that can be imagined. His comprehension was superior to that of most men; and in genius he resembled the illustrious Peireskius, as described by Gassendus. Once, when a false and malicious accusation was brought against sir Robert Moray, which was aimed at his life, he practised, upon the occasion, in a very eminent manner, his true Christian philosophy, without shewing so much as a cloud in his whole behaviour.

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

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

For his services abroad his lordship was declared general in Spain by Charles III. afterwards emperor of Germany; and, the war being thought likely to be concluded, he was appointed by queen Anne ambassador extraordinary, with power and instructions for treating and adjusting all matters of state and traffic between the two kingdoms. The king of Spain, however, having transmitted some charges against him, his conduct was examined by parliament, and cleared up to their entire satisfaction. The House of Lords, in particular, who were pleased with his justification, resolved, Jan. 12, 1710-11, “that his lordship, during the time he commanded the army in that kingdom, had performed many great and eminent services; and that, if the opinion, which he had given to the council of war at Valencia, had been followed, it might very probably have prevented the misfortunes that had since happened in Spain:” and upon this foundatiorrthey voted thanks to his lordship in the most solemn manner. In 1710 and 1711, Jie was employed in embassies to Vienna, Turin, and several of the courts in Italy. On his return to England, he was made colonel of the royal regiment of horse-guards; and being general of the marines, and lord-lieutenant of the county of Northampton, was, on August 4, 1713, installed at Windsor a knight of the garter. Soon after which he was sent ambassador extraordinary to the king of Sicily, and to negociate affairs with other Italian princes; and in March 1713-14, was made governor of the island of Minorca. In the reign of George I. he was general of all the marine forces in Great Britain, in which post he was liker wise continued by George II. He died in his passage to Lisbon, whither he was going for thp recovery of his health, Oct. 25, 1735, aged seventy-seven. A very interesting account of his last illness, which was excruciating, js given in vol. X. of Bowles’s edition of Pope’s Works.

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

His lordship married Carey, daughter to sir Alexander Fraser, of Dotes, in the shire of Mearns, in Scotland, and by her (who died May 13, 1709) he had two sons, John and Henry, who both died before him, and a daughter, Henrietta, married to Alexander second duke of Gordon. He was succeeded in titles and estate by a grandson, Charles. He married as his second wife Mrs. Anastasia Robinson, a celebrated singer, of whom Dr. Burney has given a very particular account in vol. IV. of his “History of Music.” To this lady he was ardently attached, and behaved to her with great delicacy and propriety, but his pride revolted at the match, and he kept it secret until a very short period before his death. Of the lady herself he had, according to every account, no reason to be ashamed; but a connection of this kind had not then become so common as we have of late witnessed. How long he was married to her does not appear. She survived him fifteen years, residing in an exalted station, and visited by persons of the first rank, partly at Bevis Mount, his lordship’s seat near Southampton, and partly at Fulham, or perhaps at Peterborough-house at Parson’s green. Lord Peterborough had written his “Own Memoirs,” which this lady destroyed, from a regard to his reputation. Tradition says, that in these memoirs he confessed his having committed three capital crimes before he was twenty years of age. This we hope has been exaggerated; but it seems allowed that his morals were loose, and that he was a freethinker.

, a preacher of some celebrity among the French protestants, was the son of a Scotchman, who was principal of the college at Castres in Languedoc, and born there in 1616. When he was about twenty, he was sent to Geneva to study divinity; and finding, upon his arrival, that the chair of the Greek professor was vacant, he became a candidate for it. and gained it against competitors greatly beyond himself in years. Having exercised this office for about three years, he succeeded Spanheim, who was called away to Leyden, in the functions of divinity-professor and minister of Geneva. As he was a favourite preacher, and a man of great learning, he appears to have excited the jealousy of a party which was formed against him at Geneva. He had, however, secured the good opinion of Salmasius, who procured him the divinity-professor’s place at Middlebourg, together with the parish-church, which occasioned him to depart from Geneva in 1649. The gentlemen of Amsterdam, at his arrival in Holland, offered him the professorship of history, which was become vacant by the death of Vossius; but, not being able to detach him from his engagements to the city of Middlebourg, they gave it to David Blondel, yet, upon a second offer, he accepted it about three years after. In 1654, he left his professorship of history for some time to take a journey into Italy; where it is said he was greatly noticed by the duke of Tuscany. During his stay in Italy, he wrote a beautiful poem upon the defeat of the Turkish fleet by the Venetians, and was honoured with a chain of gold by the republic of Venice. He returned to his charge; and, after some contests with the Walloon synods, went into France, to be ordained minister of the church of Paris. But here he met with many opponents, his character, as is said, being somewhat ambiguous both in regard to faith and morals. He succeeded, however, in being received minister of the church of Paris, although his reputation continued to be attacked by people of merit and consequence, who presented him again to the from whose censures he escaped with great difficulty, and had again to encounter in 1661. About this time he went to England, and on his return six months afterwards, the complaints against him were immediately renewed. He died at Paris, in the duchess of Rohan’s house, in September 1670.

, an eminent artist of the sixteenth century, was born at Utrecht in 1519, and was the scholar of John Schorel, but seems to have studied the manner of Holbein, to which he approached nearer than to the freedom of design in the works of the great masters that he saw at Rome. Like Holbein he was a close imitator of nature, but did not arrive at his extreme delicacy of finishing; on the contrary, Antonio sometimes struck into a bold and masculine style, with a good knowledge of chiaro-scuro. Among other portraits he drew Philip II. and was recommended by cardinal Granvelle to Charles V. who sent him to Portugal, where he painted John III. the king, Catharine of Austria, his queen, and the infanta Mary, first wife of Philip. For these three pictures he received six hundred ducats, besides a gold chain of a thousand florins, and other presents. He had one hundred ducats for his common portraits. But still ampler rewards were bestowed on him when sent into England to draw the picture of queen Mary, the intended bride of Philip. They gave him one hundred pounds a quarter as painter to their majesties. He made various portraits of the queen one was sent by cardinal Granvelle to the emperor, who ordered two hundred florins to Antonio. He remained in England during the reign of Mary, and was much employed; but having neglected, as is frequent, to write the names on the portraits he drew, most of them have lost part of their value, by our ignorance of the persons represented. Though portraits was the branch in which More chiefly excelled, he was not without talent for history. In this he had something of the Italian style in his design, and his colouring resembled that of Titian. A very fine work of his, representing the Ascension of our Saviour, is in the gallery of the Louvre at Paris. The style of the composition, which consists of Jesus Christ ascending, crowned by two angels, and accompanied by the figures of St. Peter and St. Paul, is of the severe and grand cast employed by Fra. Bartolomeo; the colouring is exceedingly fine, and correspondent to the style of design; he has been least successful in the expression of the principal figure; if that had been more just and grand, this picture would alone place More among the very first class of artists. On the death of the queen, he followed Philip into Spain, where he was indulged in so much familiarity, that one day the king slapping him pretty roughly on the shoulder, More returned the sport with his handstick. A strange liberty t& be taken with a Spanish monarch, and with such a monarch His biographer gives but an awkward account of the sequel, and, says Mr. Walpole, “1 repeat it as I find it. A grandee interposed for his pardon, and he was permitted to retire to the Netherlands, but on the promise of returning again to Spain. I should rather suppose that he was promised to have leave to return hither after a temporary banishment; and this supposition is the more likely, as Philip for once forgetting majesty in his love of the arts, dispatched a messenger to recal him before he had finished his journey. But the painter, sensible of the danger he had escaped, modestly excused himself. And yet, says the story, the king bestowed noble presents and places on his children.” At Utrecht, Antonio found the duke of Alva, and was employed by him to paint some of his mistresses, and was made receiver of the revenues of West Flanders, a preferment with which they say he was so elated, that he burned his easel, and gave away his painting-tools. He was a man of a stately and handsome figure; and often went to Brussels, where he lived magnificently. He died at Antwerp, in 1575, in the fifty-sixth year of his age.

, son of Edward More, gent, by Elizabeth his wife, daughter and heir of one Hall, of Tilehurst in Berkshire, was born at East Hildesly, in that county, in 1558. He svas admitted of St. John’s college, Oxford, whence he removed to the Middle Temple, where he made a very considerable proficiency, and became a person of eminence in his profession, both for his knowledge and integrity. He died Nov. 20, 1621, and was buried at Great Fawley, near Wantage in Berkshire. His works are, 4< Cases collected and reported,“London, 1663, in folio. They were afterwards abridged by Mr. Hughes, and printed in 1665, 8vo. His reading upon 4 Jac. I. in the Middle Temple, concerning charitable uses, as abridged by himself, was published in 1676, folio, by Mr. Duke, of the Inner Temple. Sir Francis More was a member of that parliament which passed the statutes for charitable uses; and, it is said, the bill, as it passed, was penned by him. In sir Francis’s reports, the reader may see the famous case of the Post Nati, argued before the Lords and Commons in the painted chamber, and the resolution of all the reverend judges upon the same. A ms. of his, consisting of reports of cases principally agreeing with those in print, but with a greater number of references to authorities, is in the hands of Mr. Brooke, compiler of the” Bibliotheca Legum Anglian."

, an eminent English divine and philosopher, was the second son of Alexander More, esq. and born at Grantham in Lincolnshire, Oct. 12, 1614. His parents, being zealous Calvinists, took especial care to breed up their son in Calvinistic principles; and, with this design, provided him with a private master of their own persuasion, under whose direction he continued till he was fourteen years of age. Then, at the instigation of his uncle, who discerned in him very uncommon talents, he was sent to Eton-school, in order to be perfected in the Greek and Latin tongues; carrying with him, a strict charge not to recede from the principles in which he had been so carefully trained. Here, however, he abandoned his Calvinistic opinions, as far as regarded predestination; and, although his uncle not only chid him severely, but even threatened him with correction, for his immature philosophizing in such matters; yet he persisted in his opinion. In 1631, after he had spent three years at Eton, he was admitted of Christ’s college in Cambridge, and, at his own earnest solicitations, under a tutor that was not a Calvinist. Here, as he informs us, “he plunged himself immediately over head and ears in philosophy, and applied himself to the works of Aristotle, Cardan, Julius Scaliger, and other eminent philosophers;” all which he read over before he took his bachelor of arts’ degree, which was in 1635. But these did not answer his expectations; their manner of philosophising did not fall in with his peculiar turn of mind; nor did he feel any of that high delight, which he had promised himself from these studies. This disappointment, therefore, induced him to search for what he wanted in the Platonic writers and mystic divines, such as Marsilius Ficinus, Plotinus, Trismegistus, &c. where his enthusiasm appears to have been highly gratified. Among all the writings of this kind, there was none which so much affected him as the “Theologia Germanica,” once a favourite book with Luther. This was written by one John Taulerus, a Dominican monk, in the fourteenth century; and who, being supposed by the credulity of that age to be favoured with revelations from heaven, was styled the “illuminated divine.” He preached chiefly at Cologne and Strasburg, and died in 1631. His book, written in German, was translated into Latin, first by Surius, and afterwards by Sebastian Castalio; and it went through a great number of editions from 1518 to 1700, when it was printed in French at Amsterdam.

The pretensions, which such authors as we have just mentioned, make of arriving at extraordinary degrees of illumination by their institutes, entirely captivated More’s fancy who pursued their method with great seriousness and intense application and, in three or four years, had reduced himself to so thin a state of body, and began to talk in such a manner of experiences and communications, as brought him into a suspicion of being touched with enthusiasm. Ib 1640, he composed his “Psycho-Zoia, or the Life of the Soul;” which, with an addition of other poems, he republished in 1647, 8vo, under the title of “Philosophical Poems,” and dedicated to his father. He takes notice, in his dedication, that his father used to read to his children on winter nights “Spenser’s Fairy Queen,” with which our author was highly delighted, and which, he says in the dedication, “first turned his ears to poetry.” In 1639, he had taken his master of arts’ degree; and, being chosen fellow of his college, became tutor to several persons of great quality. One of these was sir John Finch, whose sister lady Con way was an enthusiast of his own stamp, and became at length a quaker, although he laboured for many years to reclaim her. He still, however, had a great esteem for her and drew up some of his “Treatises” at her particular request and she, in return, left him a legacy of 400l. He composed others of his works at Ragley, the seat of her lord in Warwickshire, where, at intervals, he spent a considerable part of his time. He met here with two extraordinary persons, the famous Van Helmont, and the no less famous Valentine Greatrakes; for, it seems, lady Conway was frequently afflicted with violent pains in her head, and these two persons were called in, at different times, to try their powers upon her; and, at last, Van Helmont lived in the family. There was once a design of printing some remains of this lady after her death; and the preface was actually written by our author under the person of Van Helmont; in which disguise he draws her character with so much address, that we are told the most rigid quaker would see every thing he could wish in it, and yet the soberest Christian be entirely satisfied with it. It is printed at large in his life.

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

During the rebellion he was suffered to enjoy the studious retirement he had chosen, although he had made himself obnoxious, by constantly refusing to take the covenant. He saw and lamented the miseries of his country; but, in general, Archimedes like, he was so busy in his chamber as to mind very little what was doing without. He had a great esteem for Des Cartes, with whom he held a correspondence upon several points of his philosophy. He devoted his whole life to the writing of books; and it is certain, that his parts and learning were universally admired. On this account he was called into the Royal Society, with a view of giving reputation to it, before its establishment by the royal charter; for which purpose he was proposed as a candidate by Dr. Wilkins and Dr. Cudworth, June 4, 1661, and elected fellow soon after. His writings became so popular, that Mr. Chishull, an eminent bookseller, declared, that, for twenty years together, after the return of Charles II. the “Mystery of Godliness,” and Dr. More’s other works, ruled all the booksellers in Lon-. don; and a very remarkable testimony of their esteem was given by John Cockshuit of the Inner Temple, esq. who, I by his last will, left 300l. to have three of his principal I pieces translated into Latin. These were his “Mystery of Godliness,” “Mystery of Iniquity,” and his “Philosophical Collections.” This legacy induced our author to translate, together with these, the rest of his English works which he thought worth printing, into that language; and the whole collection was published in 1679, in three large volumes, folio. In undertaking the translation himself, his design was to appropriate Mr. Cock’shuitY legacy to the ifounding of three scholarships in Christ’s college; but as they could not be printed and published without consuming the greatest part of it, he made up this loss by other donations in his life-time, and by the perpetuity of the rectory of lngoldsby, which he left to the college by will. He died Sept. 1, 1687, in his seventy-third year and was buried in the chapel of his college, where lie also Mr. Mede and Dr. Cudworth, two other contemporary ornaments of that foundation.

Dr. More was in his person tall, thin, but well proportioned; his countenance serene and lively, and his eye sharp and penetrating. He was a man of great genius, and of very extensive learning, which may be discovered in his writings, amidst their deep tincture of mysticism. It was his misfortune to be of opinion, like many of his contemporaries, that the wisdom of the Hebrews had been transmitted to Pythagoras, and from him to Plato; and consequently, that the true principles of divine philosophy were to be found in the writings of the Platonists. At the same time, he was persuaded that the ancient Cabbalistic philosophy sprang from the same fountain; and therefore endeavoured to lay open the mystery of this philosophy, by shewing its agreement with the doctrines of Pythagoras and Plato, and pointing out the corruptions which had been introduced by the modern Cabbalists. The Cartesian system was, as we have noticed, embraced by More, as on the whole consonant to his ideas of nature; and he took much pains to prove that it was not inconsistent with the Cabbalistic doctrine. His penetrating understanding, however, discovered defects in this new system, which he endeavoured to supply.

With these opinions, he was accounted a man of the most ardent piety, and of an irreproachable life. Dr. Outram said “that he looked upon Dr. More as the holiest person upon the face of the earth.” His temper was naturally grave and thoughtful, but at some times, he could relax into gay conversation and pleasantry. After finishing some of his writings, which had occasioned much fatigue, he said, “Now, for these three months, I will neither thiuk a wise thought, nor speak a wise word, nor do any ill thing.” He was subject to fits of extacy, during which he seemed so entirely swallowed up in joy and happiness, that Mr. Norris styles him the “intellectual Epicure.” He was meek and humble, liberal to the poor, and of a very kind and benevolent spirit. He once said to a friend, “that he was thought by some to have a soft head, but he thanked God he had a soft heart,” and gave at that time the sum of 50l. to a clergyman’s widow. Bishop Burnet calls him “an open-hearted and sincere Christian philosopher, who studied to establish men in the great principles of religion against atheism, which was then beginning to gain ground, chiefly by reason of the hypocrisy of some, and the fantastical conceits of the more sincere enthusiasts.” His writings have not of late years been in much request, although all of them were read and admired in his day. Addison styles his “Enchiridion Ethicum” an admirable system of ethics but none of his works appear to have been more relished than his “Divine Dialogues” concerning the attributes and providence of God. Dr. Blair says of this work, that though Dr. More’s style be now in some measure obsolete, and his speakers marked with the academic stiffness of those times, yet the dialogue is animated by a variety of character, and a sprightlmess of conversation, beyond what are* commonly met with in writings of this kind.

, was the son of Arthur More, esq. one of the lords-commissioners of trade in the reign of queen Anne; and his mother was the daughter of Mr. Smyth, who left this, his grandson, an handsome estate, upon which account he obtained an act of parliament to change his name from More to Smyth; and, besides this estate, at the death of his grandfather, he had his place of pay-master to the band of gentlemen-pensioners, with his younger brother Arthur More, esq. He was bred at Worcester college, Oxford; and, while he was there, wrote a comedy, called “The Rival Modes.” This play was condemned in the acting, but he printed it in 1727, with the following motto, which the commentator on the Dunciad, by way of irony, calls modest: “Hie csestus artemque repono.” Being of a gay disposition, he insinuated himself into the favour of the duke of Wharton; and being also, like him, destitute of prudence, he joined with that nobleman in writing a paper, called “The Inquisitor;” which breathed so much the spirit of Jacobitism, that the publisher thought proper to sacrifice his profit to his safety, and discontinue it. By using too much freedom with Pope, he occasioned that poet to stigmatize him in his Dunciad:

"Never was dash'd out at one lucky hit,

A wit it was, and call'd the phantom More."

The whole is a clear, energetic, and lively description, and, as Dr. Young, who was well acquainted with More, told Dr. Warton, the portrait is not over-charged. Some have thought that Pope’s character of Macer was intended also for More, but the leanness there alluded to cannot apply to More, if the above description be just. The pastoral Philips is more probably Macer.

