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

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.

She composed several works, a great part of which were burnt with the town of Schweinfurt; the remainder were collected by Ccelius Secundus Curio, and published with this title: “Olympic Fulviae Moratae, fcemince doctissima3 ac plane divinas, Opera omnia quae hactenus inveniri potuerunt; quibus Caalii Secundi Curionis Epistola? ac Orationes accesserunt,” Basil, 1558, in 8vo, and often reprinted. They consist of orations, dialogues, letters, and translations.

, 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.

He published some works among which are a treatise “De Gratia & Libero Arbitrio” and another, “De Scriptura Sacra, sive de Causa Dei” “A Comment on the fifty-third Chapter of Isaiah” “Notae ad Loca qusedarn Novi Fcederis;” a reply to Milton’s abuse of him in his “Second Defence of the people of England:” this reply, of which much may be seen in our second authority, has the title of “Alexandri Mori Fides publica:” some “Orations and Poems in Latin.”

, 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:

So like, that critics said, and courtiers swore,

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,

and consisted of two parts; the first were no other notes in the book than

writings of Lysias, Isocrates, and and doubted, therefore, whether Mr.

Isæsus; the second on Demosthenes Mores had written any other, and Dinarchus; but in both these aronum mores, ritus, atque aedificia Seculi, praecipue deeirni, illustranda in lucem editae. Anno Domini MDCCLIV." The plates, which were purchased by Mr. Gough, are now in the Bodleian library.

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.

Mr. Mores appears to have assisted Mr. Bilson in his burlesque on the latter society, published in a folio sheet, entitled “Proposals for printing, by subscription, the History of the Mallardians,” treating them as a set of stupid bans vivans; at least he may be presumed to have contributed the prints of a cat said to have been starved in their library, and of two ancient grotesque busts carved on the south wall of the college, the plates of which were in his possession. When Mr. Mores left the university he went abroad, and is reported to have taken orders; but, whether this tradition has any better foundation than his affectation of wearing his academical habit, and calling it that of a Dominican friar, we do not pretend to vouch. It has been said, that he entered into deacon’s orders in the church of England, to exempt himself from serving civil

appointed for the same purpose in valuable dissertations and communica1762. But still the publication lin- tions still remain unselected from the

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.

Mr. Mores married Susannah, daughter of Mr. Brilgman, an eminent grocer in Whrtechapel, by whom he had a son and daughter.

, 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.

His works are very numerous, and some of them much valued by protestants as well as papists, on account of the Oriental learning contained in them. Father Simon has given us, under the title of “Antiquitates Ecclesiae Orientalis,” a collection of letters to and from Morin, which were found among the papers of father Amelot; and caused them to be printed at London in 1682, with the life of Morin, of which he himself is supposed to be the author. These letters contain many curious particulars relating to criticism and history, and are full of Oriental erudition.

, 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.

Edwafds observes, that “his low and vulgar propensities led him into society little calculated to improve either his mind or manners; that he readily stooped to an intimacy with any associates with whom he could gratify the despicable ambition of being at the head of his company.” “But,” says Fuseli, “it is surely one of the favourite paradoxes of the age, to wonder at the association of a man’s favourite objects of amusement with his favourite objects of study. It would be a disgusting idea, were it a possible one, to suppose, that the man who, with congenial satisfaction, spends the day in penciling, to a degree of deception, a sow amid her litter, could long for the recreation of elegant society in the evening: or can it be wondered at, if he, who chooses his subjects among the patrons of a pot-house or gin-shop, the inhabitants of a stable or a hovel, and the usual victims and furniture of a prison, should court the first, frequent the next, or paint and perhaps rot in a jail”

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.

Even in this, however, he encountered many difficulties, owing to the expensive nature of some of his experiments on hydrostatics, or hydraulics. These experiments, he says, pleased the king’s fancy; but when he had spent 500l. or [OQOl. upon them, he received sometimes but half and sometimes only a third of what he had expended; but it would appear, that at length he got some pensions, of what value he does not say, which he enjoyed in 1689, the

* “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

of his life to archbishop Tenison, gives Commons, and her age must certainly

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.

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.

How far all this may be conclusive in sir Samuel Morland’s favour, as the inventor of the steam-engine, we must leave to be determined by those who have made the history of inventions their study. It only remains that we notice the titles of such of his works as have not been mentioned already. These are, 1. “The Count of Pagan’s Method of delineating all manner of Fortifications from the exterior Polygon, reduced to English measure, and converted into Hercotectonick lines,” Lond. 1672. 2. te A new and most useful Instrument for Addition and Subtraction, &c. with a perpetual Almanack,“ibid. 1672, 8vo. This appears to have preceded his description of the two arithmetical instruments mentioned above. 3.” The Doctrine of Interest, both simple and compound, explained,“&c. ibid. 1679, 8vo. 4.” Description of the Tuba Stentorophonica,“or speaking trumpet, ibid. 1671, folio. 5.” Hydrostatics, or Instructions concerning Water-works," 1697, 12mo. This appears to have been a posthumous work. By one of his letters, dated July 28, 1688, it appears that he had an intention of publishing the first six books of Euclid, for the use of public schools.

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.”

In 1621, when Lewis XIII. made war upon the protestants, he took away the government of Sauinur from Du Plessis, who then retired to his barony of La Forest in Poictou, where he died in, 1623, at the age of seventyfour, deeply regretted by -the protestants, and esteemed by the catholics as a man of talents and integrity.

, 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.

Dr. Morton published in 1759 an improved edition of Dr. Barnard’s engraved “Table of Alphabets,” and Bulstrode Whitlock’s “Journal of the Swedish Embassy in 1653 and 1654,” 1772, 2 vols. 4to. He communicated to the Royal Society a paper on muscular motion, and another on the supposed connexion between the hieroglyphic writing of Egypt and the modern Chinese character; both of which were published in the Philosophical Transactions, vols. XLVII. and LIX. This last communication originated from an inquiry addressed to the Jesuits at Pekin, relative to certain characters on a bust discovered by Mr. Needham at Turin, whose conjectures concerning them were controverted by Desguignes, Bartoli, Winkleman, and Wortley Montague. The Jesuits, assisted by the Chinese literati, decided that the characters in question, though four or five have a sensible resemblance to as many Chinese ones, are not genuine Chinese characters, having no connected sense nor proper resemblance to any of the different forms of writing, and that the whole inscription had nothing Chinese in the face of it; but, in order to promote discoveries, they sent an actual collation of the Egyptian with the Chinese hieroglyphics, engraved on twenty-six plates. In 1768 Dr. Morton was appointed, jointly with Mr. Farley, to superintend the publication of the Domesday Book, but soon relinquished the task. At this time it was proposed to have been carried into execution by types; and Mr. Gough says, Dr. Morton had 500l. for doing little or nothing, and nearly 200l. more for types that were of no use.

, an eminent prelate a ntt statesman, in the reign of Henry VII. was the eldest son of Richard Morton, of Milbourtie St. Andrew’s in Dorsetshire, and was born in 1410 at Bere in that county. The first part of his education he received among the monks of Cerne abbey, and thence removed to Baliol college, Oxford, where in 1446 he was one of the commissaries of that university, and had been also moderator of the civil law school, and principal of Peckwater inn in 1453. In 1458 he was collated to the prebend of Fordington with Writhlington in the cathedral of Salisbury, which he resigned in 1476. In the same year he was installed prebendary of Covingham in the church of Lincoln, and on this occasion. resigned the sub-deanery to which he had been collated in 1450. In October 1472 he was collated by archbishop Bouchier to the rectory of St. Dunstan’s in the East, London, which he held only two years; and the same month was collated to the prebend of Isledon in the church of St. Paul, which he exchanged in the following year for that of Chiswick in the same church.