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

, chancellor of England in the reign of Henry VIII. and one of the most illustrious characters of that period, was born in Milk-street, London, in 1480. He was the son of sir John More, knight, one of the judges of the king’s bench, and a man of great abilities and integrity. Sir John had also much of that pleasant wit, for which his son was afterwards so distinguished; and, as a specimen of it, Camden relates, that he would compare the danger in the choice of a wife to that of putting a man’s hand into a bag full of snakes, with only one eel in it; where he may, indeed, chance to light of the eel, but it is an hundred to one he is stung by a snake. It has been observed, however, that sir John ventured to put his hand three times into this bag, for he married three wives; nor was the sting so hurtful as to prevent his arriving at the age of ninety; and then he did not die of old age, but of a surfeit, occasioned by eating grapes. Sir Thomas was his son by his first wife, whose maiden name was Handcombe. He was educated in London, at a free-school of great repute at that time in Threadneedle-street, called St. Anthony’s, where archbishop Whitgift, and other eminent men, had been brought up; and here he made a progress in grammar-learning, suitable to his uncommon parts and application. He was afterwards placed in the family of cardinal Morton, archbishop of Canterbury, and chancellor of England: a method of education much practised in those times, but chiefly in the case of noblemen’s sons, with whom sir John More might be supposed to rank, from the high office he held. The cardinal was delighted with his ingenuous modesty, and with the vivacity and quickness of his wit, of which he gave surprising instances; one of which was, that while the players in Christmas holidays were acting there, he would sometimes suddenly step in among them, and, without any previous study, make a part of his own, to the great diversion of the audience. The cardinal indeed conceived so high an opinion of his favourite pupil, that he used frequently to say to those about him, that “More, whosoever should live to see it, would one day prove a marvellous man.”

In 1497, he was sent to Canterbury college, now part of Christ church, in Oxford; where he heard the lectures of Linacer and Grocyn, upon the Latin and Greek tongues: and it was not long before he gave proof of having attained a good style in both, by “Epigrams and Translations,” which are printed in his works. During his residence here, his father is said to have allowed him a very scanty main tenance, and even of that, exacted a most particular account, with a view, no doubt, to prevent his falling into idleness and idle expences; but sir Thomas, when of riper years, approved the plan, and owned that he had reaped great benefit from at. After two years spent at Oxford, where he made a suitable progress in rhetoric, logic, and philosophy, he was removed to New-inn, London, in order to apply to the law; and soon after to LincolnVinn, where he continued his studies till he became a barrister. When he was about twenty years of age, he began to practise monkish austerities, wearing a sharp shirt of hair next to his skin, which he never after left entirely off, not even, when he was lord chancellor. It is indeed most wonderful that at no period of his life, did a ray of that light that was now breaking upon the world, penetrate his mind. With talents, learning, and wit, far beyond his contemporaries, he was also far beyond them in religious bigotry and superstition.

At the age of twenty-one, he had a seat in parliament, and shewed great independence of spirit, in 1503, by opposing a subsidy demanded by Henry VII. with such strength of argument, that it was actually refused by the parliament: on this Mr. Tyler, one of the king’s privycouncil, went presently from the house, and told his majesty, that a beardless boy had defeated his intention. The king resented the matter so highly, that he would not be satisfied, till he had some way revenged it: but as the son, who had nothing, could lose nothing, he devised a causeless quarrel against the father; and, sending him to the Tower, kept him there till he had forced a fine of 100l. from him, for his pretended offence. It happened soon after, that More, coming on a suit to Fox, bishop of Winchester, one of the king’s privy-council, the bishop called him aside, and with much apparent kindness, promised, that if he would be ruled by him, he would not fail to restore him to the king’s favour. It was conjectured, perhaps unjustly, that Fox’s object was to draw from him some confession of his offence, so that the king might have an opportunity of gratifying his displeasure against him. More, however, if this really was the case, had too much prudence to be entrapped, and desired some time to consider the matter. This being granted, he obtained a conference with Mr. Whitford, his familiar friend, then chaplain to the bishop, and afterwards a monk of Sion, and related what the bishop proposed. Whitford dissuaded him from listening to the bishop’s motion: “for,” says he, “my lord and master, to serve the king’s turn, will not stick to consent to the death of his own father.” After receiving this opinion, which Fox does not seem to have deserved, More became so alarmed, as to have some thoughts of visiting the continent. With this view he studied the French tongue, and cultivated most of the liberal sciences, as music, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and history; but the death of Henry VII. rendered the precaution unnecessary, and he again resumed his profession.

When admitted to the bar, he had read a public lecture, in the church of St. Lawrence Jewry, upon St. Austin’s treatise “De civitate Dei,” in which, without attempting to discuss any points of divinity, he explained the precepts of moral philosophy, and cleared up difficulties in history, and that with such skill, eloquence, and ability, as to attract a large number of hearers among persons of note and learning; and Grocyn himself, who had been his master in Greek, also became one of his auditors. The reputation of this lecture, which appears to have been gratuitous, made him be appointed law-reader at FurnivaPs-inn, which place he held above three years. Some time after, the superstition which we lament in this illustrious man’s character, led him to take lodgings near the Charter-house, where he went through all the spiritual exercises of that society. He disciplined himself every Friday, and on high fasting days; he used also much fasting and watching, and often lay either upon the bare ground, or upon some bench, with a log under his head, and allowed himself but four or five hours’ sleep in the night. He was also a diligent attendant on the public preaching of dean Colet, whom he chose for his spiritual father, and once had a strong inclination to enter into the order of the Franciscans, as well as to take the priesthood. But rinding that all his austerities were of little avail in procuring him the gift of continence, he took Dr. Colet’s advice, and resolved to marry. Having some acquaintance with John Colt, esq. of Newhall in Essex, he now accepted an invitation to visit him. Mr. Colt had three accomplished and agreeable daughters, the eldest of whom Mr. More chose for a wife, although his inclination rather led him to the second, but he considered it “would be a grief and some blemish to the eldest,” should he act otherwise. Bringing his wife to town he took a house in Bucklersbury, and attended the business of his profession at his chambers in Lincoln’s inn, where he continued till he was called to the bench, and had read there twice. This was a very honourable post at that time: and some of these readings are quoted by lord Coke as uncontested authorities in the law. In the mean time he was appointed, in 1508, judge of the sheriff’s court in the city of London; made a justice of the peace; and became so eminent in the practice of the law, that there was scarcely a cause of importance tried at the bar in which he was not concerned. Sir Thomas told his son-in-law Roper, that be earned by his business at this time, with a good conscience, above 400l. a year, which is equal to six times that sum now. He was, however, uncommonly scrupulous in the causes he undertook. It was his constant method, before he took any cause in hand, to investigate the justice and equity of it; and if he thought it unjust, he refused it, at the same time endeavouring to reconcile the parties, and persuading them not to litigate the matter in dispute. Where not successful in this advice, he would direct his clients how to proceed in the least expensive and troublesome course. It may, indeed, be seen in his “Utopia,” that he satirizes the profession, as if he did not belong to it.

In the mean time, he found leisure to exercise his talents in polite literature; and, in the height of this hurry of business, wrote his “Utopia.” He finished it in 1516, and after two editions of uncertain date, the first with a date was published at Basil, in 1518. In this short but extraordinary work, he gave his mind full scope, and considered mankind and religion with a freedom which became a true philosopher. It is, however, impossible to reconcile the liberality of his religious sentiments in this work, with that superstition and intolerance which shaded his future conduct. In this, he feigns “Utopia” to be one*of those countries then lately discovered in America, and the account of it to be given him by one Hythlodaeus, a Portuguese, who sailed in company with Americus Vespucius, the first discoverer of that part of the world: under which character he delivers his own opinions and sentiments. It is said too, that about the same time, he began the “ History of Richard III.” which is inserted in Rennet’s “Complete History of England,” and in the continuation of Harding’s Chronicle; but the late editor of that Chronicle, Mr. Ellis, has proved that this was not written by More.

More cultivated an acquaintance and friendship with the most learned men of that age, and particularly with Erasmus, who, of all the foreigners, deservedly held the first place in his affections. After they had long carried on a correspondence by letters, Erasmus came to England, on purpose to see his friend; on which occasion it was contrived, that they should meet at the lord mayor’s table in London, before they were introduced to each other. At dinner, a dispute arose between them, in which Erasmus, for the sake of argument, took the wrong side of the question, but so sensibly felt 'the peculiar sharpness of his antagonist’s wit, that he could not help exclaiming, “You are either More, or nobody” to which More readily replied, “You are either Erasmus or the devil” which last coarse expression he is said to have used because Erasmus’s arguments had a tincture of irreligion. No two men, however, could be more attached to each other’s company, and after Erasmus returned home, a long correspondence took place between them. Both were wits, but Erasmus’s freedom from bigotry, gave him opportunities of displaying his humour, which More could not have embraced. We are told that when Erasmus was about to leave England, More lent him a horse to carry him to the sea-side; but, instead of returning it, he took it to Holland, and sent More the following epigram, alluding to some conversation they had had concerning the doctrine of the real presence in the sacrament

Before More entered into the service of Henry VIII. he had been twice employed, with his majesty’s consent, at the suit of the English merchants, as their agent in some considerable disputes between them and the merchants of the Steel-yard; and, about 1516, he went to Flanders with Tonstal, bishop of Durham, and Dr. Knight, commissioners for renewing the treaty of alliance between Henry VIII. and Charles V. then only archduke of Austria. While at Bruges, a conceited scholar issued a challenge, that he would answer any question which could be proposed to him in any art whatsoever: upon which More caused this to be put up, “An averia capta in withernamia sint irreplegiabiliar” adding, that there was one of the English ambassador’s retinue, who was ready to dispute with him upon it. But the challenger, not understanding those terms of our common law, knew not what to answer, and so was made a laughing-stock to the whole city.

The fame of More’s learning, ability in the law, and dexterity in the management of business, having reached the ears of Henry VI II. he ordered cardinal Wolsey to engage him in the service of the court. With this view the cardinal ottered him a pension, which sir Thomas then refused, as not thinking it equivalent to his present advantages: but the king soon after insisted upon his entering into his service, and, for want of a better vacancy, obliged him, for the present, to accept the place of master of the requests. Within a month after, he was knighted, and appointed one of the privy council. In 1520, he was made treasurer of the exchequer; and soon after this bought a house by the river-side at Chelsea , where he settled with his family, having buried his first wife, and married a second, who was a widow and somewhat in years. With all his excellent endowments for public business, sir Thomas had far less relish for the bustle of a court, than for the calmer and more substantial pleasures of the domestic circle. He thought it therefore rather a misfortune tiiat the king at this time took an extraordinary liking to his company, and began to engross all his leisure time. The moment he had finished his devotions on holidays, he used to send for sir Thomas into his closet, and there confer with him, sometimes about astronomy, geometry, divinity, and other parts of learning, as well as about his own affairs. He would frequently in the night carry him up to his leads on the top of his house, and discourse with him about the motions of the planets; and, because sir Thomas was of a very pleasant disposition, the king and queen used to send for him after supper, or in supper-time, to be merry with them. Sir Thomas perceiving, by this fondness, that he could not once a month get leave to go home to his wife and children, or be absent from court two days together, without being sent for, is said to have had recourse to a singular expedient, suppressing his accustomed facetiousness, and assuming a dullness and gravity, which is said to have put an end to his invitations. It is, however, not improbable that he really felt the uneasiness which he displayed.

There was a reason of more importance than his conversation talents, for Henry’s partiality. About this time his majesty was preparing his answer to Luther, in which sir Thomas assisted his majesty, by reducing that treatise into a proper method. It was published in 1521, under the title of “Assertio septem Sacramentorum adversus M. Lutherum, &c.” and, in 1523, sir Thomas published, written by himself, “Responsio ad Convicia M. Lutheri congesta in Henricum reg.'m Angliae.” Notwithstanding the confidence and friendship which Henry appeared to shew, sir Thomas understood his nature, and was not shy in giving his opinion of it. On one occasion, the king came unexpectedly to More’s house at Chelsea, and dined with him; and after dinner walked with him in his garden, for the space of an hour, holding his arm about his neck. As soon as his majesty was gone, Mr. Roper, sir Thomas’s son-in-law, observed to him how happy he must b-i: that the king had treated him with so much familiarity, as he had never seen used to any person before, except cardinal Wolsey, whom he once saw his majesty walk with arm in arm. “I thank our lord,” answered sir Thomas, “I find his grace my very good lord indeed, and I believe he doth as singularly favour me as any subject within this realm. However, son Roper, I may tell thee, I have no cause to be proud thereof: for, if my head would win him a castle in France, it should not fail to go.”

In 1523, he was chosen speaker of the House of Commons; and, soon after, shewed great intrepidity in frustrating a motion for an oppressive subsidy, promoted by cardinal Wolsey, who came to the house thinking that his presence would intimidate the members. On the contrary, the members refused to speak in his presence, and sir Thomas as speaker, gave him such an evasive answer as made him leave the house in a violent passion. This behaviour, the cardinal afterwards, in the gallery at Whitehall, complained of to him, and said, “Would to God you had been at Rome, Mr. More, when I made you speaker.” To which sir Thomas answered, “Your grace not offended, so would I too.” There was at this time no great cordiality between Wolsey and More, which has been attributed to the cardinal’s being jealous of More’s favour with the king. More, however, does not appear to have been afraid of him, and made him, on a remarkable occasion, the subject of one of his keenest witticisms. During a dispute in the privycouncil, Wolsey so far forgot himself as to call sir Thomas a fool, to which he immediately answered, “Thanks be to God, that the king’s majesty has but one fool in his right honourable council.” At length, to get rid of this rival, -in the gentlest way he could, and even under the mask of honouring his political talents, the cardinal persuaded the king to send him on the embassy into Spain in 1526: but against this sir Thomas pleaded the unfavourable climate of Spain, and the actual state of his health, which his majesty accepted as a sufficient plea, saying, “It is not our meaning, Mr. More, to do you any hurt, but to do you good; we will think of some other, and employ your service otherwise.” The following year he was joined, with several other officers of state, to cardinal Wolsey, in a splendid embassy to France. After his return he was appointed chancellor of the dutchy of Lancaster, and in July 1529, he and his friend bishop Tonstal were appointed ambassadors, to negociate a peace between the emperor, king Henry, and the king of France, which was accordingly concluded at Cambray. Sir Thomas acquitted himself in this negociation, in a manner which procured him the approbation of the king. It was sir Thomas’s custom, when in the course of these embassies he came to any foreign university, to desire to be present at their readings and disputations’, and he would sometimes dispute among them himself, and with so much readiness and learning, as to excite the admiration of the auditors; and when the king visited our own universities, where he was received with learned speeches, sir Thomas More was always appointed to make an extempore answer for the king, as the man of all his court the best qualified for the undertaking.

Before sir Thomas went on his last embassy, the king sounded him upon the subject of his divorce from Catharine of Arragon, as he did again after his return; but did not receive, either time, an answer agreeable to his inclinations. Yet, his majesty’s fixed resolution in that point did not hinder him, upon the disgrace of cardinal Wolsey, from intrusting the great seal with sir Thomas, which was delivered to him Oct. 25, 1530. His biographers have said that this favour was the more extraordinary, as he was the first layman who enjoyed it; but this is a mistake. There are at least four instances of laymen being chancellors before his time. Some have thought that the honour was conferred with a view of engaging him to approve the intended divorce. Accordingly, he entered upon it with just apprehensions of the danger to which it would expose him on that account, but determined to execute the duties of the office in a manner that might give dignity to it; and perhaps no chancellor has ever displayed more uprightness and integrity. His predecessor Wolsey was a man of unquestionable abilities, and incorrupt in his decisions: but he is said to have been proud and repulsive to the poorer suitors. Sir Thomas, on the contrary, made no distinctions; was nowise dazzled by superior rank and station, and considered the poor as especially entitled to his protection. He always spoke kindly to such, and heard them patiently. It was his general custom to sit every afternoon in his open hall, and if any person had a suit to prefer, he might state the case to him, without the aid of bills, solicitors, or petitions. And such was his impartiality, that he gave a decree against one of his sons-inlaw, Mr. Heron, whom he in vain urged to refer the matter to arbitration, and who presumed upon his relationship. So indefatigable was he also, that although he found the office filled with causes, some of which had been pending for twenty years, he dispatched the whole within two years, and calling for the next, was told that there was not one left, which circumstance he ordered to be entered on record.

Amidst so much that is honourable to himself, honourable to his profession, and to the age in which he lived, we have yet to lament that the force of popish bigotry induced him to become a persecutor of the heretics, as they were called. One Frith had written against the corporeal presence: and on his not retracting, after More had answered him, he caused him to be burned. “James Bainton,” says Burnet, “a gentleman of the Temple, was taken to the lord chancellor’s house, where much pains was taken to persuade him to discover those who favoured the new opinions. But fair means not prevailing, More had him whipped in his presence, and after that sent to the Tower, where he looked on, and saw him put to the rack. He was burned in Smithfield.” Luther being asked whether sir Thomas More was executed for the gospel’s sake answered, “By no means, for he was a very notable tyrant. He was the king’s chiefest counsellor, a very learned and a very wise man. He shed the blood of many innocent Christians that confessed the gospel, and plagued and tormented them like an executioner.” Yet how discordant does More’s practice seem to be to his opinions. In his celebrated “Utopia” he lays it down as a maxim, that no one ought to be punished for his religion, and that every person might be of what religion he pleased .

Sir Thomas’s zeal for the Romish church led him, as we have noticed, to write some treatises in defence of popery. He was thought by these to have done great service to the church: and as it was well known that he had had few opportunities of amassing riches, and that the emoluments of his office were no adequate reward for his merit, the clergy, in convocation, voted him a present of five thousand pounds; a vast sum in those days, which was liberally contributed by the whole body of the clergy, superior and inferior. When, however, his friend bishop Tonstal, with two other prelates, waited on him with this present, he peremptorily declined accepting it, telling them, that “as it was no small comfort to him, that such wise and learned men so well accepted of his works, for which be never intended to receive any reward but at the hand of God, so he heartily thanked this honourable body for their bountiful consideration.” The prelates then requested, that he would allow them to present the money to his family but in this he was equally resolute—“Not so, indeed, my lords: I had rather see it all cast into the Thames, than that I or any of mine should have a penny of it. For though your lordships’ offer is very friendly and honourable to me, yet I set so much by my pleasure, and so little by my profit, that in good faith I would not for a much larger sum have lost the rest of so many nights’ sleep as was spent upon these writings. And yet, notwithstanding that, upon condition that all heresies were suppressed, I wish that all my books were burnt, and my labour entirely lost.” There was something new and peculiar in every expression of sir Thomas’s thoughts; and on one occasion, while conversing on public affairs, at Chelsea, he told his son-in-law Roper, that he would be content to be thrown into the river, provided three things were established in Christendom: “universal peace—uniformity of religion—and a safe conclusion of the king’s marriage,” at that time in agitation.