In 1473 he was appointed master of the rolls, and in 1474 archdeacon of Winchester; in both which offices he was succeeded by his nephew Robert Morton, afterwards bishop of Worcester. In May of the same year, 1474, he was collated to the archdeaconry of Chester, and not to that of Chichester, as Browne Willis has inadvertently said. In March 1475 he was installed by proxy archdeacon of Huntingdon; and the same year collated to the prebend of St. Decuman in the cathedral of Weils. In April 1476 he was installed prebendary of South Newbald in the metropolitan church of York, which he resigned the same year, in which he was also further promoted to the archdeaconry of Berkshire; and in January 1477 to that of Leicester. This list of promotions, in various quarters of the kingdom, and from various patrons, may serve to shevr the high esteem in which he was held. His eminent abilities, as a civilian, during his practice as an advocate in the Court of Arches, recommended him to the notice of cardinal Bourchier, who, besides conferring many of the above preferments on him, introduced him to Henry VI. who made him one of his privy council. To this unfortunate prince he adhered with so much fidelity, while others deserted him, that even his successor Edward IV. could not but admire and reward his attachment; took him into his council, and was much guided by his advice. He also, ' in the same year, 1478, made him both bishop of Ely and lord chancellor of England; and at his death appointed him one of his executors.

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

He had before this, in the time of Edward IV. been employed in many important affairs of state; and so early as 1473 had the custody of the great seal committed to his care for a time, in the same year that he was constituted master of the rolls, which last office was renewed to him in May 1476. In 1474 he was sent ambassador to the emperor of Germany and to the king of Hungary, to concert a league with them against Lewis of France: and in, the next year he attended the king, who was in France with his army. At this time Lewis sent him proposals of a truce, which was agreed on; and soon after Morton, with Sir Thomas Howard and two others, were appointed commissioners in a negociation for peace, which they concluded on terms very honourable and advantageous for England.

Among the public-spirited schemes which his liberality induced him to execute, was the famous cut or drain from Peterborough to Wisbeche, a track of upwards of twelve miles across a fenny country, which proved of great benefit to his diocese and to the public, and was completed entirely at his expence. This still is known by the name of Morton’s Leame, As soon as Henry VII. was seated on the throne, after the death of Richard III. he sent for Morton, who was still abroad, and immediately on his arrival made him one of his privy council; and on the death of cardinal Bourchier, in 1486, he was, probably on the king’s recommendation, elected by the prior and convent of Canterbury to be archbishop. In the mean time the king granted him. the whole profits of the see, until the pope’s confirmation could be obtained, and the disposal of all the preferments annexed to it; and having received the pope’s bull, dated Oct. 6, 1436, he was, by the king, admitted to the temporalities on Dec. 6 following In August 1487 he was constituted lord chancellor of England, which office he retained to his death. In a ms. in the British Museum, (Mss. Harl. 6100. fol. 54.) he is said to have been made chancellor in 1485, which was the first year of Henry VII.; and we have already mentioned, from another authority, that he filled that office while bishop of Ely. In 1493 he was creiited a cardinal by pope Alexander VI. by the title of St. Anastasia. In Hall’s Chronicle this promotion is placed in 1489, which is a mistake.

Cardinal Morton’s high favour with Henry VII. brought him into much disrepute with the people. Henry was parsimonious and avaricious, and in the choice of his ministers looked much to their capacity for raising money. Accordingly, the cardinal and sir Reginald Bray, being the leading men in the privy council, the odium of the king’s avarice fell upon them; and when, in the twelfth year of his reign, a subsidy was levied for war against Scotland, they were accused, by the Cornish insurgents, as the promoters of it.

Leland informs us, that, while archbishop, he employed his fortune in building and repairing his houses at Canterbury, Lambeth, Maidstone, Allington park, and Charing; and at Ford he almost built the whole house. At Oxford, too, it is said that he repaired the canon- law school, completed the building of the divinity school, and the rebuilding of St. Mary’s church; in all which places his arms were formerly to be seen, as they are at this day on the stone tower of Wisbeche church, five or six times, either because he built it, which is not improbable, or because he was a benefactor to the tower which thus commemorated his services. In February 1494 he was elected chancellor of the university of Oxford; in which year Fuller says he greatly promoted the re-building of Rochester bridge. One of the last acts of his life was to procure the canonization of Anselm archbishop of Canterbury; and he also endeavoured, but without effect, to procure the same honour for his old master Henry VI. He died, according to the Canterbury obituary, Tuesday 16 kal. Oct.; but, according to the register of Ely, Sept. 15, 1500, and in his ninetieth year. As he had provided for his relations in his life-time, he bequeathed all his remaining wealth to pious uses, or to be distributed among such of his servants as had not yet tasted of his bounty. He founded a chauntry at Bere, his native place, with a chaplain, who was to officiate for twenty years; and for th'e same space of time he bequeathed exhibitions for poor scholars at both the universities, twenty for Oxford and ten for Cambridge. He was interred in Canterbury cathedral, where a heavy but sumptuous monument was erected to his memory. His remains were afterwards disturbed by the falling-in of the pavement upon his coffin, and some of them, wrapt up in cerecloths, were carried away; and the head being almost the only part remaining, it was begged of archbishop Sheldon in 1670, by Ralph Sheldon of Beolie in Worcestershire, esq. who, after preserving it with great reverence till his death, bequeathed it to his niece, Mrs. Frances Sheldon, one of the maids of honour to Catherine of Portugal, wife to king Charles II. What became of this relic afterwards is not known.

Archbishop Morton’s character is highly spoken of by his contemporaries and successors, as a statesman of great talents and a man of learning, probity, liberality, and spirit. His life was written by Dr. John Budden in 1607, 8vo; but the eulogium that confers most honour upon him is that which occurs in sir Thomas More’s “Utopia,” and in some of the lives of that illustrious man, who, as we have noticed in our account, was educated by Morton. Parker may also be consulted in his “Antiq. Ecclesiast.” Although he derived much unpopularity from the high favour he enjoyed with king Henry VII. yet it was owing to his advice and interference that the exactions made by that monarch were not far more severe; and he had at all times the courage to give the king his fair and honest opinion on such measures. The life of Richard III. attribated to Sir Thomas More, is said to have been written by our prelate.

, an eminent physician, was born in the county of Suffolk; and became a commoner in Magdalen-hall, Oxford, afterwards one of the chaplains of New college, and M. A. On leaving the university, where he took orders, he was for some time chaplain in the family of Foley, in Worcestershire. Having, however, adopted the principles of the nonconformists, he found it necessary, after tue restoration of Charles II. to abandon the profession of theology, and adopted that of medicine. He accordingly was admitted to the degree of doctor in this faculty in 1670, having in that year accompanied the prince of Orange to Oxford, as physician to his person. He afterwards settled in London, became a fellow of the college of physicians, and obtained a large share of city practice. He died at his house in Surrey, in 1698. The works of Dr. Morton had a considerable, reputation, but they lean too much to the humoral pathology, which was prevalent in that age; and his method of treatment in acute diseases, is now generally discarded. His first publication was entitled “Phthisioiogia, seu Exercitationes de Phthisi,” 1689, 8vo, and was translated into English in 1694. In this attempt to arrange the varieties of consumption, the distinctions, both in the classification and the indications of cure, are complicated and obscure. His “Pyretologia, seu Exercitationes de Morbis universalibus acutis,” published in 1691—1694, 2 vols. 8vo, of which some account is given in the Philos. Transactions, No. 199, contains his humoral doctrines of fermentation and the agitations of the animal spirits; and his practice was an unusual extension of the cordial and stimulant treatment of all fevers, and a more general introduction of the Peruvian bark, by which he probably contributed to prolong the reign of that prejudicial system. His works have been printed collectively at Amsterdam, 2 vols. 8vo, and at Geneva, Leyden, Venice, and Lyons, in 4to.