During his chancellorship, the king often importuned him to re-consider the subject of the divorce; and when he found him persisting in his unfavourable opinion of that measure, affected to be satisfied with his answers, and promised to molest his conscience no more on the subject. Sir Thomas, however, was not a man to be deceived in a point on which he knew Henry would not long bear any opposition, and determined to avoid having an official concern in the divorce, by resigning his place, which he had held about three years. Henry professed to accept his resignation with great reluctance, bestowed many thanks and much praise on him for his faithful discharge of the duties of that important trust, and made him the most liberal promises. But sir Thomas was too disinterested to claim these, and never asked a penny for himself or any of his family, in any part of his life. That he was perfectly satisfied in his own mind with the sacrifice he had made, appears from the jocular manner in which he announced his resignation to his lady. The morning after he returned the great seal, he went to Chelsea-church with his lady and family, where, during divine service, he sat, as was usual with him, in the quire, wearing a surplice , and because it had been a custom, after mass was done, for one of his gentlemen to go to his lady’s pew and say, “My lord is gone before;” he came now himself, and making a long bow, said, “Madam, my lord is gone.” She, thinking it to be no more than his usual humour, took no notice of it; but, in the way home, he unriddled the jest, by acquainting her with what he had done the preceding day. This, however, was no jest to lady More, who was of a worldly avaricious spirit, and by no means remarkable for pliability of temper, or submission to his will. She therefore discharged some of her vulgar eloquence on him: — “Tilly Vally, what will you do, Mr. More will you sit and make goslings in the ashes? Would to God, I were a man, and you should quickly see what I would do. What! why, go forward with the best for, as my mother was wont to say, It is ever better to rule, than to be ruled and, therefore, I would not be so foolish as to be ruled, where I might rule.” Sir Thomas contented himself with replying: “By my faith, wife, I dare say you speak truth; for I never found you willing to be ruled yet.”

Sir Thomas certainly had none of his lady’s worldly prudence. During his holding the chancellorship, his integrity prevented any accession of wealth, and his generous spirit inclined him to live in a manner suitable to his station. What added to his expences was, that all his children, single and married, with their respective families, lived in his house. He found his finances, therefore, at'H vefy low ebb; the whole of his yearly income, after resigning the chancellorship, not exceeding one hundred pounds. And being no longer able to maintain his married children, he sent them to their respective homes, discharged all his state servants, and disposed of his equipages. About this time, his father sir John More died, to whom he had always behaved with the highest degree of filial piety. When chancellor, he never passed through Westminsterhall, in his way to the court of chancery, without going into that of the KingVbench, when his father was sitting there, and asking his blessing upon his knees; and when they happened to meet at the readings at Lincoln’s-Inn, he always offered the precedence to his father: which, on account of his son’s post as chancellor, sir John properly declined. Filial piety, indeed, and all the relative duties, form one of the brightest features in the character of sir Thomas More; and some of the proofs he gave of this, on which we are now perhaps inclined to bestow a smile, were then objects of reverence.

He now resigned himself to that plan of retirement, study, and devotion, which had always been most agreeable to him; but he could no longer expect to enjoy this without interruption. He knew the capricious and arbitrary temper of his royal master, who had already divorced queen Catherine, married Anne Boleyn, and expected that what he had done should be approved with more than silent acquiescence. The coronation of the new queen being fixed for May 31, 1533, sir Thomas received an invitation to attend the ceremony; but this he declined, as he still retained his former opinions on the unlawfulness of the divorce. This, which Henry would naturally construe into an insult, provoked him extremely, conscious as he was that the opinions of sir Thomas would have great weight with the people. Various means were therefore tried to gain him over, and when these proved ineffectual, a more ^harsh, but in those days, not a very extraordinary proceeding took place. In the ensuing parliament a bill was : brought into the House of Lords, attainting sir Thomas, bishop Fisher, and some others, of misprision of treason, for countenancing and encouraging Elizabeth Barton, tlje maid of Kent (See Eliz. Barton, vol. IV.) in her treasonable practices. When this bill came to be read a third time, the House of Lords addressed the king to know his pleasure, whether sir Thomas might not be suffered to speak in his own defence; but Henry would not consent to this, nor when he desired to be admitted into the House of Commons, to defend himself there, would the king permit him: but he assigned a committee of the privycouncil to hear his justification. The affair of Barton, however, was a mere pretence, the object of this committee being to draw from him, either by fair words or threatenings, an assent to the divorce and the second marriage. When the commissioners, who were Cranmer, now archbishop of Canterbury, the lord chancellor Audley, the duke of Norfolk, and secretary Cromwell, found that their persuasions were of no avail, they told him, that their instructions were to charge him with ingratitude, and “to inform him, that his majesty thought there never was a servant so villainous, or a subject so traitorous to his prince, as he was;” and, ft in support of this heavy charge against him, they were to allege his subtle and sinister devices, in procuring his majesty to set forth a book to his great dishonour throughout all Christendom: by which he had put a sword into the pope’s hand to fight against himself."

The book here alluded to was king Henry’s “Assertio septem Sacramentorum,” &c. already mentioned, in which sir Thomas had assisted his majesty. Sir Thomas was a good deal astonished at the turn now given to that assistance; but, assuming his usual courage, told the commissioners that these terrors were arguments for children, and not for him: but as for the book which they had mentioned, he could not bring himself to believe that the king would ever lay it to his charge, as his majesty was himself better acquainted with that affair, and with his innocence in it, than any other person could be. The king, he said, well knew that he had not procured, nor counselled, the writing of that book: and when he revised it by the king’s command, and found the pope’s authority defended and advanced very highly, he remonstrated against it to his majesty, and told him, that, as he might not always be in amity with the pope, he thought it best that it should be amended in that point, and the pope’s authority be more slenderly touched. Nay, said the king, that shall it not: we are so much indebted to the see of Rome, that we cannot do too much honour unto it. Upon this he put his majesty further in mind of the statute of Premunire, which had pared away a good part of the pope’s authority and pastoral care. To which the king replied, “Whatsoever impediment there may be to the contrary, we will set forth that authority to the uttermost; for we received from the Roman see our crown imperial,” which, till it was told him from his majesty’s own mouth, he never heard of before. He trusted, therefore, that when his majesty should be informed of this, and should recollect the subject of their conversation upon this head, he would of himself entirely clear him of the charge.

The commissioners were probably conscious that these assertions were true; at least they could make no reply, and therefore dismissed sir Thomas, who feeling a considerable elation of mind on his return home, his son-in-law Roper asked him if his hi^h spirits were owing to his having succeeded in procuring his name to be struck out of the bill of attainder Sir Thomas’s answer showed that he had been more tenacious of his consistency than of his life: “In troth, son, I had forgotten that but if thou wouldst know why I am so joyful, in good faith it is this I rejoice that I have given the devil so foul a fall for I have gone so far with these lords, that without great shame I can never go back.” He had indeed gone so far as to exasperate the king beyond all hopes of forgiveness; and that monarch, who could forget friendship and attachment as hastily as he conferred them, irritated at having his former sentiments respecting the pope so unseasonably recalled, declared that the bill of attainder should proceed against him. And when the duke of Norfolk and secretary Cromwell hinted that the upper house would not pass the bill without hearing sir Thomas in his own defence, the king declared that he should be present himself, and he presumed that the house would not in that case dare to reject it. He was at length, however, diverted from this purpose on its being suggested that some better opportunity might be found to proceed against sir Thomas, and on being persuaded by his counsellors that, as to the present accusations, the public would think him more worthy of praise than blame. Sir Thomas’s name was accordingly struck out of the bill and although, taking advantage of the king’s displeasure, his enemies endeavoured to bring against him accusations of improper conduct in his office of judge, these served, only to demonstrate the strict integrity which guided all his decisions, and that when gifts were sometimes tendered to him by the clients of the court, he always refused, or returned them, and often with his characteristic^humouiv One lady, in whose favour he had given a decree, presented him, as a new year’s gift, with a pair of gloves, and in them forty pounds. He immediately returned the money, saying, “Since it would be contrary to good manners to refuse a new year’s gift from a lady, I am content to take your gloves; but as for the lining, I utterly refuse it.”

The king, however, had soon an opportunity of gratifying his resentment in its full extent In 1534 an act was passed declaring the king’s marriage with Catherine of Arragon to be void, and contrary to the law of God, and confirming his marriage with Anne Boleyn, and entailing the crown upon the issue of the latter. The act also obliged persons of all ranks to take an oath, the form of which was prescribed to them, and by which they swore to maintain the contents of this act of succession; and whosoever refused to take the oath, was to be adjudged guilty of misprison of treason, and punished accordingly. Soon after, a committee of the council met at Lambeth, where sir Thomas More, the only layman, and several ecclesiastics, were cited to take the oath. Sir Thomas, after perusing the act, said “he would blame neither those who made the act, nor those who had taken the oath; but, for his own part, though he was willing to swear to the succession in a form of his own drawing up, yet the oath which was offered to him was so worded, that his conscience revolted against it, and he could not take it with safety to his soul.”

Conscience was not a light word in the mouth of sir Thomas More. However we may lament its misdirection in matters of religion, it appears to have been the guide of all his actions. After he had been dismissed on the former accusations by the privy council, when the duke of Norfolk advised him to incline a little more to the king’s pleasure, and repeated the saying that the “wrath of a prince is death,” he replied, “Is that all my lord, in good faith then there is no more difference between your grace and me, but that I shall die to-day, and you to-morrow. It is surely better to offend an earthly king than the king of heaven; and temporal death ought to be less the object of our dread, than the indignation of the Almighty.”

Every persuasion to make him take the oath of succession being ineffectual, he was committed to the custody of the abbot of Westminster for four days, in which time it was debated by the king and council -what course it was best to take with him. Archbishop Cranmer, who highly esteemed his virtues and integrity, and did much to preserve him, urged that sir Thomas’s proposal of swearing to the succession, without confining him to the terms of the prescribed oath, might be accepted; but to this the king would not agree, and sir Thomas again refusing, was committed to the Tower. Here his characteristic humour did not forsake him, for when the lieutenant, who had been under some obligations to him, apologized for not being able to entertain him as he could wish, without incurring the king’s displeasure, he said, “Master lieutenant, whenever 1 find fault with the entertainment which you provide for me, do you turn me out of doors.” During the first month of his confinement ne had to resist the importunities of his wife, who urged his submission to the king upon worldly considerations, and told her he would not risk the loss of eternity for the enjoyment of a life that might not last a year, and would not be an equivalent, if it were to last a thousand.

The same motives prevailed with him when the act of supremacy, now passed, was tendered to him, by a committee of the privy council sent on purpose. His answer was, that “the statute was like a two-edged sword if he spoke against it, he should procure the death of his body. and if he consented to it, he should purchase the death of his soul.” Such were the mistaken views entertained by this illustrious character, of an act which gave the first effectual blow to papal tyranny in these kin<yloms. His unalterable attachment to the interests of popery appeared just after, when Rich, the solicitor-general, and some others, were sent to take away his books, papers, and writing-implements. Rich endeavoured to argue with him in this manner, “Suffer me, sir, to put this case to you: If there were an act of parliament to be made, that all the realm should take me for king, would not you, Mr. More, take me to be so” “Yes,” said sir Thomas, “that I would.” Rich then put the case that an act of parliament should make him pope, to which sir Thomas answered, “that the parliament might intermeddle without impropriety in the state of temporal princes; but as to his second supposition, he would put a case himself, whether if an act of parliament should ordain that God should not be God, Mr. Rich would own that he should not?” The conversatioa here ended, but Rich took occasion from it to swear on sir Thomas’s trial, that he had said that the parliament could not make the king supreme head of the church. This sir Thomas denied, and it was not clearly proved; but his sentiments might surely, without much straining, admit of the inference.

After a year’s imprisonment, he was by the king’s command brought to his trial at the king’s bench in Westminster, upon an indictment for high treason, in denying the king’s supremacy. His long confinement had much impaired his health, yet he defended himself with great eloquence, and with the utmost cheerfulness and presence of mind. The jury, however, found him guilty, and he received sentence as a traitor. He then addressed the court, concluding with these words: “I have nothing further to say, my lords, but that as the blessed apostle St. Paul was present and consented to the death of Stephen, and kept their clothes who stoned him to death, and yet they are now both holy saints in heaven, and shall there continue friends for ever; so I verily trust, and shall therefore right heartily pray, that though your lordships have now been judges on earth to my condemnation, we may yet hereafter all meet together in heaven to our everlasting salvation; and so I pray God preserve you all, and especially my sovereign lord the king, and send him faithful counsellors.”

As they were conducting him from Westminster-hall to the Tower, with the axe carried before him, according to the usual manner, a very affecting scene took place between sir Thomas and his favourite daughter, Margaret, wife of Mr. Roper, who eagerly pressed through the guards to see him. She could, however, only articulate “My father Oh my father!” when sir Thomas, more affected by this than by all that had happened, recommended her to submit to the will of God. She was then reluctantly separated from him, but thinking this might be the last time, she again broke through the crowd, and embraced him in speechless agony. The numerous spectators, and even the guards, sympathized in the sufferings of these illustrious persons; and it was with difficulty that they were parted, never to meet again.

His behaviour in prison during the short remainder of his life corresponded with the firmness and placid temper he had hitherto displayed. Among the last visitors whorti he received was sir Thomas Pope, the celebrated founder of Trinity college, Oxford, whom the king selected to inform him of the time of his execution. The intimation was sudden. It was on July 6, 1535, that sirThomas Pope told him he was to be beheaded that same day at nine o'clock, and that therefore he must immediately prepare himself. More received the news with his usual cheerfulness, and as the king had further intimated his pleasure that he should not use many words at his execution, he promised obedience, and only requested that his daughter Margaret might be at his burial. Sir Thomas Pope, in answer to this, informed him that the king had already consented that his wife and children, and any of his friends, mjght be present; at which he expressed his satisfaction.

At this trying moment,* he not only retained his fortitude and cheerfulness, but to the last gave proofs of that facetious turn, which it would appear he could not suppress under any circumstances. When Pope appeared to be very melancholy at the consideration of his friend’s approaching death, sir Thomas More, inspecting his own water in the urinal, put on the grave airs of a quack, and said archly, “I see no danger but that this man might live longer, if it had pleased the king.” Their parting at last was more serious, sir Thomas endeavouring to comfort his friend with the prospect of eternal felicity, in which, he hoped, they should have a happy meeting. As soon as Pope was gone he dressed himself in the best cloaths he had, and when the lieutenant suggested that these were too good for the executioner’s perquisite, “If they were cloth of gold,” said sir Thomas, “I should think them well bestowed on him who was to do me so singular a benefit.” He was prevailed on, however, to exchange them for a gown of frieze; and out of the little money which he had left, he sent an angel of gold to the executioner.

About nine o'clock he was led to the place of execution on Tower-hill, where observing that the scaffold was apparently a weak structure, he said to the lieutenant, “I pray you, Mr. Lieutenant, see me safe up; and as for my coming down, you may let me shift for myself.” He then knelt down, and after a short time spent in his devotions, he got up again, and said to the executioner, “Pluck up thy spirits, man, and be not afraid to do thine office. My neck is very short; take heed, therefore, that thQU strike not awry, for thy credit’s sake.” In the same humour, he bid the executioner stay till he had removed his beard, “for that,” he said, “had committed no treason.” These were his last words, after which his head was instantly severed from his body.

Thus died sir Thomas More, who, for learning, integrity, and magnanimity, was one of the most illustrious men of the age, and who would have exceeded all his contemporaries, had his mind been accessible to the light that was then breaking in upon the darkness of superstition. He was of a middle stature, and weli-proportioned his complexion fair, with a slight tincture of red his hair of a dark chesnut colour; his beard thin; his eyes grey; his countenance cheerful and pleasant, and expressive of the temper of his mind; his voice neither strong nor shrill, but clear and distinct. In walking, his right shoulder appeared higher than the other; but this was the effect of habit, and not any defect in his form. He was generally negligent in his dress, unless where his place required more splendour. His diet was simple and abstemious; and he seldom tasted wine but when he pledged those who drank to him.

Piety, as then understood to consist in a variety of periodical observances, was a constant feature in his character. It was his custom, besides his private prayers, to read the Psalms and Litany with his wife and children in the morning; and every night to go with his whole family into the chapel, and there devoutly read the Psahns and Collects with them. We have already noticed his attendance at Chelsea church; but he had also a private chapel attached to his house, where he performed many of his devotions, particularly on Fridays, when he remained the whole day so employed. In his hours of relaxation, he had recourse to music; and had always a person to read whilst he was at table, in order to prevent all improper conversation before his children and servants; and at the end of the reading, it was his custom to ask those who were at dinner, whether they understood what had been read. He also made remarks himself on any striking passage, which, it may easily be conceived, were entertaining and edifying.

He lived in habits of intimacy and friendship with the most learned men of his time, particularly, as already mentioned, with Erasmus, and also with Colet, Grocyn, Linacre, William Latimer, Lily, Tonstal, Pole, Fisher, &c. Nor was he less respected and admired abroad . When the emperor Charles V. heard of his death, he said to sir Thomas Elliot, the ambassador from England at his court, “My lord ambassador, we understand that the king your master has put to death his faithful servant, and grave and wise counsellor, sir Thomas More.” The ambassador answered that he had heard nothing of it. “Well,” resumed the emperor, “it is too true; and this we will say, that if we had been master of such a servant, of whose abilities ourself have had these many years no small experience, we would rather have lost the best city in our dominions, than so worthy a counsellor.” We are even told that Henry himself felt some compunction at sir Thomas More’s death, and that when the news of it was brought to him, he said 'to queen Anne Boleyn, “Thou art the cause of this man’s death,” and rising hastily, shut himself up in an adjoining chamber, in great perturbation, of mind. The queen, it has been thought by some, was not entirely innocent of this charge , but the accusation from the king was rather a pretence on his part. In pursuing sir Thomas to the scaffold, we have seen that he was zealous and inflexible.

Sir Thomas More was the author of various works, though nothing but his “Utopia” has long been read; which is owing to their having been chiefly of the polemic kind, and written in defence of a cause which could not be supported. His English works were collected and published by the order of queen Mary, in 1557; his Latin, at Basil, in 1563; and at Louvain, in 1566; and show that he was admirably skilled in every branch of polite learning.

As to his family, by his first wife he had four children, who all survived him; three daughters and one son, named John, after his grandfather. Sir Thomas had the three daughters first, and his wife very much desired a boy: at last she brought him this son, who appearing weak in his intellects, sir Thomas said to his lady, “Thou hast prayed so long for a boy, that thou hast one now who will be a boy as long as he lives.” By a liberal education, however, his natural parts seem to have been much improved. Among Erasmus’s letters, there is one written to him, in which that great scholar calls him “Optimae Spei Adolescens.” Erasmus also inscribed to him the “Nux of Ovid,” and “An Account of Aristotle’s Works.” After the death of his father he was committed to the Tower for refusing the same oath of supremacy, and condemned, but afterwards pardoned, and set at liberty, which favour he did not long survive. He was married very young to a Yorkshire heiress, by whom he had five sons. His eldest son Thomas had a son of the same name, who, being a zealous Roman catholic, gave the family estate to his younger brother, and took orders at Rome; whence, by the pope’s command, he came a missionary into England. He afterwards lived at Rome; where, and in Spain, he negociated the affairs of the English clergy at his own expence. He died, aged fifty-nine years, in April 1625; and, two years after, was printed in 4to, with a dedication to Henrietta Maria, king Charles I.'s queen, his “Life of sir Thomas More,” his great grandfather. The learned author of the “Life of Erasmus” says, that “this Mr. More was a narrow-minded zealot, and a very fanatic;” and afterwards adds, very justly, that “there is no relying on such authors as these, unless they cite chapter and verse.”