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

While Morton sat in the see of Coventry and Lichfield, which was above fourteen years, he educated, ordained, and presented to a living, a youth of excellent talents and memory, who was born blind. He also acquired no little reputation by detecting the imposture of the famous boy of Bilson in Staffordshire, who pretended to be possessed with a devil; but who, in reality, was only suborned by some Romish priests, to assume the appearance of possession, according to the common notions of it, for the sake of promoting their own private purposes. In 1632, he was translated to the bishopric of Durham, which he held with great reputation till the opening of the Long-parliament, when he met with great insults from the common people, and was once in extreme hazard of his life at Westminster, some crying, “Pirll him out of his coach” others, “Nay, he is a good man” others, “But for all that he is a bishop.” He used often to say that he believed he should not have escaped alive, if a ringleader among the rabble had not cried out, “let him go and hang himself.” He was then committed to the custody of the usher of the black rod; and, as Whitlocke tells us, “April 1645, was brought before the Commons for christening a child in the old way, and signing it with the sign of the cross, contrary to the directory; and, because he refused to deliver up the seal of the county-palatine of Durham, he was committed to the Tower.” Here he continued six months, and then returned to his lodgings at Durham-house; the parliament, upon the dissolution of the bishoprics, voted him an annuity. Whitlocke informs us, that, in May 1649, an ordinance passed for 800l. per annum to bishop Morton; but Barwick observes, that, while he^vas able to subsist without it, he never troubled himself with looking after it; and, at last, when he had no alternative but to claim this, or be burthcnsome to his friends, he determined upon the former, and procured a copy of the vote, but found it to contain no more than that such a sum should be paid, but no mention either by whom or whence. And before he could obtain an explanation of the order to make the pension payable out of the revenues of his own bishopric, all the lands and revenues of it were sold or divided among members of parliament themselves. Only by the importunity of his friends he procured an order to have a thousand pounds out of their treasury at Goldsmitbs’-hall, with which he paid his debts, and purchased to himself an annuity of 200l. per annum, during life; which annuity was

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

Bishop Morton was of low stature, but of an excellent constitution, which he preserved to the last. Dr. Barwick represents him as a man of extensive learning, great piety, hospitality, and charity, and of great temperance and moderation in matters of controversy. He carried on an extensive correspondence with the learned men of his time, and was himself distinguished for his liberal patronage of such. He was particularly the friend and patron of the celebrated Dr. Donne. On one occasion he gave Donne a sum of money, saying, “Here Mr. Donne, take this, gold is restorative:” Donne replied, “Sir, I doubt I shall never restore it back again.” Bishop Morton! s greatest blemish seems to have been his acceding to, or, in truth, in some measure drawing up, king James’s declaration, usually called the "Book of Sports/' allowing and enjoining public amusements on Sunday, by way of counteracting the endeavours of the popish party, who countenanced such amusements in order to draw the people from the church, By this declaration, the appearing at church was made a qualification for the sports, an absurdity so gross, as to be equalled only by the injustice of compelling clergymen to proclaim it in the pulpit. The readers will find this curious law in the note*, and we are sorry to add, on the

should be prohibited on Sundays, as shall be barred from this benefit and

bear and bull-baiting, interludes, and liberty; they being therefore unworthy

*'That all such known recusants, either church and serve God.“3.” All thaty

The works of this prelate were, 1. “Apologia Catholica,” parti. Lond. 1605, 4to, dedicated to Dr. Richard Bancroft, archbishop of Canterbury. 2. “An exact Discovery of Romish Doctrine in the case of Conspiracy and Rebellion or Romish Positions and Practices,” &c. Lond. 1605, 4to, occasioned by the discovery of the gunpowdertreason-plot. 3. “Apologia Catholica,” part II. Lond. 1606, 4to. 4. “A full Satisfaction concerning a double Romish Iniquitie, hainous Rebellion, and more than heathenish Æquivocation containing three parts. The two former belong to the Reply upon the Moderate Answer: the first for confirmation of the discovery in these two points, treason and equivocation; the second is a justification of protestants touching the same points. The third part is a large discourse confuting the reasons and grounds of other priests, both in the case of rebellion and ^equivocation: published by authoritie,” Lond. 1606, 4to. Father Robert Parsons, the Jesuit, undertook to vindicate his friend, the writer of the “Moderate Answer:” in a book published under the name of P. R. and entitled “ATreatise, tending to Mitigation towards Catholic subjects in England, against Tho. Morton,” 1607, 4to. To this our author returned an answer, entitled, 5. “A Preamble unto an Incounter with, P. R. the author of the deceitful Treatise of Mitigation,” Lond. 1608, 4to. To this book and some others of our

creations," were also debarred that party, will easily see and grant, that

before the end of all divine services for God, and to be instructed out of his

that day, were to be presented and word; and consequently to stop the

sharply punished.“3.” That every current both of popery and prophaneperson should resort to his own parish- ness, by allowing them a small latitude

"That each parish by itself should and bounded. . All the arguments

pons should be carried or used in the declaration (taking it as it is still, and said times of recreation." Dr. Bar- ever was restrained by these limitawick, who shews as much want of tions and conditions), are grounded up.

restrictions, and compare them with is applied, or misapplied to the Lord’s

the temper of the people ia those parts Day“author, father Parsons having made a reply under the title of” A sober Reckoning with Mr. Tho. Morton,“printed in 160y, 4to; the latter wrote, 6.” The Encounter against Mr. Parsons,“Lond. 1609, 4to. 7.” An Answer to the scandalous Exceptions of Theophiltis Higgons,“London, 1609, 4to. 8.” A Catholike Appeale for Protestants out of the Confessions of the Romane Doctors, particularly answering the misnamed Catholike Apologie for the Romane Faith out of the Protestants, manifesting the antiquitie of our Religion, and satisfying all scrupulous objections, which have been urged against it,“Lond, 1610, fol. He was engaged in writing this work by archbishop Bancroft, as he observes in his dedication; and Dr. Thomas James took the pains to examine some of his quotations in the Bodleian library. It has never yet been answered. 9.” A Defence of the Innocencie of the three Ceremonies of the Church of England, viz. the Surplice, Crosse after Baptisme, and Kneeling at the receiving of the blessed Sacrament. Divided into two parts. In the former whereof the generall arguments urged by the nonconformists, and in the latter part their particular accusations against these three ceremonies, are severally answered and refuted. Published by authority.“Second edit. London, 1619, in 4to. This was attacked by an anonymous author, generally supposed to be Mr. William Ames; which occasioned a Defence of it, written by Dr. John Burges of Sutton Colefield in Warwickshire, and printed at London in 1631, 4to, under the title of” An Answer to a Pamphlet entitled A Reply to Dr. Morton’s general Defence of three innocent Ceremonies.“10.” Causa Regia,“London, 1620, 4to, written against cardinal Be) tannin’s book,” De Officio Principis Christiani.“11.” The Grand Imposture of the now Church of Rome, concerning this Article of their Creed, The holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church.“The second edition enlarged was printed at London in 1628, 4to. There was an answer published to this, under the name of J. S. and entitled” Anti-Mortonns.“12.” Of the Institution of the Sacrament, &c. by some called the Mass,“&c. Lond. 1631, reprinted with additions in 1635, folio. As some strictures were published on the first edition by a Romish author, under the name of an English baron, Dr. Morton replied in, 13.” A Discharge of five Imputations of Mis- allegations charged upon the bishop of Duresme by an English baron,“London, 1633, 8vo. 14.” Antidotum adversus Ecclesiae Romans de Merito ex: Condigno Venenum,“Cambridge, 1637, 4to. 15.” Replica sive Refutatio Confutationis C. R.“Lond. 1638, 4to. This is an answer to a piece published by C. R. who was supposed to be the bishop of Chakedon, against the first part of our author’s Catholic Apology. 16. A Sermon preached before the king at Newcastle, upon Rom. xiii. 1. Lond. 1639, 4to. 17.” De Eucharistia Controversiae Decisio,“Cambridge, 1640, 4to. 18.” A Sermon on the Resurrection,“preached at the Spittle in London April 26. Lond. 1641, 8vo. 1.9. A Sermon preached at St. Paul’s June 19, 1642, upon 1 Cor. xi. 16. and entitled” The Presentment of a Schismatic.!*,“” Lond. 1642, 4to. 20. “Confessions and Proofs of Protestant Divines,” &c. Oxford, 1644, 4to, published without his name or knowledge of it, and written in defence of episcopal government, and sent to archbishop Usher, who committed it to the press with some other excellent collections of his own upon the same subject. 21. “Ezekiel’s Wheels,” &c. Lond. 1653, in 8vo. The subject of this book is meditations upon God’s Providence. Besides these printed works, he left a considerable number of manuscripts, “some in my custody,” says Dr. Barwick, “which 1 found by him at his death; and some (that I hear of) in the hands of others: all of them once intended for the press, whereof some have lost their first perfection by the carelessness and negligence of some that should have kept them others want his last hand and eye to perfect them and others only a seasonable time to publish them. And he might and would have left many more, considering how vigorous his parts were even in his extreme old age, if the iniquity of the times had not deprived him of most of his notes and papers.” Among these unpublished Mss. were: 1. “Tractatus de externo Judice iniallibili ad Doctores Pontificios, imprimis vero ad Sacerdotes Wisbicenses.” 2. “Tractatus de Justificatione.” Two copies, both imperfect. 3. “Some Papers written upon the Controversy between bishop Montague and the Gagger.” 4. “A Latin edition of his book called the Grand Imposture.” Imperfect. 5. Another edition of both the parts of his book called “Apologia Catholica.” 6. “An Answer to J. S. his Anti-Mortonus.” Imperfect. 7. His treatise concerning Episcopacy above mentioned, revised and enlarged. 8. A treatise concerning Prayer in art tinknown tongue. 9. A Defence of Infants 1 Baptism against Mr. Tombes and others. 10. Several Sermons. II. “A Kelation of the Conference held at York by our author, with Mr. Young and Mr. Stillington; and a further confutation of R. G. in defence of the Articles of the church of England.” Almost the last act of his life was to procure from the few remaining bishops in England, a refutation of the fable of the Nag’s Head ordination, which was revived by some of the popish persuasion in 1658. What he procured on the subject was afterwards published by bishop Uramhai.