As for sir Thomas’s daughters, the eldest of them, Margaret, was married to William Roper, esq. of Well-hall, in the parish of Eltham, in Kent; who wrote the “Life” of his father-in-law, which was published by Hearne at Oxford, in 1716, 8vo. She was a woman of great talents and amiable manners, and seems to have been to More what Tullia was to her father Cicero, his delight and comfort. The greatest care was taken of her education; and she became learned not only in the Greek and Latin tongues, but in music, arithmetic, and other sciences. She wrote two “Declamations” in English, which her father and she turned into Latin; and both so elegantly, that it was hard to determine which was best. She wrote also a treatise of the “Four last Things;” and, by her sagacity, corrected a corrupt place in “St. Cyprian,” reading “nervos sinceritatis,” for “nisi vos sinceritatis.” Erasmus wrote a letter to her, as to a woman famous not only for virtue and piety, but also for true and solid learning. Cardinal Pole was so affected with the elegance of her Latin style, that he could not at first believe what he read to be penned by a woman. This deservedly-illustrious lady died in 1544, and was buried at St. Dunstan’s church in Canterbury, with her father’s head in her arms, according to her desire; for she had found means to procure his head, after it had remained upon London-bridge fourteen days, and had carefully preserved it in a leaden box, till there was an opportunity of conveying it to Canterbury, to the burying-place of the Ropers in the church above mentioned. Of five children which she brought, there was a daughter Mary, as famous for parts and learning almost as herself. This Mary was one of the gentlewomen, as they were then called, of queen Mary’s privy chamber. She translated into English part of her grandfather’s “Exposition of the Passion of our Saviour;” and also “Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History” from the Greek into Latin; but this latter translation was never published, being anticipated by Christopherson’s Version.

Sir Thomas had no children by his second wife, who was a widow, named Alice Middleton, and who surviving him was obliged to quit the house at Chelsea, his esiate being seized as a forfeiture by the crown; but the king allowed her an annuity of 20l. for her life. His last male descendant is said to have been the rev. Thomas More, who died at Bath in 1795. The present lady Ellenborough is said to be a female descendant.

, a French advocate, counsellor of the aides of Provence, historiographer of France, and librarian to the queen, was born at St. Florentine, Dec. 20, 1717. Of his early life we have little account, but it appears that he quitted his professional engagements in the country when young, and came to Paris to indulge his taste for study and speculation. Having acquired considerable fame by his writings, he was appointed historiographer of France, and was long employed in collecting and arranging all the charters, historical documents, and edicts and declarations of the French legislature from the time of Charlemagne to the present day. This vast collection being reduced to order was put under his especial care, under the title of “Depot des chartres et de legislation:” whether it was dispersed at the revolution does not appear. He also employed his pen on a variety of subjects, some arising from temporary circumstances, and others suggested probably in the course of his researches. Among these are: 1. “Observateur Holiandais,” a kind of political journal, consisting of forty-five papers, written against the measures of the English court, at what period we know not, as our authority does not specify its date. 2. “Memoire pour servir a l'histoire des Cacouac,” 1757, 12mo, a satire, which was probably of a beneficial tendency, as it created him enemies among the irreligious writers of France. 3. “Memoires pour servir a Phistoire de riotre temps,” 1757, 2 vols. 12mo. 4. “Devoirs d'un prince,” 1775, 8vo, reprinted 1782. In this he is said to have exposed the dangers of a corrupt court, and to have predicted its ruin from that torrent of corruption which would one day overwhelm both the flatterers and the flattered. 5. “Principes de morale politique et du droit public, ou Discours sur l'histoire de France,” 1777 1789, 21 vols. 8vo. This, which is his principal work, attracted much attention by the boldness and freedom of some of his opinions, but these he did not carry so far as to enable us to class him among the revolutionary writers; for while some critics in France consider him as never separating the cause of the people from that of the prince, others condemn him for writing under ministerial influence, and inclining to the support of arbitrary power. It was his maxim that every thing should be done for the people, but nothing by them, and that the best state of France would be that in which the people received their laws from the absolute will of a chief. Upon account of these sentiments he is said to have been refused a place in the French academy; yet he was not guillotined, as has been reported, but survived all the horrors of the revolution, and died quietly at Chambouci, near St. Germain-en-Laye, in 1799. His personal character is represented as very amiable. He was a good father, a good husband, and a friend to religion and peace.

is the name of a family well known among the eminent French printers, although we are not sure that they were all closely related. The first, William, an excellent scholar in the early part of the sixteenth century, was corrector of the press of Louis Tilletan, and then succeeded Turnebus as director of the royal printing-office, in 1555. He employed his attention principally on Greek authors, and his editions are much esteemed. He also wrote critical commentaries on “Cicero de finibus,” Paris, 1545, 4to; and compiled a Greek- Latin- and French dictionary. He died in 1564. He appears to have injured his property by the expences of his undertakings, as we find Turnebus addressing a letter to Charles IX. king of France, recommending his widow and children to his majesty’s bounty. The next we meet with, Frederic the elder, a native of Champagne, was king’s printer at Paris, and interpreter to his majesty for the Greek and Latin languages; he composed several works, and died at Paris in 1583, at about the age of 60, leaving a son, known as Frederic Morel the younger, the most celebrated of the family, who succeeded his father, in 1581, as -king’s printer in the Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and French tongues. He was well versed in these languages, and translated from the Greek, and published, from the manuscripts in the king’s library, a number of authors, particularly the fathers, with annotations of his own. He sacrificed every thing to study, and being informed that his wife was in the act of expiring, he refused to quit his pen till he had finished what he was about, and by that time news was brought him that she was dead; to which he coolly replied, “I am sorry for it she was a good woman.” He died in 1638, at the age of 78. He had a brother Claude, who was nominated king’s printer in 1602, and published valuable editions of several Greek fathers, and other authors, to which he prefixed learned prefaces of his own composition. He died in 1626, while he was engaged in an edition of St. Athanasius and Libanius, which was completed by his son Claude, who succeeded to the business. Charles, another son of Frederic, exercised the same office with credit, which he resigned, in 1639, to his brother Giles. The latter printed an edition of Aristotle, Greek and Latin, in four volumes folio, and the great Bibliotheca Patrum, in 17 volumes.

, an eminent antiquary, was born at Bern in Switzerland, it does not appear in what year. He had so strong a passion for the study of medals, that he was firmly persuaded of its being natural to him. He travelled through several countries, and made large collections. In 1673 he became acquainted at Basil with Charles Patin, who communicated to him many very curious and rare medals, and also several other things which related to the science. At Paris he had access to the king’s cabinet, and was permitted to design from it whatever he pleased. He was exhorted by Ezekiel Spanheim, and others of his learned acquaintance, to prepare his collections for the public; and, in 1683, he published at Paris, in 8vo, “Specimen universae rei nummariae antiquae.” The great work, of which this was a specimen, was to be a complete collection of all ancient medals, of which he had at that time 20,000 exactly designed. At Leipsic, 1695, in 8vo, was published a second edition of this “Specimen,” corrected, altered, and augmented; to which were added some letters of Spanheim, upon the subject of medals.

Soon after this Essay appeared, Louis XIV. gave him a place in his cabinet of antiques; which, though it brought him great honour, and some profit for the present, yet cost him very dear in the end: for, whether he spoke too freely of Mr. de Louvois, on account of his salary, which, it seems, was not very well paid, or for some private reason, of which we are ignorant, he was, by order of that minister, committed to the Bastile, where he lay for three years. He was released at the death of Louvois, which happened in 1691, but not till the canton of Bern solicited in his favour. He then returned to Switzerland, and resumed his grand design; and afterwards, in 1694, went to Arnstad in Germany, upon an invitation from the count of Schwartzburg, with whom he lived in quality of his antiquary. The count had a fine collection of medals, and furnished him with every thing necessary for carrying on his great work. Spanheim, who returned from France to Berlin in 1689, had a desire to see him again, and gave him also all the assistance and encouragement he could; yet some unforeseen accidents prevented him from completing it. He died of an apoplexy at Arnstad, April 10, 1703.

In 1701 he had published “Epistola ad J. Perizonium de Nummis consularibus,” in 4to; which Perizonius reprinted at Leyden in 1713, at the end of his piece “De JEre gravi,” in 8vo. In 1734, came out at Amsterdam, in 2 vols. folio, “Thesaurus Morellianus, sive Familiarum Romanarum Numismata omnia, diligentissime undique conquisita, &c. Nunc primum edidit & commentario perpetuo illustravit Sigebertus Havercampns.” This was part of Morel’s great work, and contains an explication of 3539 medals, engraved with their reverses. It appears, that this learned man was not so much in love with numismatical pursuits, as to despise all others, but knew the nature and bounds of the province, as well as the real use and value of the science which he had cultivated.

, an able classical scholar and editor, was born at Eton in Buckinghamshire, March 18, 1703. His father’s name was Thomas, and his mother, probably after the decease of her husband, kept a boardjng-house in the college. At the age of twelve he was admitted on the foundation at Eton-school, and was elected thence to King’s college, Cambridge, Aug. 3, 1722. He took his first degree in 1726, became M. A. in 1730, and D. D. in 1743. In 1731 he was appointed to the curacy of Kew, in Surrey, and was some time also curate of Twickenham. In July 1733 he was admitted ad eundem at Oxford; and in 1737 became a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries, having just been instituted, on the presentation of his college, to the rectory of Buckland in Hertfordshire, the only preferment he ever obtained. In 1775, indeed, we find him appointed chaplain to the garrison at Portsmouth, and he for several years preached Mr. Fairchild’s Botanical Sermon on Whit-Tuesday, at St. Leonard’s Shoreditch; but these scarcely deserve the name of preferments. As he rendered many important services to literature, it is rather singular that he never met with a patron who might have rendered him independent; but he knew little of the world, and found so much pleasure in his studies, as to neglect the common observances of polite life. He was probably contented; but he was always poor, and frequently in debt. He was warm in his attachments, and was a cheerful and entertaining companion. He was extremely fond of music, and in early life associated much with its professors. Mr. Cole thinks this did him no service, and informs us that at one time his chief dependance was on a Mons. Desnoyers, a dancing master, who had some interest with Frederick prince of Wales, but Desnoyers died before he could obtain any thing for him. Those who feel for the character of the age would not have been pleased to record that a divine and a scholar attained preferment through such a medium. He died Feb. 19, 1784, and was buried at Chiswick. In 1738 he married Anne, daughter of Henry Barker, esq. of Chiswick, by whom he had no issue.

He was an early contributor to the Gentleman’s Magazine; assisted Hogarth in his “Analysis of Beauty,” and published some occasional sermons. His other publications followed in this order, 1. “The Life of Dr. Edward Littleton,” prefixed to the first volume of his sermons, in 1735. 2. “Poems on Divine Subjects; original and translated from the Latin of Marcus Hieronymus Vida, with large annotations, more particularly concerning the being and attributes of God,” Loud. 1732, 8vo, reprinted 1736. 3. “The Canterbury Tales of Chaucer, in the original, from the most authentic Mss. and as they are turned into modern language by the most eminent hands,” ibid. 1737. 4. “A copy of English congratulatory verses on the maryiage of the prince of Orange with the princess Anne,” 1737. 5. “Philalethes and Theophanes; or a summary view of the last controversy occasioned by a book entitled The Moral Philosopher,' parti.” Lond. 1739, 8vo, reprinted 1740. 6. “The Christian’s Epinikion, or Song of Triumph; a paraphrase on I Cor. xv. attempted in blank Terse; with annotations, explanatory and critical,” ibid. 1743, 4to. 7. “Hope, a poetical essay, in blank verse, on that Christian grace, in three books,” 1745. 8. “Spenser’s Works,” by subscription, 1747. 9. “Euripidis Hecnba, Orestes, et Phenissce, cum scholiis antiquis, &c.” 1748, 2 vols. 8vo. This is a reprint of King’s edition, with the Alcestes added by himself. In 1749, Dr. Morell published the “Hecuba,” translated from the Greek, with annotations. 10. A speciaien of his “Thesaurus,” 1757. 11. “Philoctetes,” 1757, 8vo. 12. “Thesaurus Graecse Poeseos, sive Lexicon Grreco-prosodiacum,” &c. 4to, with Hogarth’s portrait of the author. The value of this work has been so long and so often acknowledged, that it is only necessary to add that a much improved edition is now in the hands of an eminent scholar, and nearly ready for publication. 13. The “Prometheus” of jschylus/&e. 1767, 8vo; 1774, 4to. 14. “A Dissertation on the Corbridge altar now in the British Museum,” &c. in a Latin letter to the hon. Daines Barrington,“1774, printed in the Archasologia, vol. III. 15.” Sacred Annals; or the Life of Christ, as recorded by the Four Evangelists,“&c. 1776, 4to. He also published a corrected edition of Hederick’s Lexicon, and three editions of Ainsworth’s Dictionary; and compiled the words for Handel’s Oratorios. After his death was published a translation of” Seneca’s Epistles,“with annotations, 1786, 2 vols. 4to. This is a correct and faithful translation, but never attracted much public attention. In 1794 also was published” Notes and Annotations on Locke on the Human Understanding, written by order of the queen (Caroline), corresponding in section and page to the edition of 1793," 8vo. This, which was written by the author while in the prime of life, does great credit to his talents as a metaphysician, and has been judged a very necessary aid in the perusal of Locke.

, a French divine, and the first compiler of the “Great Historical Dictionary,” which still goes by his name, was born at Bargemont, a small village in Provence, in 1643. He was educated in classical learning at Draguignan, under the fathers of the Christian doctrine. He studied rhetoric in the college of Jesuits at Aix, where he also performed his course of philosophy; and thence removing to Lyons, studied divinity. When he was but eighteen, he composed a small allegorical work, entitled “Le pais d'Amour;” and, in 1666, a collection of French poems, which he called “Doux plaisirs de la Poesie:” to which works he put only the first letters of his name, L. M. He applied himself diligently to the Italian and Spanish languages; and this latter enabled him to translate Rodriguez’s treatise on Christian perfection. It was printed at Lyons in 1677, in 3 vols. 8vo, under the title, “Pratique de la Perfection Chrétienne & Religieuse, traduite de l’Espagnol d'Alphonse Rodriguez.” After he had taken orders, he preached on controversial points at Lyons for five years, with great success; and here formed the plan of his “Historical Dictionary,” the first edition of which appeared at Lyons in 1674. In this he professed to collect and digest into alphabetical order, whatever seemed to him curious in sacred and profane history, so that hence information might he had upon all kinds of subjects in a moment: and every body was amazed to see so laborious a work from so young a man.

The same year he was taken into the family of the bishop of Apt, in Provence, whom he attended the year following to Paris; and was soon introduced to the prelates, who held their assembly in St. Germain en Laye, and to the learned men in the metropolis. While he was engaged in the second edition of his “Dictionary,” his friends recommended him to M. de Pompone, secretary of state, who invited him to his house, in 1678. He might have expected great advantages from the patronage of that minister; but his intense application to his “Dictionary” injured his health in such a manner that he never recovered it. M. de Pompone having resigned his post in 1679, Moreri took the opportunity of retiring to his own house, in order to complete his work, but his health declining rapidly, he died July 10, 1680, aged 37. Besides the writings above mentioned, he put the “Lives of the Saints” into more elegant French, and added methodical tables for the use of preachers, with chronological tables; and, in 1671, be published at Lyons the following book, “Relations nouvelles du Levant, ou Traités de la Religion, du Gouvernment, & des Coutumes, des Parses, des Anneniens, & des Gaures, composés par le P. G. D. C. C. (P. Gabriel du Chinon, Capuchin), & donnés au public par le sieur L. M. P. D. E. T.” (that is, Louis Moreri, Pretre, Docteur en Theologie.)

The first edition of his “Dictionary” was comprized in one vol. folio, which he soon found very defective, and therefore applied himself with great vigour to enlarge it; which he did in two volumes, and the year after his death it was printed at Paris in 1681. The third edition, in 1683, is likewise in two volumes, and was copied from the second. The two following editions, of which the fourth was printed in 1687, and the fifth in 1683, were published at Lyons in two volumes, and were the same with that of 1683, except that some articles were added. It was afterwards thought proper to give a “Supplement or third Volume of the Historical Dictionary,” which was printed in 1689 in folio. The sixth edition, in which is inserted the Supplement in the same alphabetical order, corrected in a great number of places, and enlarged by many important articles and Remarks, was printed at Amsterdam in 1691 in four volumes in folio. Le Clerc had the care of this edition, in which the articles of the Supplement are incorporated, and made the additions, consisting either of new articles, or improvements of other articles. Three more editions followed, almost the same, in 1694, 1698, and 1699, all in 4 vols. folio. The tenth was printed from the edition revised by Le Clerc, at Amsterdam, 1702, in 4 vols. folio. The eleventh was published by Mons. Vaultier with new additions, at Paris, 1704, 4 vols. folio. It was preceded by a piece entitled “Projet pour la Correction du Dictionnaire Historique de M. Moreri, deja revu, corrigé, & angmenté dans le derniere Edition de Paris par M. Vaultier,” Paris, 1701, 4to. It was followed by a piece entitled “Remarques Critiques sur ia Nouvelle Edition du Dictionnaire Historique de Moreri, donneé en 1704.” The second edition of this piece, printed at Rotterdam in 1706, 12mo, is enlarged with a preface and a great many notes by another author, viz. Bayle, who published this edition. The twelfth edition of Moreri was printed at Paris in 1707, 4 vols. folio, and the thirteenth in 1712, in 5 vols. folio. Dupin had a considerable share in it, as also in the following editions. In 1714, there was printed separately in that city a large Supplement, composed, as is said in the advertisements, of new articles, corrected in the last edition of 1712, to serve as a supplement to the preceding editions. This supplement was reprinted with great additions by Bernard at Amsterdam in 1716 in two volumes, folio. The fourteenth edition of Moreri was printed at Amsterdam in 1717, in six volumes, folio, with the Supplement, which is not incorporated in the body of the work. The fifteenth edition was printed at Parisj 1718, 5 vols. fol. The articles of the Supplement published in Holland are inserted in their proper places, with some additions. This edition has been greatly criticised. The authors of the “Europe Sçavante” have inserted in their fourth volume, p. 230, a memoir, in which is shewn, that in the single letter Z, which is one of the shortest, there are a great many faults, and several articles omitted. The abbé Le Clerc also published “Remarks upon different Articles,” in the three first volumes, printed in three volumes 8vo; the first in 1719, the second in 1720, and the third in 1721. Father Francis Meri, a Benedictine Monk, published likewise upon this subject a pamphlet, entitled “Discussion Critique & Theologique des Remarques de M. sur le Dictionnaire de Moreri de 1718,” 1720, 8vo. It is a defence of some passages of the Dictionary against the criticism of the abbé Le Clerc. The sixteenth edition of Moreri was printed at Paris in 1724, in 6 vols. folio. Monsieur de la Barre had the care of it. What relates to genealogy was revised by Monsieur Vailly, an advocate; and the abbé Le Clerc furnished five or six thousand corrections, as he informs us in his “Bibliotheque de Richelet.” The seventeenth edition was printed at Basil in 1731; and the eighteenth at Paris, in 1732, 6 vols. folio, to which supplementary volumes were added. The last and best edition, in which all these were incorporated, is that of 1759, 10 vols. folio. This is still a work of great value and utility, particularly the biographical part, but much of the historical and geographical part has become almost obsolete, owing to the more correct information and improvements introduced in those branches.

, an English antiquary descended from an ancient family, which had been seated from the beginning of the sixteenth century at Great Coxwell, in the county of Berks, and allied by his grandmother to that of Rowe, which had been settled at Higham-Bensted in Waltbamstow, in the county of Essex, ever since the middle of the same century), was born Jan. 13, 1730, at Tunstall in Kent, where his father was rector for near 30 years. He was educated at Merchant Taylors’ school*; and admitted a commoner of Queen’s college, Oxford, June 24, 1746. While he resided at Oxford, in 1746, he assisted in correcting an edition of “Calasio’s Concordance,” projected by Jacob Hive the printer, who afterwards associated with the rev. William Romaine, and published this “Concordance” in 1747, 4 vols. folio. Before he was twenty, Mr. Mores published at Oxford, in 1748, 4to, “Nomina & Insignia gentilitia Nobilium Equitumque sub Edvardo primo rege Militantium;” the oldest treasure, as he styles it, of our nobility after “Domesday” and the “Black Book of the Exchequer.” He had also printed, except notes and preface, a new edition in 8vo, of Dionysius Halicarnassensis “De claris Rhetoribus,” with vignettes engraved by Green, the few copies of which were sold after his death f. In 1752, he printed, in half a quarto sheet, some corrections made by Junius in his own copy of his edition of “Cadmon’s Saxon Paraphrase of Genesis, and other parts of the Old Testament,” Amst. 1655; and, in 1754, he engraved fifteen of the drawings from the ms. in the Bodleian library. The title of these plates is, “Figurae quaedam antiquse ex Caedmonis Monaclii Paraphraseos in Genesim exemplari pervetusto in Bibliotheca Bodleiana adservato delineatae ad Anglo- Sax­* Mr. Mores had made a few collec- tides there are several mutilations, lions for a history of this school, and Mr. Mores, in the interval from the lists of persons educated there. A first publication, had written to several view of it was engraved by Mynde. in learned men in different parts of Eu1756, for IVlaitland’stdition of” JStowe’s rope, in order to procure any informaSurvey,“1736, inscribed” Sdiolae tiun, which might be of service to him Mercatorum Scissorum Lond. facies in completing his edition, but met with orientalis. Negatam a Patronis D. no success. It is said that he intended Scholaris, Kdw. Rowe Mores, arm. to subjoin annotations, but nothing of A.M. S. A. S." A history of this --chool that nature was found among his pahas just been ably executed by the pers, except some remaiks on the marRev. H. B. Wilson, B. I>. 1812 1815, gin of a copy of Hudson’s edition, 2 vols. 4to. which was sold at the sale of his books,

f It was republished in 1781, 8vo, to Mr. Gough, who said that there

In 1752 he was elected F. S. A. and two years after was one of a committee for examining the minute-books of that society, with a view to selecting thence papers proper for publication*. Being intended for orders by his father, he took the degrees of B. A. May 12, 1750, and M. A.Jan. 15, 1753; before which time he had formed considerable collections relative to the antiquities, &c. of Oxford, and particularly to those of his own college, whose archives he arranged, and made large extracts from, with a view to its history. He was at the expence of three plates of the Black Prince’s apartments there, since pulled down, which were drawn and engraved by that very ingenious artist B. Green. Twenty-eight drawings at his expence, by the same hand, of ancient gates, halls, &c. since ruined or taken down, were purchased by Mr. Gough, as also some collections for a “History of Godstow Nunnery,” by Mr. Mores, for which a plate of its ruins was engraved, and another of Iffley church. His Mss. relative to his own college, with his collections about All Souls’ college, fell after his death into the hands of Mr. Astle, who presented the former to Mr. Price of the Bodleian library.

gered till 1770, when the first volume early minute-books, offices; but it does not appear that he received ordination from the bishop of London. Thus much, however, is certain-, that in the letters of administration granted to his son, on his dying intestate, he is styled “the Reverend Edward-Rowe Mores, doctor in divinity,” but, at what time, or by which of the bishops, he received ordination, we have not yet discovered. Mr. Nichols was assured by a very intimate friend of Mr. Mores, that he received the honorary title of D. D. in consequence of a literary favour which he had conferred on some foreign Roman catholic ecclesiastics, who wished to repay him by a pecuniary acknowledgment, which he politely declined accepting. Mr. Mores was as ambitious of singularity in religion as in other pursuits and if he could.be said to be a member of any particular church, it was that of Erasmus, whom he endeavoured to imitate. He thought the Latin language peculiarly adapted to devotion, and wished, for the sake of unity, that it was universally in use. He composed a creed in it, with a kind of mass on the death of his wife, of which he printed a few copies, in his own house, under the disguised title of“Ordinale Quotidianum, 1685. Ordo Tngintalis.” Of his daughter’s education he was particularly careful. From her earliest infancy he talked to her principally in Latin. She was sent to Rouen, for education, but without the least view to her being a Roman catholic: on the contrary, he was much displeased when he found she had been perverted. Two original letters to the superior of the house under whose care she was placed, which are printed in the “Anecdotes of Bowyer,” contain a sufficient refutation of the report of his being himself a member of the church of Rome.

On his return to 'London, Mr. Mores resided some years in the Heralds’ college, intending to have become a member of that society, for which he was extremely well qualified by his great knowledge and skill in heraldic matters; but, altering his plan, retired about 1760 to Low-Layton, in which village he had resided some time before, and, while he was churchwarden there, considerably improved the church. Here, on an estate left him by his father, he built a whimsical house, on a plan, it is said, of one in France. In 1759 he circulated queries for a parochial “History of Berkshire,” but made no considerable progress. His collections on that subject appeared in 1783, in the XVIth number of the “Bibliotheca Topographica.” The Equitable Society for assurance on lives and survivorship by annuities of 1 Oo/. increasing to the survivors, in six classes of ages from 1 to 10 10 to 20 20 to 30 3O to 40 40 to 50 50 to the extremity of life, owes its existence to Mr. Mores. It had been first suggested and recommended in lectures, in 1756, by Mr. James Dodson, mathematical master at Christ’s hospital, and author of the “Mathematical Repository,” who had been refused admission into the Amicable Society on account of his age; but he dying November 23, 1757, before his design was completed, except the plan of reimbursement to him and his fifty-four associates, Mr. Mores undertook to apply for a charter in 1761, but failing of success, he with sixteen more of the original subscribers, resolved to persevere in establishing their society by deed. It was hereby proTided that Mr. Mores should be perpetual director, with an annuity of 1GO/. He accordingly drew up and published, in 1765, “A short Account of the Society,” in 8vo (of which a seventh edition with additions, was printed in 1767), “The Plan and Substance of the Deed of Settlement,” “The Statutes, 11” Precedents of sundry Instruments relating to the Constitution and Practice of the Society,“London, 1766, 8vo. The” Deed of Settlement, and the Declaration of Trust,“1768,” A List of the Policies and other Instruments of the Society, as well general as special,“8vo; but, some disputes arising between Mr. Mores and the original members of this society, he separated from them that year. There were printed,” Papers relating to the Disputes with the Charter Fund Proprietors in the Equitable Society, by order of a general court held the 3d day of November, 1767, for the use of those assured on the lives of others, who shall apply for the same,“1769,” 8vo, This society still subsists, and their office is in Bridge-street, near Blackfriars bridge, to which it was removed from Nicholas-lane, Lombard-street, 1775. All Mr. Mores’s papers on this subject came into the hands of Mr. Astle. In the latter part of his life, Mr. Mores (who had long turned his thoughts to the subject of early printing) began to correct the useful publication of Mr. Ames. On the death of Mr. John James of Bartholomew-close (the last of the old race of letter-founders) in June 1772, Mr. Mores purchased all the curious parts of that immense collection of punches, matrices, and types, which had been accumulating from the days of Wynkyn de Worde to those of Mr. James. From these (which were sold by auction by Mr. Paterson) a large fund of entertainment would probably have been given to the curious, if the life of Mr. Mores had been prolonged. His intentions may be judged of from his valuable “Dissertation on Typographical Founders and Founderies.” As no more than 80 copies of it were printed, this must always be considered as a typographical curiosity. Mr. Nichols, who purchased the whole impression, subjoined a small appendix to it.

Mr. Mores was a most indefatigable collector, and pos sessed great application in the early part of his life, but, in the latter part, gave himself up to habits of negligence and dissipation, which brought him to his end by a mortification, in the forty-ninth year of his age, at his house at Low Layton, Nov. 28, 1778. His large collection of curious Mss. and valuable library of books, were sold by auction by Mr. Paterson, in August following. Of te former, his “History and Antiquities of Tuiistall in Kent” the only papers that were completed for the press, and for which he had engraved a set of plates out of the many drawings taken at his expence, was purchased at the site by Mr. Nichols, who gave it to the public as a specimen of parochial antiquities, which will shew the ideas of this industrious antiquary, and his endeavour to make even he minutest record subservient to the great plan of national history.

, an eminent pbysiciain and anatomist, was born at Forli, in Rornagna, in February 1682. After a careful education, in which he displayed a proficiency in classical and philosophical acquire ments beyond his years, he studied medicine at Bologna with great ardour, and soon attracted the attention and esteem of his able masters, Valsalva and Albertini; the former of whom availed himself of his assistance in the researches into the organ of hearing, which he was at that time prosecuting, and in drawing up his memoirs upon that subject. Morgagni also acted as substitute during the absence of professor Valsalva on a journey to Parma, and llustrated his lectures by numerous anatomical preparations. Soon after he travelled for improvement, going first to Venice, where he cultivated several branches of physics, with the assistance of Poleni, Zanicheili, and other scientific men; and afterwards he visited Padua, where he attended the schools, under the direction of distinguished professors, with his accustomed industry. After his return he settled for a short time at his native place, and then by the advice of Guglielmini, returned to Paduaa, where he was appointed professor, in 1711, and taught the theory of physic. He became the intimate friend of the celebrated Lancisi, whom he assisted in preparing for publication the dawings of Eustachius, which appeared in 1714. He had already distinguished himself by the publication of the first part of his own work, the “Adversaria Anatomica,” Bonon. 1706, 4to, which was remarkable for the originality of its execution, and for the accuracy, as well as the novelty, of the observations which it contained. He published, successively, from this time to 1719, five other parts of ths important work, which contains a great many discoveries in different parts of the human body, most correctly detailed.

The progress of this work had extended his reputation thoughout Europe; and in 1715, his talents were rewarded by an appointment to the first anatomical professorship in the university of Padua; and henceforth to the close of a long life he ranked deservedly at the head of the anatomists of his time, and literary honours were accumulated upon him from every quarter of Europe. He was elected a member of the Academia Nature Curiosorum, in 1708; of the Royal Society of London, in 1724; of the Academy of Sciences at Paris, in 1731; of the Imperial Academy of Petersburgh, in 1735; and of the Academy of Berlin, in 1754; and he was one of the first associates of the Institute of Bologna. All the learned and great, who passed through Bologna, visited Morgagni; he was honoured by the particular esteem of three successive popes; and his native city of Forli placed his bust in their public hall during his life, with an honorary inscription. He married a lady of noble family at Forli, by whom he had fifteen children, eight of whom survived him. By his professional labours, and a life of frugality, he accumulated a large property, and died at the advanced age of ninety years, about the end of 1771, in the possession of his faculties.

In addition to the Adversaria, already mentioned, Morgagni published the following works: “In Aurelium Celsum et Quintum Serenum Sammonicum Epistolce quatuor,” 1704; “Nova Institutionum Medicarum Idea,” Patav. 1712; which was written upon his appointment to the theoretical chair, and teaches the proper method of acquiring medical science “Vita Guglielmini,” prefixed to an edition of the works of that physician, Geneva, 1719 “Epistolae Anatomicae dua?, novas observationes et anirnadversiones complectentes, quibus Anatome augetur, &c.” which were edited at Ley den by Boerhaave, and relate chiefly to a dispute with J3ianchi on the structure of the liver. “Epistolae Anatomicce XVIII. ad Scripta pertinentes celeb. Ant. Mar. Valsalvye,” Venice, 1740, 2 vols. 4to. To these epistles are prefixed a life of Valsalva. “De Sedibus et Causis Morborum per Anatomiam indagatis, Libri quinque,” Venice, 1760, folio. This great and valuable work was published when the author had nearly reached his eightieth year. It contains a prodigious collection of dissections of morbid bodies, made by himself and his master, Valsalva; arranged according to the organs of the body in which the diseases were seated. He followed the plan adopted by Bonetus, in his “Sepulchreturn Anatomicum;” but the accuracy and fidelity of his details render this collection of morbid anatomy of very superior value to all that had preceded it. Of this work an excellent translation was published by Dr. Benjamin Alexander, in 1769, 3 vols. 4to. Morgagni’s last publication, in 1763, “Opuscula miscellanea, quorum non pauca nunc primum prodierunt,” Venice, folio, contains dissertations on the lachrymal ducts, on the glands, on gall-stones, urinary calculi, &c. in addition to his first-published critical dissertations on Celsus. In 1765, a complete edition of his whole works was printed at Bassano, 5 vols. folio.

, a very learned German, was born of a good family at Wismar, a town in the duchy of Mecklenburg, Feb. 6, 1639. After some school education at Wismar, he was sent in his sixteenth year to Stetin, where he studied philosophy under John Micraelius, Hebrew under Joachim Fabricius, and civil law under John Sithrnan; without neglecting, in the mean time, the belles lettres, which he had principally at heart. In 1657, he removed to Rostock, in order to continue the study of the law; but in consequence of his “Lessus in Ciconiam Adrianum, carmen juvenile et ludicrum,” published in quarto, he was chosen professor of poetry in 1660. The same year he made a journey into Holland and England, resided some time in the university of Oxford, and then returned to his employment at Rostock. He published, in 1661, “Dissertatio de enthusiasmo et furore poetico,” 4to; and, at Franeker, where he took his doctor’s degree, he published his thesis “De jure silentii,” 1661, 4to. At Rostock he remained until 1665, when the duke of Holstein, having founded an university at Kiel, engaged him to accept the professorship of poetry and eloquence. In 1670, he made a second journey into Holland and England, contracting the acquaintance and friendship of learned men in every place as he passed along. He saw Gnevius at Utrecht, J. Frederic Gronovius at Leyden, Nicolas Heinsius at the Hague, &c. In England he conversed much with Isaac Vossius, and with the hon. Robert Boyle. He admired Boyle so much, that he translated one of his philosophical works into Latin, and published it at Hamburgh in 1671. Returning to his own country, he was twice in danger of losing his life. He was near being shipwrecked in his passage over the water; and he had like to have been crushed to death by the fall of a great quantity of books, and paper, while he was amusing himself in Elzevir’s shop at Amsterdam. The first of these dangers was rumoured in his own country, before his arrival; and his being drowned was so firmly believed, that several elegies were made upon his death. He married at Kiel in Ib71; two years after was made professor of history; and, in 16SO, librarian of the university. His extreme ardour for study for some time supported him in composing his numerous works, and discharging his official duties but his constitution at length sunk under so many labours and his illness, being increased by drinking Pyrmont- waters, carried him off July 30, 16.91. His death is also supposed to have been hastened by his excessive grief for the loss of his wife in 1687.

He was the author of several works of a smaller kind; as “Orations,” “Dissertations,” Theses,“and” Poems,“some of which were of the ludicrous kind, for which he appears always to have had a taste. But his great work is his” Polyhistor, sive de Notitia Auctorum et Rerum Cammentarii;“for such was its title when first published at Lubec in 1688. It has been enlarged, since the death of Morhof, in several successive editions; the last and best of which was published at Lubec, 1747, in 2 vols. quarto, with this title:” D. G. Morhofii Polyhistor, literarius, philosophicus, et practicus, cum accessionibus Virorum clarissimorum Joannis Frickii et Joannis Molleri Flensburgensis. Editio quarta. Cui Pruefationem Notitiamque Diariorum literariorum Europae praemisit Joannes Albertus Fabricius, nunc auctam et ad annum 1747 continuatam." This is the most extensive, and perhaps the best history of literature extant; yet it wants a more happy arrangement, and even with the help of an apparently very minute index, cannot be consulted with ease; but with all these defects, the obligations which every man curious in literary history owes to Morhof, are such as entitles his memory to the highest respect.

Among his lesser performances is a work entitled “Princeps Medicus,” Roctock, 1665, 4to, a dissertation on the cure of the king’s evil by the kings of France and England, which he supports as miraculous. He was answered by Zeingrave, a divine of Strasburgh; and we ought not to be very severe on Morhof s credulity in this respect, when we consider that the royal touch was practised by our own sovereigns for more than half a century after the date of his work. We can however less excuse him for his treatise “De transmutationemetallorum,” Hamburgh, 1673, 8vo, although even in this case it may be said that he was not the only man of learning who at that time had not forsaken the absurdities of alchemy. He published afterwards in German a valuable dissertation on “German Poetry;” another on the style of Livy “De Patavinitate Liviana;” and after his death appeared one of his most elegant dissertations, “De pura dictione Latina,” edited by Mosheim, in 1725, 8vo.

, physician and regius professor of mathematics at Paris, was born at Villefranche in Beaujolois, Feb. 23, 1583. After studying philosophy at Aix in Provence, and physic at Avignon, of which he commenced doctor in 1613, he went to Paris, and lived with Claude Dormi, bishop of Boulogne, who sent him to examine the nature of metals in the mines of Hungary. This gave occasion to his “Mundi sublunaris Anatomia,” which was his first production, published in 1619. Upon his return to his patron the bishop, he took a fancy to judicial astrology, and began to inquire, by the rules of that art, into the events of 1617. Among these he found, that the bishop of Boulogne was threatened with the loss of either liberty or life, of which he forewarned him. The bishop laughed at Morin’s prediction; but, engaging in state-intrigues, and taking the unfortunate side, he was treated as a rebel, and actually imprisoned that very year. After the fall of his prelate, he lived with the abbe de la Bretonniere, in quality of his physician, for four years; and, in 1621, was taken into the family of the duke of Luxemburg, where he lived eight years more, Jn 1630, he was chosen professor royal of mathematics.