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

1538, 4to, in which he is very severe on Henry and his defender, and has much the best of the argument in his second and fourth chapters, which treat on tlje king’s divorce, and on the violent death of More, although his style is coarse. (See Cochlæus, where Morysin is improperly called D. D.) 2. “An exhortation to stir up Englishmen in defence of their country,” Lond.

1539, 8vo. 3. “Invective against the great and detestable vice, Treason,” ibid. 1539, 8vo. 4. “Comfortable consolation for the birth of prince Edward, rather than sorrow for the death of queen Jane.” Bale ascribes other pieces to him, and some translations. In Ayscough’s Catalogue, and in the Harieian collection are some of his ms letters, maxims, and sayings.

, a native of Lincolnshire, was born in 1566, and educated in the university of Cambridge, of which he became a fellow, and studied civil law. Obtaining from the master and fellows of his house a licence to travel, he set out, and spent about ten years abroad. He had previously been incorporated M. A. in the university of Oxford. Soon after his return he went to Ireland in 1598, where his brother, sir Richard Moryson, was vicepresident of Minister, and was there made secretary to the lord deputy, sir Charles Blount, lord Mountjoy. He died about 1614, and three years after, his travels appeared under the title of “An Itineraty, containing ten years travels through the twelve dominions of Germany,” &c. Lond. 1617, folio. This was first written in Latin, but afterwards translated by himself into English. He is also the author of “An History of Ireland from 1599 to 1603; with a short narration of the state of the kingdom from the year 1169,” 2 vok. 8vo. The only copy we have seen of this work (to which Harris gives no date) is dated Dublin, 1735.