His abilities in his profession gave him access to the great, even to cardinal Richelieu; and, under the administration of cardinal Mazarin, he obtained a pension of 2000 livres. Richelieu is said at first to have admitted him to his most secret councils, and to have consulted him about matters of the greatest importance; but during the greater part of his life, he appears to have gained most fame by his astrological predictions, which, right or wrong, were suited to the credulity of the times. He died at Paris, Nov. 6, 1656. He wrote a great number of books, not forgotten; but did not live to publish his favourite performance, his “Astrologia Gallica,” which had cost him thirty years’ labour. It was printed, however, at the Hague, 1661, in folio, with two epistles dedicatory; the one from the author to Jesus Christ; the other addressed to Louisa Maria de Gonzaga, queen c~f Poland. That princess encouraged Morin to undertake this great work, and paid the charges of the impression. At the time when it was said that she was to be married to the prince, Morin affirmed, that that marriage should never take place, and that she was destined to the bed of a monarch; and it is thought that she the more readily engaged to bear the expences of a work whose author had flattered her with the hopes of a crown, which she afterwards wore. Of his “Astrologia Gallica,” Guy Patin says, “I understand, that the” Astrologia Gallica“of the sieur Morin is at last finished at the Hague. I am told, that it abuses the Parisian and other physicians, who give no credit to judicial astrology; and I do riot wonder, that the author should behave in this manner, for he was a fool. The book is printed in one volume, folio. The queen of Poland gave 2000 crowns to carry on the edition, at the recommendation of one of her secretaries, who is a lover of astrology. You see in what manner crowned heads are imposed upon. If it had been a book which might have been of use to the public, the author would not have found one, either to print it, or to bear the charges of the press.” Morin, however, received several testimonies of esteem from the great Des Cartes. He became acquainted with this philosopher in 1626, and, some time after, maole him a present of his book upon the longitude, which was acknowledged by a very obliging letter. He sent him also, in 1638, some objections to his “Theory of Light,” which Des Cartes thought worthy of his consideration.

, a learned ecclesiastic, was born at Blois, of protestant parents, in 1591. He was instructed in the belles lettres at Rochelle, and afterwards went to Leyden, where he attained a critical knowledge of the Greek, Latin, and Oriental tongues, and applied himself to philosophy, law, mathematics, and divinity. Returning to France, he went to settle at Paris, where he gained an acquaintance with cardinal du Perron, and was induced by him to embrace the Roman catholic religion. Some time after, he entered into the congregation of the oratory, lately established, and began to make himself known by his learning and his works. In 1626 he published some “Exercita'ions upon the original of Patriarchs and Primates, and the ancient usage of ecclesiastical censures, dedicated to pope Urban VIII.” He undertook, in 1628, the edition of the “Septuagint Bible,” with the version made by Nobilius; and put a preface to it, in which he treats of the authority of the Septuagint; commends the edition of it that had been made at Rome by order of Sixtus V. in 1587, which he had followed; and maintains, that we ought to prefer this version to the present Hebrew text, because this has been, he says, corrupted by the Jews. Before this work was ready to appear, he gave the public, in 1629, a “History,” written in French, of the deliverance of the church by the emperor Constantine, and of the greatness and temporal sovereignty conferred on the Roman church by the kings of France; but this performance was not well received at Rome, and Morin was obliged to promise that he would alter and correct it. He published, soon after, “Exercitations upon the Samaritan Pentateuch;” for the sake of establishing which, he attacks the integrity of the Hebrew text. The Polyglott being then printing at Paris, Morin took upon himself the care of the Samaritan Pentateuch; but his endeavours to exalt this, together with the Greek and Latin versions of the Bible, at the expence of the Hebrew, made him very obnoxious to some learned men; and he was attacked by Hottinger and Buxtorf in particular. This, however, enhanced his merit at the court of Rome; and cardinal Barberini invited him thither, by order of the pope, who received him very graciously, and intended to employ him in the re-union of the Greek to the Roman church, which was then in agitation. He was greatly caressed at Rome, and intimate with Lucas Holstenius, LeoAllatius, and all the learned there. After having continued nine years at Rome, he was recalled, by order of cardinal Richelieu, to France, where he spent the remainder of his life in learned labours, and died of an apoplexy at Paris, Feb. 28, 1659.

, a French physician and botanist, of singular character, was born at Mans, July 11, 1635, of parents eminent for their piety, who, although he was one of a numerous family of sixteen children, omitted nothing in his education which their fortune could supply. Botany was the study that appeared to have taken possession of his inclinations, as soon as the bent of his genius could be discovered. A country person who supplied the apothecaries of the place, was his first master, and was paid by him for his instructions with the little money that he could procure, but he soon made himself master of all this man knew, and was obliged to enlarge his acquaintance with plants, by observing them himself in the neighbourhood of Mans. Having finished his grammatical studies, he travelled on foot to Paris, and after going through the usual course of philosophy, was determined, by his love of botany, to the profession of physic. From this time he engaged in a course of life, which was never exceeded either by the ostentation of*a philosopher, or the severity t)f an anchoret, for he confined himself to bread and water, and at most allowed himself no indulgence beyond fruits. This regimen, extraordinary as it was, had many advantages it preserved his health it gave him an authority to preach diet and abstinence to his patients and it made him rich without the assistance of fortune.

In 1662 he was admitted doctor of physic. About that time Drs. Fagon, Longuet, and Galois, all eminent for their skill in botany, were employed in drawing up a catalogue of the plants in the royal garden, which was published in 1665, under the name of Dr. Vallot, then first physician. During the prosecution of this work, Dr. Morin was often consulted, and from these conversations it was that Dr. Fagon conceived a particular esteem, which he always continued to retain, for him. After having practised some years, he was admitted expectant, and afterwards pensionary physician at the Hotel Dieu but this advancement added nothing to his condition, except the power of more extensive charity for all the money which he received as a salary, he put into the chest of the hospital, and always, as he imagined, without being observed. His reputation rose so high at Paris, that mademoiselle de Guise was desirous to make him her physician, but it was not without difficulty that he was prevailed upon by his friend, Dr. Dodart, to accept the place.

By this new advancement he was laid under the necessity of keeping a chariot, an equipage very unsuitable to lis temper; but while he complied with those exterior appearances which the public demanded, he' remitted nothing of his former austerity in his private life. In two years aad a half the princess fell sick, and was despaired of by Morin, who was a great master of prognostics. At the time when she thought herself in no danger, he pronounced her death inevitable; a declaration which was made more easy to him than to any other by his piety and artless simplicity. The princess, affected by his zeal, taking a ring from her finger, gave it him as the 'last pledge of her affection, and rewarded him still more to his satisfaction, by preparing for death with true Christian piety. She left him also by will a yearly pension of 2000 livres. On the princess’s death he laid down his chariot, and retired to St. Victor, without a servant, having, however, augmented his daily allowance with a little rice boiled in water.

In 1699, on the restoration of the academy, Dodart procured him to be nominated associate botanist. He wa constant at the assemblies of the academy, notwithstanding the distance of places, while he had strength enough to support the journey but his regimen was not equally effectual to produce vigour as to prevent distempers and being sixty-four years of age at his admission, he could not continue his assiduity more than a year after the death of Dodart, whom he succeeded as pensionary member of the academy in 1707. When Tournefort went to pursue his botanical inquiries in the Levant, he desired Dr. Morin to supply his place of demonstrator of the plants in the royal garden, and rewarded him for the trouble by inscribing to him a new plant which he brought from the East, by the name of Morina orientalis.

Dr. Morin advancing far in age, was now forced to take a servant, and, what was yet a more essential alteration, prevailed upon himself to take an ounce of wine a-day, which he measured with the same exactness as a medicine bordering upon poison. He quitted at the same time all his practice in the city, and confined it to the poor of his neighbourhood, and his visits at the Hotel Dieu; but his weakness increasing, he was forced to increase his quantity of wine, which yet he always continued to adjust by weight. At the age of seventy-eight he scarcely left his bed, but his intellects continued unimpaired, except in the last six months of his life. He died March 1, 1714, aged eighty, without any distemper, having enjoyed, by the benefit of his regimen, a long and healthy life, and a gentle and easy death.

This extraordinary regimen was but part of the daily regulation of his life, of which all the offices were carried on with the utmost regularity and exactness. He went to bed at seven, and rose at two, throughout the year. He spent in the morning three hours at his devotions, and went to the Hotel Dieu in the summer between five and six, and in the winter between six and seven, hearing mass for the most part at Notre Dame. After his return he read the holy scripture, dined at eleven, and when it was fair weather walked till two in the royal garden, where he examined the new plants, and gratified his earliest and strongest passion. For the remaining part of the day, if he had no poor to visit, he shut himself up, and read books of literature, or physic. This likewise was the time he received visits, if any were paid him, but with respect 'to visits, he often said, “Those that come to see me do me honour; and those that stay away do me a favour.” He left behind him no other property than a library, valued at nearly 20,000 crowns, a herbal, and a collection of medals. He published two papers in the Memoirs of the Academy; one, containing an hypothesis respecting the passage of the drink to the bladder, which shows him a very indifferent physiologist; and the other, a “Memoire sur les Eaux de Forges.” Among his papers were a very minute index, to Hippocrates, Greek and Latin; and a meteorological journal of more than forty years. The method of this is commodious and concise, and it exhibits, in a little room, a great train of curious observations, which would have escaped a man less uniform in his life.

, a learned critic, was born in 1531, at Paris. His taste for the belles lettres induced him to visit Italy, where Paul Manutius employed him in his printingoffice at Venice. He afterwards taught Greek and cosmography at Vicenza, but was called from 'thence by the duke of Ferrara, in 1555. Morin at length acquired the esteem of St. Charles Boromeo, and pope Gregory XIII. and Sixtus V. engaged him in the edition of the Greek Bible of the LXX. 1587, the Latin translation is 1588, fol. and in the edition of the Vulgate, 1590, fol. He died in 1608. He was well acquainted with the belles lettres and languages, and has left among his works published by Quetif in 1675, an excellent treatise on the proper use of the sciences, of which Dupin has given a long analysis, as well as of his other works, and bestows great praise on his extensive knowledge of languages and ecclesiastical history.

, a learned French protestant, was the son of Isaac Morin, a merchant of Caen, and born in that city, Jan. 1, 1625. Losing his father at three years of age, his mother designed him for trade; but his taste for learning beginning to show itself very early, she determined to give him a liberal education. Accordingly he studied the classics and philosophy at Caeu, and then removed to Sedan, to study theology under Peter du Moulin, who conceived a great friendship for him. He afterwards pursued the same studies under Andrew Rivet, and made a great proficiency in the Oriental languages under Golius. Returning to his country in 164-9, he became a minister of two churches in the neighbourhood of Caen, where he was much distinguished by his uncommon parts and learning, and had several advantageous offers made him from other countries, but he preferred his own. In 1664, he was chosen minister of Caen; and his merits soon connected him in friendship with Huetius, Segrais, Bochart, and other learned townsmen. The revocation of the edict of Nantz, in 1685, obliging him to quit Caen, he retired with his wife and three children to Leyden, but soon after was called to Amsterdam, to be professor of the Oriental tongues in the university there; to which employment was joined, two years after, that of minister in ordinary. He died, after a long indisposition both of body and mind, May 5, 1700.

He was the author of several works; as, 1. “Dissertationes octo, in quibus multa sacra3 et profanae Antiquitatis Monumenra explicantur,” Genev. 1683, 8vo. A second edition, enlarged and corrected, was printed at Dort, 1700, in 8vo. 2. “Oratio inauguralis de Linguarum Orientalium ad intelligentiam Sacrse Scripture utilitate,” L. Bat. 1686. This was reprinted with, 3. “Explanationes sacrse et philologicae in aliquot V. et N. Testament! Loca,” L. Bat. 1698, 8vo. 4. “Exercitationes de Lingua primaeva cjusque Appendicibus,” Ultraj. 1694, 4to. 5. “Dissertatio de Paradiso terrestri;” printed in Bochart’s works, the third edition of which was published at Utrecht in 1692, with Bochart’s life by Morin prefixed. 6. “Epistolse duae seu Responsiones ad Ant. Van. Dale cle Pentateucho Samaritano;” printed with Van Dale’s “De Origine et Progressu Idololatrise,” Amst. 1696, 4to. 7. “Lettre sur l‘Origine de la Langue H^bra’ique,” with an answer of Huetius; printed in the first volume of “Dissertations sur diverses Matieres de Religion et de Philologie, recueillies par M. l'Abbe de Tilladet,” Paris, 1712, 12mo. Morin endeavours to prove in this letter, that the Hebrew language is as old as the creation, and that God himself inspired it into Adam. His great fondness for this language made him run into some extravagant notions about it, as Huetius tells him in his answer. Lastly, Morin prefixed a “Life of Jacobus Palmerius” to the “Graecse antiquae Decsriptio,” Leyden, 1678, 4ko. His son, Henry, who died at Caen in 1728, aged seventy-three, was a member of the academy of inscriptions and belles lettres at Paris; and there are several dissertations of his in the “Memoirs of this Academy.”

, a distinguished botanist of the seventeenth century, was born at Aberdeen in 1620. Being designed for the church, he devoted himself to the study of mathematics in that university; but was diverted from such pursuits by a taste for physic, and especially botany, which, however, was interrupted, for a time at least, by his loyalty, which induced him to become a soldier in the service of king Charles. After receiving a dangerous wound in the head, in the battle near the bridge of Dee, about two miles from Aberdeen, which for a while disabled him, he retired, like many of his countrymen after the ruin of the royal cause, to Paris. Here he became tutor to a young man of some fortune, while he sedulously cultivated the studies necessary for his profession, and took the degree of doctor of physic at Angers, in 1648. Botany, however, was still his favourite pursuit; and by means of M. Robin, who had then the care of the royul garden at Paris, he acquired the patronage of Gaston, duke of Orleans, and was entrusted with the care of that prince’s garden at Blois, accompanied by a handsome salary. He held this charge from 1650 to 1660, when the duke dieil. During that period he devoted himself to the study of theoretical as well as practical botany. He began to plan a system, on the subject of which his royal patron is reported to have delighted to confer with him. He was also dispatched on several botanical expeditions, to various parts of France, for the purpose of enriching the garden. A catalogue of this garden was printed in 1653, by Abel Brunyer, physician to the duke; of which Morison afterwards published at London, in. 1669, a new and enlarged edition, accompanied by a regular and professed criticism of the works of “Caspar and John Bauhin, which Haller has blamed more than it deserves. Morison gives to these great men all the rank and honour which their eminent learning and industry deserve; and while he points out their mistakes or imperfections, he expresses a wish to have his own likewise pointed out. The” Hortus Blesensis" is disposed in alphabetical order, and accompanied by a double dedication, to king Charles II. and James duke of York, to whom its author had become known in France. On the restoration he refused the most liberal offers to settle in France, and on his arrival in London received the titles of king’s physician, and royal professor of botany, with a salary of 200l. a year, and a house, as superintendant of the royal gardens, He was also elected a fellow of the college of physicans.

In 1669 he received his doctor’s degree from the university of Oxford, and was, Dec. 16, appointed botanical professor, or more properly, keeper of the physic garden, in consequence of which he gave a course of lectures there for some years*. He had been for some time meditating a great universal work on botany, and published an excellent specimen in 1672, containing a methodical arrangement of umbelliferous plants, in folio, accompanied with palates. He takes the leading characters of these plants from the seeds, but admits under the same denomination a tribe totally different, which is surely as great an error as any he had detected in the Bauhins. In 1674, he edited at Oxford a thin 4to, from the Mss. of Boccone, describing a number of new plants from Sicily, Malta, France, and Italy, witji 52 plates, which are in general very ex­* Wood tells us that “he made his week for five weeks space, not xvithout entrance on this lecture in the medi- a considerable auditory.” He is, howcine school, Sept. 2, 1670, and the 5th ever, improperly styled professor, as of the same mouth translated himself the professorship was not founded unto the physic garden, where he read ia til Sherard’s time, who appointed Dil-. the middle of it, with a table before lenius first professor on his foundahim, ou herbs and plants, thrice a lion in 1728. pressive, and many of the plants are no where else represented. His great work, “Plantarum historia universalis Oxoniensis,” appeared in 1680, fol. comprizing five sections of herbaceous plants, with numerous plates. This was called the second part of the work, the first, consisting or trees and shrubs, having been postponed, as the most easily to be finished at any time; but it never appeared . In 1699, long after the author’s death, Jacob Bobart published a second volume, called the third part, which concludes the system, as far as regards herbaceous plants. The editor of the volume, in which there are many inaccuracies, claims for the author great honour as the inventor of a system. The outlines, however, of Morison’s system are evidently to be traced in the work of Csesalpinus, published in 1583, and in that of Conrad Gesner, and it is the opinion of sir J. E. Smith, whom we principally follow, that where he deviates from these writers, he has injured his own system. This great work could scarcely have been published at the expence of a private individual, had he not been liberally assisted by the contributions of his opulent Oxford friends, who took a patriotic interest in the performance. The original specimens, such at least as refer to Bobart’s share of the undertaking, are still preserved, and serve to remove every difficulty in case of an incomplete description or figure. Such assistance is very requisite, as to the cryptogamic part of the work, though authors have much commended those plates.

The labours and studies of Morison were cut short by an accidental death, similar to that of Tournefort, but more immediate. He received an injury from the pole of a ccach, in crossing one of the London streets, Nov. 9, 1683, and died next day, at his house in Green-street, Leicestersquare, aged sixty-three. He was buried in the neighbouring church of St. Martin’s-in-the Fields. A portrait prefixed to the posthumous volume, indicates Morison to have been, as Bobart describes him, a man of a healthy bodily frame, and of plain and open manners. He is recorded as having cultivated science for its own sake, with much less regard to his personal emolument than to the public good, a sordid love of gain having made no part of his character.- 1

, an eminent but very unhappy artist, was born in 1764. He was the pupil of his father Henry Robert Morland, an indifferent painter of portraits, and subjects of domestic life, whom he very soon surpassed. This perhaps was at first his misfortune, for the father, finding what advantage he might reap from his talents, confined him to such work as might be readily brought to market, without endeavouring to give him any part of that education or polish which would have enabled him to appear with credit in society. The consequence of this was, that when patrons appeared they found him wayward, dissipated, and irreclaimable. Low habits and low company early got possession of his affections, and all means to recommend oeconomy, decency, and regularity, were employed in vain. At length his father was advised to send young Morland to Margate to paint small portraits; and although this scheme did not produce all the effect expected, it made him more known, and -he became independent of his father, and could now pursue his art when he pleased, and for his own emolument.

Success, however, made no difference in his conduct, which became irregular beyond all calculation and all powers of description; and while the vigour of his genius and the soundness of his judgment never forsook him in a picture, they scarcely ever accompanied him in any other employment, action, or sentiment of his life. Capable of the most regular and profound reflection on every thing connected with his art, capable even of the clearest distinctions of moral rectitude, he never appears to have dedicated a single leisure hour to sober conversation or innocent pleasantry, to any of the endearing intercourses of domestic or social life, or to any rational purpose whatever. He is generally acknowledged to have spent ali the time in which he did not paint, in drinking, and in the meanest dissipations, with persons the most eminent he could select for ignorance or brutality and a rabble of carters, hostlers, butchers’- men, smugglers, poachers, and postilions, were constantly in his company and frequently in his pay. He was found, at one time, we are told, in a lodging at Somers-town, in the following most extraordinary circumstances: his infant child, that had been dead nearly three weeks, lay in its coffin in one corner of the room an ass and foal stood munching barley -straw out of the cradle a sow and pigs were solacing in the recess of an old cupboard; and himself whistling over a beautiful picture that he was finishing at his easel, with a bottle of gin hung up on one side, and a live mouse sitting (or rather kicking) for his portrait, on the other

Of his particular merits in imitative art, it may be observed that he was the first (or at least, among our countrymen, by far the most eminent) of those who have given the true spirit and character of our great palladium the British Oak as well as the form and action of all our most familiar animals, in all their subtleties and varieties nor does he appear to have undertaken any subject that he did not treat with equal success. Among his other rare qualifications, he appears to have been thoroughly and impartially acquainted with the Complexion and bias of his own genius from his very boyhood; since, after that period, he is never found “out of his element.” No sooner had he described the scrawls and daubings of puerility, than, anticipating his future success, and conscious of his present powers, he retreated in silence to the free walks of Nature; contemplated deeply, reasoned accurately, and practised diligently. A few years brought him back to public notice, a finished painter of English scenery, nature, sentiments, and manners; an artist, who, having sagaciously prescribed the limits of his pursuits, and effected whatever, in knowledge or in practice, was essential to the purpose of filling up those limits, had now nothing more to learn. He shrunk from no difficulty, for his choice of subject left him no difficulty to encounter. He disdained nothing that was natural and picturesque, consistently with that decorum which he has inviolably observed in all his public works. He would never risk truth, but would rather give 20 guineas to have a cat stolen for him, than presume to paint one from an uncertain remembrance. He sometimes leaves the truth unfinished, but never violated. He affected none of those whimsies that are for ever setting amateurs by the ears on the subject of colouring, or light and shadow. His characters affect no graces nor anti-graces that do not belong to them. His lights and shadows are mild, moderate, and diffusive. The whole together rests easy upon the eye, and pleases a correct taste as much as it would had it surprised a vicious one more. His choice is always good; for he chuses that in which there is nothing essential to reject. He never gives us too much of a thing. The character of Morland, therefore, as a painter, appears to be remarkably equal and consistent. His pictures never make a mistake never insult by falsehood, disgust by affectation, disappoint by error, or teize by mystery. His early productions were landscapes, and he painted one or two small conversation-pieces; but his favourite subjects were animals, chiefly of the domestic kind horses, dogs, pigs, and other cattle, which he painted in a very masterly manner. At the Exhibition of the Royal Academy, in 1791, he produced a picture representing the inside of a stable, with horses and draymen, &c. larger than a half-length canvas an excellent performance, and perhaps his master-piece.

By this unhappy conduct, steadily pursued for many years, he ruined his constitution, and at length diminished his powers, and sunk himself into general contempt. He had no society, nor did he wish for any other but the lowest of those beings whose only enjoyment is gin and ribaldry, and from which he was taken, a short time before his death, by a Marshalsea writ, for a small sum of money: when removed to a place of confinement, he drank a large quantity of spirits, and was soon afterwards taken ill. The man in whose custody he was, being alarmed at his situation, applied to several of his 'friends for relief; but that relief, if it was afforded, came too late. The powers of life were exhausted, and he died, Oct. 29, 1804, before he had attained the age of forty years. His wife, whose life had been like his own, died a day or two after him.

a man of very considerable celebrity in his day, but whose history has been almost totally neglected where we might have expected an account of him as a machinist, was the son of the rev. Thomas Morland, rector of Sulhamstead in Berkshire, and was born about 1625, as we learn from one of his works, dated 1695, in which he says he had then passed the seventieth year of his age. He was educated at Winchester school, whence he was removed to Cambridge, and, according to Cole, to Magdalen college. He says himself, that, after passing nine or ten years at the university, he was solicited by some friends to take orders; but, not thinking himself “fitly qualified,” he devoted his time to the study of mathematics, which appears, in one shape or other, to have been his first and last pursuit, a few years only of the interval being employed on political affairs. That he was thought qualified for such, appears by his being sent, in 1653, with Whitelock and a retinue of other gentlemen, on the famous embassy to the queen of Sweden, the purpose of which was to conclude an offensive and defensive alliance with that princess. Of their success an ample account may be seen in Whitelocke’s “Journal,” published in 1772 by Dr. Morton, 2 vols. 4to. In this work we are told that few of the ambassador’s train were rewarded as they expected. Morland, however, according to his own account, was recommended, on his return in 1654, as an assistant to secretary Thurloe; and in a few months after was sent by Cromwell to the duke of Savoy on that business which first brought him into public notice, and has principally conveyed his name to posterity.

In the month of May, 1655, an account arrived in England of the barbarous cruelties inflicted on the protestants, or Waldenses, by the duke of Savoy; and, as Morland informs us, it no sooner came to the ears of Cromwell, than he “arose like a lion out of his place,” and by the most pathetic appeals to the protestant princes on the Continent endeavoured to excite their pity and interference. Milton was at this time Cromwell’s Latin secretary, and drew up these remonstrances and letters with uncommon spirit and elegance. Never indeed did Cromwell or his secretary appear in a more becoming light, as politicians. After appointing a day of fasting and prayer to mark the impression these massacres had made upon the public mind, Cromwell issued an account of the state and sufferings of the Waldenses, and solicited the contributions of the benevolent towards their immediate support. This he began with a subscription from himself of 2000l.; and in a very short time, the city of London taking the lead, the sum of 3l,241l. was collected, equivalent, if we consider the difference in the value of money, to the highest sum ever subscribed for any charitable purpose in our own days. But that more effectual measures might accompany this testimony of good will, Mr. Morland received immediate orders to set off with a message from the English government to the duke of Savoy, beseeching him to recall his murderous edicts, and restore his subjects to their homes and liberties; for it appears that all who had escaped being massacred had fled to the mountains, whence they sent agents to Cromwell for relief. This business Mr. Morland conducted with great address; and although he did not finally prevail in securing their freedom and the exercise of their religion to these poor people, a stop at least was put to the more outrageous acts of persecution. Mr. Morland remained for some time at Geneva, as the English resident, to manage the affairs of the Waldenses with other foreign ministers, to distribute the money contributed by the English nation, and also to prepare minutes, and to procure records, vouchers, and attestations, from which he might compile a correct history of the Waldenses. This was a suggestion of Thurloe’s.

On his return in 1658 he received the thanks of a select committee appointed by Cromwell to inspect into his transactions; and a minute, highly in his praise, was entered on the council books. Having arranged all his papers and vouchers, he published in the same year, in one volume folio, “The History of the Evangelical Churches of the Valleys of Piedmont; containing a most exact geographical description of the place, and a faithful account of the doctrine, life, and persecutions of the ancient inhabitants. Together with a most naked and punctual relation of the late bloody Massacre, 1655. And a narrative of all the following transactions, to the year of our Lord 1658. All which are justified, partly by divers ancient manuscripts written many hundred years before Calvin or Luther, and partly by the most authentic attestations: the true originals of the greatest part whereof are to be seen in their proper languages by all the curious, in the Public Library of the famous University of Cambridge.” These very interesting documents of ecclesiastical history are illustrated, according to the custom of the times, by a set of prints of the sufferings of the poor people; which, says Warton, “operated like Fox’s Book of Martyrs*.” Prefixed is a fine portrait of Morland, engraved by Lombart, from Lely; and an epistle dedicatory to Cromwell, in a higher strain of compliment than agrees with Morland’s subsequent opinion of the usurper. In “Hollis’s Memoirs” we are told that Morland afterwards withdrew this dedication from as many copies of his book as he could see. This may be true; but of many copies which we have seen in libraries and shops, we have never met with one without it.

Mr. Morland informs us that both before and after this publication, particularly from 164-1 to 1656, and some years after, he was admitted into the most intimate affairs of state, and had frequent opportunities of taking a clear view of the proceedings of Cromwell and his agents. Among other intrigues, he tells us that he was an eye and ear-witness of Dr. Hewit’s being trepanned to death by Thurloe and his agents. One Dr. Corker was sent by Thurloe to Dr. Hewit to advise him, and desire him, on behalf of the royalists, to send to Brussels for blank commissions from Charles II. and when the commissions arrived, was ordered to request that he might be employed to disperse part of them in several counties, and keep the rest by him. This done, Hewit was seized, and part of the commissions being found upon him, he was condemned and executed. But the most remarkable plot to which he was privy, was that usually called sir Richard Willis’s plot. The object of it was to entrap king Charles II. and his brothers to land somewhere in Sussex, under pretence of meeting with many supporters, and to put them to death the moment they landed. This plot is said to have formed the subject of a conversation between Cromwell, Thurloe, and Willis, at Thurloe’s office, and was overheard by Morland, who pretended to be asleep at his desk. In “Wel­* Note by Mr. Thomas Warton on Milton’s beautiful sonnet” On ths late Massacre in Piedmont.“Milton’s Poems, edit. 1785, p. 357. wood’s Memoirs,” it is said that when Cromwell discovered him, he drew his poinard, and would have dispatched him on the spot, if Thurloe had not, with great intreaties, prevailed on him to desist, assuring him that Morland had sat up two nights together, and was certainly asleep. Morland himself gives a somewhat different account of this plot than what appears in Echard, and is copied in the life of Thurloe in the Biog. Brit* but the chief circumstances are the same, and he was the means of discovering it to the king. It also appears to have alienated him from the party with which he had been connected, and from this time he endeavoured to promote the restoration by every means in his power, for which, in “Hollis’s Memoirs,” as may be expected in such a work, he is termed a “dextrous hypocrite*.”

Morland’s own sentiments we shall copy nearly literally: he concludes his account of the plot, with saying, that the horror of this and such like designs, to support an usurped government, and “fearing to have the king’s blood laid another day, inforo divino, to his charge (there being no person but myself, and the contrivers, and the chief of those who were to act it, privy to it), and calling to remembrance Hushai’s behaviour towards Absalom, which I found not at all blamed in holy writ (and yet his was a larger step than mine, I having never taken any kind of oath, or made any formal promise that I ever remember to any of those governments). As likewise seriously reflecting upon those oaths of supremacy and allegiance, which I had taken during the reign of Charles I. at Winchester college, I took at last a firm resolution, to do my native prince and the rightful heir of the crown, all the service that lay in my power.” To this he adds, that avarice could not be his object, as he was at this time living in greater

* In a short letter he wrote to arch- Henry’s which might have been probishop Tenison, intended as a post- duced against him.“It is necessary script to that which contains the ac- to add here, that Harris, in his life of count of his life, he tells his grace that Charles II. speaks of the above plot as” when he discovered the conspiracy to undeserving of credit.and triumphant!; Charles II. it was upon a solemn agree- produces a letter from sir Samuel to ment that he should not be required to sir Richard Willis, dated March 1, be an evidence against auy of them 1660, denying the whole. Where Mr. who should be tried after the restora- Harris got his letter, he does not say. tkm and that when required to ap- We have the direct testimony of sir pear against sir Henry Vane, he claim- Samuel, at a late period of life; and ed the promise made to him, would not the reader may compare the evidence, appear, and burned some papers of sir with that of Clarendon, &c. plenty than ever he did after the restoration, “having a house well furnished, an establishment of servants, a coach, &c. and 1000l. a year to support all this, with several hundred pounds of ready money, and a beautiful young woman to his wife for a companion.” All this, he adds, he must hazard in serving the king; but he preferred his duty and conscience, and accordingly gave such information as saved the king’s life, and promoted the restoration. For this purpose he at last went to Breda, and made his discoveries to his majesty, who acknowledged the value of his services, with many liberal promises of future preferment*.

These promises, Morland tells us, were not fulfilled, and he supposes that the chancellor Hyde was his enemy, for what reason is not known; as in his History, Hyde seems to do justice to Morland’s discoveries. Morland, however, was created a baronet in 1660, and is described as of Sulhamstead Bannister, although it does not appear very clearly whether he was possessed of the manor, or of any considerable property in the parish. He was also made a gentleman of the privy- chamber but this, he says, was rather expensive than profitable, as he was obliged to spend 450l. in two days on the coronation. He got, indeed, a pension of 500l. on the post-office, but some embarassments in his affairs obliged him to sell it; and after this he returned to his mathematical studies, and endeavoured by various experiments, and the construction of machines, to make up for the loss of that more certain provision he had expected from the new government.

* “We think fit to relate here, as a part of the intricate plots of the interthing most remarkable, that on this reign, and likewise the perfidiousness 3^ of May, Mr. Moreland, chief com- of some who owM him, no doubt, the missioner under Mr. Thurloe, who was greatest fidelity in the world. The secretary of state unto Oliver Crom- kingreceiv'd him perfectly well, made well, his chief and most confident mi- him knight, and rendered him this nister of his tyranny, arrived at Breda, public testimony, that he had received where he brought divers letters and most considerable services frfm him. notes of very great importance, foras- for some years past.” Kennel’s Remuch as the king discovered there a gister, p. 135. time when he wrote an account of his life to archbishop Tenison. Two years before the death of Charles II. that sovereign sent him to France, “about the king’s waterworks;” but here too he appears to have lost more than he gained. On his return, king James restored to him his pensions, which had been, for whatever reason, withdrawn, and likewise granted him the arrears, but not without deducting the expences of the engine which sir Samuel constructed to supply Windsor castle with water. Water-engines of various sorts employed much of his attention and capital; and as far back as 1674, we iind in the “Journals of the House of Commons,” a notice of a bill to enable him to enjoy the sole benefit of certain pumps and waterengines invented by him.

Sk Samuel was twice married to his first wife, during the usurpation but at what precise time, does not appear. In her naturalization-bill, introduced into the House of Commons in 1662, she is called Susanne de Milleville, daughter of Daniel de Milleville, baron of Boessey, and of thq lady Katherine his wife, of Boessey in France. It is probable he married her when abroad. After her death, he was entrapped into a second marriage* with a woman who pretended to be an heiress of 20,000l. This, he says, proved his ruin. She was a woman of abandoned conduct, and probably impaired his property by extravagance; and although he was divorced from her, for adultery, in 1688, the rest of his history is but a melancholy detail of his various disappointments and distresses. In 1689, he wrote a long letter to archbishop Tenison, giving an account of his life, from which we have extracted many of the above particulars, and concluding with a declaration that his only wish was to retire and spend his life “in Christian solitude,” for which he begs the archbishop’s “helping hand to have his condition truly represented to his majesty.” Tenison probably did something for him, for we find a letter of thanks for “favours and acts of charity,” contained

although the name be different from divorced from one in 168$. in it, dated March 5, 1695. He died Jan. 1696, probably in a weak condition, as he was unable to sign the will, by which he disinherited his only son, or the same name, who was the second and last baronet of the family, and bequeathed his property to Mrs. Zenobia Hough. According to the representation he made of his affairs to archbishop Tenison, this could not have been much. The reason of his disinheriting his son, appears from a passage in his letter to the archbishop, in which he is confessing the sins of iiis past life. “I have been, in my youthful days, very undutiful to my parents, for which God has given me a son, altogether void of filial respect or natural affection.” The errors of sir Samuel’s life were probably considerable, as he speaks of having* been at one time excommunicated, but some of his writings shew that he was a sincere penitent, particularly his “Urim of Conscience,” which he published a little before his death, written, as the titlfc says, “in blindness and retirement.” It consists of a rhapsody of meditations on the fall of man, the wonderful structure and powers of the human body, with allusions to his machines, cautions to those who are in quest of the perpetual motion, or the philosopher’s stone, and pious advice to men of all ranks and professions.

As a machinist, however, sir Samuel Morland deserves more respect than has hitherto been paid to him. Granger refers to the account of his life in a letter to archbishop Tenison, but had never seen it, else he could not have divided him into two persons, sir Samuel, who wrote the history of the churches of Piedmont, and a son who was master of mechanics to Charles II. yet in this he is followed in our Cyclopædias. They allow, however, that he invented the speaking-trumpet, although Kircher laid claim to it; the fire engine a capstan, to heave up anchors; and two arithmetical machines, of which he published a description, under the title of “The description and use of two Arithmetic Instruments together with a short Treatise, explaining the ordinary operations of Arithmetic, &c. presented to his most excellent majesty, Charles II. by S. Morland, in 1662.” This work, which is exceedingly rare, but of which there is a copy in the Bodleian, which bears date, 1673, 8vo, is illustrated with twelve plates, in which the different parts of the machine are exhibited; and whence it appears that the four fundamental rules in arithmetic are very readily worked, and, to use the author’s own words, “without charging the memory, disturbing the mind, or exposing the operations to any uncertainty.” That these machines were at the time brought into practice, there seems no reason to doubt, as by an advertisement prefixed to the work, it appears that they were manufactured for sale by Humphry Adanson, who lived with Jonas Moore, esq. in the Tower of London.

But there appears very good reason to give him the merit of an invention of much greater importance, that of the steam-engine; a contrivance which, assisted by modern improvements, is now performing what a century ago would have seemed miraculous or impossible. Yet it appears that he has been hitherto entirely unknown to the world at large. In 1699, captain Savery obtained a paten for this invention; aud he has consequently occupied al the honour of the discovery. But in that noble assemblage of Mss. the Harleian collection, now in the British Museum, the strongest testimony appears that the real inventor was Samuel Morland. That the first hint of the idnd was thrown out by the marquis of Worcester, in his “Century of Inventions,” is allowed; but obscurely, like the rest of his hints. But Morland wrote a book upon the subject; in which he not only shewed the practicability of the plan, but went so far as to calculate the power of different cylinders. This book is now extant in manuscript, in the above collection. It was presented to the French king in 1683, at which time experiments were actually shewn at St. Germain’s. The author dates his invention in 1682; consequently seventeen years prior to Savery’s patent. It seems, however, to have remained obscure both in France and England, till 1699, when Savery, who probably knew more of Morland’s invention than he owned, obtained a patent; and in the very same year, M. Amontons proposed something similar to the French academy, probably as his own.

The manuscript, in which Morland explains his invention, No. 5771 of the Harleian collection, hitherto seems to have been as little noticed as Morland himself. But if he was the real inventor, as these circumstances seem to render almost certain, it is highly proper that his name should in future be recorded, with all the honour which an invention of such utility demands. It is thus described by the learned gentleman who assisted in the improved catalogue of that valuable collection of Mss.

This book, which contains only thirty-four pages, is written in elegant and ornamented characters; but after this our author printed a book at Paris, with partly the same title, as far as “a la balance” after which it runs thus, “par le moyen d‘un nouveau piston, et corps de pompe, et d’un nouveau movement cyclo-elliptique, &c. avec huit problemes de rnechanique proposez aux plus babiles etaux plus s^avans du siecle, pour le bien public,” 4to. In the dedication to the king of France, he says, that as his majesty was pleased with the models and ocular demonstrations he had the honour to exhibit at St. Germains, he thought himself obliged to present this book as a tribute due to so great a monarch. He states that it contains an. abridged account of the best experiments he had made for the last thirty years respecting the raising of water, with figures, in profile and perspective, calculated to throw light on the mysteries of hydrostatics. It begins with a perpetual almanack, shewing the day of the month or week for the time past, present, and to come, and has various mathematical problems, tables, &c. but nothing respecting the action of fire. In the Phil. Trans, however, vol. IX. (1674), is a paper by him on a new method of raising water, which is not there explained, but was probably effected by some application of stearn similar to that which is described by Bradley in his book on gardening, p. 316. It appears that here also he was followed by Mr. Savery, to whom Bradley attributes the apparatus which he-describes, and illustrates by a plate. It contains evidently the principles of the steam-engine.

We learn from Mr. Lysons, that in 1675, sir Samuel Morland obtained a lease of Vauxhall house (now a distillery), made it his residence, and considerably improved the premises, every part of which shewed the invention of the owner; the side-table in the dining-room was supplied with a large fountain, and the glasses stood under little streams of water. His coach had a moveable kitchen, with clockwork machinery, with which he could make soup, broil steaks, or roast a joint of meat. About 1684 he purchased a house at Hammersmith, near the water-side; and all the letters we have seen in the Lambeth library or Museum, are dated from this place. He gave a pump and well, adjoining to his house, for the use of the public, which benefaction was thus recorded upon a tablet fixed in the wall “Sir Samuel Morland’s well, the use of which he freely gives to all persons hoping that none who shall come after him, will adventure to incur God’s displeasure by denying a cup of cold water (provided at another’s cost and not their own) to either neighbour, stranger, passenger, or poor thirsty beggar. July 8, 1695.” This pump has been removed; but the stone tablet is preserved in tha garden belonging to the house, which is now an academy, and known by the name of Walbrough-house, in the tenure of Messrs. Aiken and Bathie.

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

When all things were preparing for the king’s restoration, Morley was sent over by chancellor Hyde, two months before, to help to pave the way for that great event. In this undertaking he had some trouble in repressing the intemperance of the royalists, who accustomed themselves to inveigh against the republicans in a manner calculated to irritate those who had as yet a considerable share of power in their hands. He conversed also with the heads of the presbyterian party, without entering too deeply into particulars, but avowed himself a Calvinist, because he knew that they entertained the most favourable opinion of such churchmen as were of that persuasion. His chief business, however, in this kind of embassy, was to confute the report that Charles II. was a papist. In this he was probably more successful than correct. Upon the king’s return, he was not only restored to his canonry, but also promoted to the deanry of Christ-church. He was installed, July 1660, and nominated to the bishopric of Worcester, October following. In 1661, he was a principal manager at the conference between the episcopal and presbyterian divines, commissioned under the great seal to review the liturgy; and, according to Baxter, was the most fluent and chief speaker of all the bishops. Some time after, he was made dean of his majesty’s royal chapel; and, in 1662, upon the death of Dr. Duppa, was translated to the bishopric of Winchester; when the king, it is said, told him, “he would be never the richer for it.” He was, in truth, a great benefactor to this see; for, besides the repairing of the palace at Winchester, he spent above 8000l. in repairing Farnham-castle, and above 4000l. in purchasing Winchester-house at Chelsea, to annex to this see. Many other benefactions of his are recorded. He gave 300/ per ann. to Christ-church in Oxford, for the public use of that college: he founded five scholarships of lOl. per annum each, in Pembroke-college, three for the Isie of Jersey, and two for Guernsey he gave, at several times, upwards of 1800l. to the church of St. Paul, London and he bequeathed in his will 1000l. to purchase lands for the augmenting of some small vicarages. By temperance and exercise he reached a very old age, and died at Farnhamcastle, Oct. 29, 1684, and was’buried in Winchester cathedral.

He was a very hard student, usually rising about five o'clock in the morning both in winter and summer, though he never went to bed till about eleven in the severest season of the year; nor did he eat more than once in the twenty-four hours. By this means he passed his life without ever being obliged to keep his bed for any sickness more than twice. Bishop Burnet tells us, that he had been first known to the world as a friend of lord Falkland’s; a circumstance sufficient to raise any man’s character. He had continued for many years in the lord Clarendon’s family, and was his particular friend. He was a Calvinist with relation to the Arminian points, and was thought a friend to the puritans before the wars; and although in the Savoy conference he would not admit of any concessions to that party, Calamy records several instances of his moderation towards dissenters. He was a pious and charitable man, of a very exemplary life, but occasionally passionate, and obstinate. He was in many respects an eminent man, zealous against popery, and considerably learned, with an uncommon vivacity of thought.

He was the author of some small pieces, of which the following is a list: 1. “A Sermon at the Coronation of Charles II. April 23, 1661.” In the dedication to the king, by whose command it was published, he says, that “he was now passed his great climacterical, and this was the first time that ever he appeared in print.” 2. “Vindication of himself from Mr. Baxter’s Calumny,” &c. 1662. 3. “Epistola apologetica & parasnetica ad Thcologum quendara Belgam scripta,” 1663, 4to written atBreda, June 1659; reprinted in 1683, under this title, “Epistola, &c. in qua agitur de seren. Regis Car. 11 erga He forma tarn Religionem Affectu.” In this letter, he attempts to clear Charles II. from the imputation of popery, and urges the Dutch to lend their utmost assistance towards his restoration. 4. “The Sum of a Conference with Darcey, a Jesuit, at Brussels,” 1649. 5. “An Argument, drawn from the Evidence and Certainty of Sense, against the Doctrine of Transubstantiaiion.” 6. “Vindication of the Argument,” &c. 7. “Answer to Father Cressy’s Letter;” written about 1662. 8. “Sermon before the King, Nov. 5, 1667.”

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

, lord of Plessis Marly, an illustrious French protestunt, privy-counsellor of Henry IV. and governor of Saumur, was born at Buhi or Bishuy, in the French Vexin, in 1549. He was descended from an ancient and noble family, which had, in course of time, divided itself into several brandies, and produced many great aiKi eminent men. His father, James de Morn ay, had done great services to the royal family in the wars; but in the time of peace led a very retired life, and was much attacnecl to the religion of his country He designed Philip for the church, as he was a younger son, with a view to succeed his uncle Bertin de Mornay, who was dean of Beauvais and abbe of Saumur, and who had promised to resign those preferments to him; but this plan was rendered abortive by the death of the uncle. In the mean time his mother, who was the daughter of Charles du Bee Cre^pin, vice-admiral of France, and chamberlain to Francis II. was secretly a protestant, and had taken care to inspire her son insensibly with her own principles. His father died when he was not more than ten years of age; and his mother, making open profession of the protestant religion in 1561, set up a lecture in her own house, xvhich confirmed hirn in it. His literary education was all the while carrying on with the utmost care and circumspection he had masters provided for him in all languages and sciences and the progress he made in all was what might be expected from his very uncommon parts and application.

In 1567, he was obliged to retire from Paris, where he was pursuing his studies, on account of the commotions which were breaking out, and soon after took up arms, and served a campaign or two. But, having the misfortune to break one of his legs, he quitted the profession of a soldier, and began to entertain thoughts of travelling into foreign countries, for the improvement of his mind, and for the sake of some baths, which he hoped would restore to him the free use of his leg. He arrived at Geneva in 1568, not without the greatest danger and peril to himself; for, all places were so full of soldiers, and the passages so guarded, that it was difficult for one of his religion to pass with safety. He made but a short stay at Geneva, on account of the plague which was there; but, taking his way through Switzerland, went to Heidelberg in Germany. Here he became acquainted with Tremellius, and other learned men, and entered upon the study of the civil law. In 1569 he went to Francfort, where he was affectionately received by the celebrated Languet, who gave him instructions for his future travels, and recommendatory letters to several great men. He stayed some time afterwards at Padua, for the farther prosecution of the study of civil law, and then proceeded to Venice. He had a great desire to make the tour of the East; but, as the Venetians and Turks were then at war about the Isle of Cyprus, it was impossible for him to pass the coasts of Istria and Dalmatia with any degree of safety. From Venice, in 1571, he went to Rome, where his religion had like to have brought him into danger. He had experienced something of this sort at Venice, owing to the zeal of an officer of the inquisition, but he escaped in both places, and from Rome he returned to Venice, from Venice to Vienna; and thence, after taking a round through Hungary, Bohemia, Misnia, Saxony, Hesse, Franconia, to Francfort, where he arrived in Sept. 1551. Though he was very young when he set out upon his travels, yet he never suffered the man of pleasure to get the better of the philosopher; but made that profitable use of them, which a wise man will always make. He examined every thing that was curious in every place; and, that nothing might escape him, attentively perused not only the general history of the countries, but also the histories of each particular town and province through which he passed. Nor was he only attentive to their antiquities, but remarked also whatever was worth notice in the manners, customs, policy, and constitution, of each.

In 1572 he went into Flanders, to survey the situation, the strength, the fortifications, and garrisons, of that country, and afterwards passed, over to England, where he was graciously received by queen Elizabeth; for, his parts, his knowledge, his uncommon capacity for the management of great affairs, had spread his name far and wide, and made him courted, especially by the great. In 1575 he married, and published the same year a treatise “Concerning Life and Death;” for, though often employed in civil affairs, and oftener solicited to engage in them, yet he passed much of his time in reading and writing. Previously to his marriage he had engaged in an unsuccessful contest with part of the king’s troops; was wounded and taken prisoner; but after the confinement of a few days, and by assuming a false name, he was allowed to ransom himself on easy terms. In 1576, he again took arms, and now his adherents were so powerful, that the king’s partydeemed it expedient to propose a negociation, which was accepted. After this, he went to the court of the king of Navarre, afterwards Henry IV. of France, who received him very graciously, gave him one of the first places in his council, and, upon all occasions, paid great deference to his judgment. Du Plessis, on his part, did the king great services. He went into England to solicit the assistance of Elizabeth for him in 1577, into Flanders in 1578, and to the diet of Augsburg in 1579. In 1578 he published a treatise “Concerning the Church;” in which he explained his motives for leaving the popish, and embracing the protestant religion; and, in 1579, began his book “Upon the Truth of the Christian Religion.” But, before he had made any progress in this, he was seized with an illness, which was thought to be the efiect of some poison that had been given him at Antwerp the year before, with a view of destroying him. He recovered, though dangeronsly ill, and continued to do service to the king of Navarre and the protestant religion. From 1585, when the league commenced, he was more intimately connected with the affairs of the king; and, in 1590, was made his counsellor of state, after having been invested with the government of Sauinur the year before. In 1592, the king appointed him to confer with M. de Villeroy upon the subject of the king’s religion; but the extravagant demands of De Villeroy rendered their conference of no effect. Du Piessis, however, opposed the king’s embracing the popish religion, as long as he could and, when he could prevent it no longer, withdrew himself gradually from court, and resumed his studies.

In 1596 he published a piece entitled “The just Procedures of those of the Reformed Religion;” in which he removes the imputation of the present troubles and dissentions from the protestants, and throws the blame on those who injuriously denied them that liberty, which their great services had deserved. In 1598 he published his treatise “upon the Eucharist;” which occasioned the conference at Fontainbleau in 1600, between Du Perron, then bishop of Evreux, afterwards cardinal, and M. du Plessis; and raised his reputation and credit among the protestants to so great a height, that he was called by man)* “the Protestant Pope.” In 1607 he published a work entitled “The Mystery of Iniquity, or the History of the Papacy;” which was written, as most of his other works were, first in French, and then translated into Latin. Here he shews by what gradual progress the popes have risen to that ecclesiastical tyranny, which was foretold by the apostles; and what opposition from time to time all nations have given them. This seems to have been a work of prodigious labour; yet it is said, that he was not above nine months in composing it. About this time, also, he published “An Exhortation to the Jews concerning the Messiah,” in which he applies a great deal of Hebrew learning very judiciously; and for this he was complimented by the elder Buxtorf. There are several other lesser pieces of his writing; but his capital work, and for which he has been most distinguished, is his book “Upon the Truth of the Christian Religion;” in which he employs the weapons of reason and learning with great force and skill against Atheists, Epicureans, Heathens, Jews, Mahometans, and other Infidels, as he tells us in his title. This book was dedicated to Henry IV. while he was king of Navarre only, in 1582; and, the year after, was translated by himself into Latin. “As a Frenchman,” says he, in his preface tp the reader, “I have endeavoured to serve my own country first; and, as a Christian, the universal kingdom of Christ next.” Baillet observes, with justness, that “the Protestants of France had great reason to be proud of having such a man as Mornay du Plessis of their party; a gentleman, who, besides the nobleness of his birth, was distinguished by many fine qualities both natural and acquired.”

, a senator of Venice, descended from James Morosini, of a very illustrious family, was born in the year 1558. He received an excellent education, and rose through the different degrees of nobility to a place in the council of ten. He was accomplished in every branch of polite literature, and in 1598 succeeded to the office of historian of the republic, and was employed in continuing Paruta’s History of Venice, which he brought down to 1615. He died in 1618, but as he had not quite finished his work, it was not published until 1623. It has been ranked among the best performances of that age. He also published, in Latin, a volume of “Opuscula and Epistles” and a narrative in Italian of “Expeditions to the Holy Land, and the Acquisition of Constantinople by the Venetian Republic.” His brother Paul, likewise a Venetian senator, was appointed to the same post of public historian, and gave an entire history of the republic from its origin to the year 1487, in 1637, which was published in the Italian language.

, a Welsh antiquary and poet, was born in the isle of Anglesey in the year 1702, and died in 1765 at Penhryn, in Cardiganshire. He surveyed the coast of Wales in 1737, by order of the admiralty-board; and his work was published in 1748. Some of his poetical pieces in the Welsh language have been printed, and he left above eighty volumes of manuscripts of antiquity, now deposited in the Welsh charity-school, GraysInn lane, London. It was his intention to have compiled a Welsh dictionary, as appears by his correspondence in the Gentleman’s Magazine. His brother Richard was also a poet and critic in his native language. He was clerk in the navy pay-office, and superintended the printing of two valuable editions of the Welsh Bible. He died in 1779. William Morris, another brother, was a great collector of Welsh manuscripts, and died comptroller of the customs at Holyhead in 1764.

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

His parents placed him with Mr. Hudson, the most eminent painter of that day, with whom he continued three years, the fellow-pupil of Wright of Derby. He was afterwards twelve months with sir Joshua Reynolds, who had left Hudson about a year before Mortimer became his pupil; but the great school of his improvement was the duke of Richmond’s gallery, which he long attended with great assiduity, and to so good a purpose, that Cipriani and Mr. Moser recommended him to the peculiar attention of that nobleman, who was very desirous of retaining him in his house, but the offer was rejected.

When the society for the encouragement of arts, manufactures, and commerce, gave premiums for the best historical pictures, Mortimer contended for the prize with Huytfian and several other artists, painted a picture of St. Paul converting the Britons, was adjudged worthy of the palm, and received one hundred guineas as a reward for his superiority, and an encouragement to his perseverance. -This picture, at a future day, became the property of Dr. Bates of Great Missenden, and, in 1778, was by him presented to the church of Chipping-Wycombe in Buckinghamshire, of which it now forms the altar-piece. At the time of painting it he was an inhabitant of Covent-garden parish, and lived in the piazza, where he contracted an intimacy with Charles Churchill, Lloyd, and several other eccentric characters, more distinguished by the brilliancy of their wit, than the regularity of their conduct. He afterwards removed to a r^ouse in the church-yard of the same parish, and resided there until the year 1775, when he married, and removed to Norfolk-street, where he lived four years during the winter, but in the summer months, pursued his professional studies at a house at Aylesbury in Buckinghamshire. In this retirement, secluded from the society to whom he had, in early life, devoted many of his hours, he recovered his health, gave a new tone to his mind, and cultivated his art with more enthusiastic ardour.

He had hitherto been a member of the society of artists of Great Britain, who exhibited at the room now called the Lyceum in the Strand, but, in the year 1779, without expectation or solicitation, he was, by the especial grant of his majesty, created a royal academician, but did not live to see the diploma for, on the 4th of February 1779, deeply regretted by all who had the honour and happiness of his friendship, after an illness of only twelve days, he died at his house in Norfolk-street. His fame has been thought to rest on his picture of king John granting Magna Charta to the Barons, Battle of Agincourt, Vortigern and Rowena, the Incantation, the Series of the Progress of Vice, and the Sir Arthegull from' Spenser. His favourite subjects were of the grotesque or horrible kind; incantations, monsters, or representations of banditti and soldiers in violent actions. The attempts at real character which he made (and of which he has left us etchings) from some of Shakspeare’s most celebrated heroes, are weak and untrue; they leave us nothing to regret in his not having indulged himself in more of the like kind, except for the freedom, with which they are executed. They were very highly extolled in his time, but the improvement in art and taste which the country has since experienced, has given us more accurate ideas of art, and more just discrimination between character and caricature.

, a learned physician and antiquary, was a native of Westmoreland, where he was born in 1716, and practised physic with considerable reputation at Kendal about 1745. At what time he removed to London we have not been able to discover, as very few particulars of his life have been recorded, but it was probably about 1751, when he was admitted a licentiate of the College of Physicians. In 1752 he was elected a fellow of the Royal Society; and on the first establishment of the British Museum, in 1756, he was appointed under-librarian of the manuscripts and medal department. In 1760 he was elected one of the secretaries to the Royal Society, which situation he held till 1774; and in 1776, on the death of Dr. Maty, he was appointed principal librarian of the British Museum. He was also a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries, and of the Imperial Academy of Petersburgh. He died Feb. 10, 1799, aged eighty-three, and was buried in the cemetery near the London road, Twickenham. In 1744 he married Miss Mary Berkeley, a niece of Lady Betty Germaine, by whom he had an only daughter, Elizabeth, married to James Dansie, esq. of Herefordshire. He married, secondly, in 1772, Lady Savile (mother of the amiable Sir George Savile), who died Feb. 10, 1791: in which year he married to his third wife Elizabeth Pratt, a near relation of Lady Savile. Dr. Morton was a man of great uprightness and integrity, and much admired as a scholar.