Moschus and Bion, for they have usually been joined together, were two Grecian poets of antiquity, who flourished about 200 years B. C. and were contemporaries of Theocritus. The prodigious credit of Theocritus as a pastoral poet enabled him to engross not only the fame of his rivals, but their works too. In the time of the latter Grecians, all the ancient idyliiums were heaped together into one collection, and Theocritus’s name prefixed to the whole volume; but learned men having adjudged some of the pieces to their proper owners, the claims of Moschus and Bion have been admitted to a few little pieces, sufficient to make us inquisitive about their character and story. Yet all that can be known of them must be collected from their own small remains for Moschus, by composing his exquisite “Elegy on Bion,” has given the best memorials of Bion’s life, as well as the most perfect composition of its kind. We learn from it, that Bion was of Smyrna, that he was a pastoral poet, and that he unhappily perished by poison, and, as it should seem, not accidentally, but by the command of some great person. Moschus and Theocritus have by some critics been supposed the same person; but there are irrefragable testimonies against it. Moschus, in the “Elegy on Bion,” introduces Theocritus bewailing the same misfortune in another country and Servius says that Virgil chose to imitate Theocritus preferably to Moschus, and others who had written pastorals. Some will have it that Moschus, as well as Bion, lived later than Theocritus, upon the authority of Suidas, who affirms Moschus to have been the scholar of Aristarchus, in the reign of Ptolemy Philometor; while others suppose him to have been the scholar of Bion, and probably his successor in governing the poetic school. The latter supposition is collected from the elegy of Moschus, and does not seem improbable. The few but inimitable remains of these two poets are to be found in all editions of the “Poetas Minores,” and of separate editions there are some very valuable ones, particularly the rare and curious one of Mekerchus, printed at Bruges, 1565, 4to; and those of Schwebelius, Venice, 1746, 8vo; of Heskin, Oxford, 1748, 8vo, and of Gilbert Wake field, 1795, 8vo.

, an artist of much reputation and amiable character, was born at Shafhausen, in Switzerland, in 1705. When young, he visited a distant Canton, where he met with one of his townsmen, and being inclined to travel, was soon persuaded to make a tour to England, and followed the profession of a chaser in gold, in which art he was always considered as holding the first rank. But his skill was not confined to this alone; he possessed an universal knowledge in all branches of painting and sculpture, which perfectly qualified him for the place of Keeper, to which he was appointed when the Royal Academy was first instituted in 1768, the business of which principally consists in superintending and instructing the students, who draw or model from the antique figures. He may be truly said to have been the father of the present race of artists; for long before the royal academy was established, he presided over the little societies which met. first in Salisbury court, and afterwards in St. Martin’s-lane, where they drew from living models. Perhaps nothing that can be said will more strongly imply his amiable disposition, than that all the different societies with which he was connected, always turned their eyes upon him for their treasurer and chief manager; when, perhaps, they would not have contentedly submitted to any other authority. His early society was composed of men whose names are well known in the world; such as Hogarth, Rysbrach, Roubiliac, Wills, Ellis, Vanderbank, &c.; and though he outlived all the companions of his youth, he might to the last have boasted of a succession equally numerous; for all that knew him were his friends.

As an artist, his abilities were not confined merely to chasing; he might also be considered as one of our best medallists, and painted in enamel with great beauty and accuracy, and many of his productions, particularly some watch-cases, were most elegant and classical in their enrichments. He was aLo well skilled in the construction of the human figure.

When appointed keeper of the royal academy, his conduct was ex'emplary, and worthy to be imitated by whoever shall succeed him in that office. As he loved the employment of teaching, he could not fail of discharging that duty with diligence. By the propriety of his conduct he united the love and respect of the students; he kept order in the academy, and made himself respected, without the austerity or importance of office all noise and tumult immediately ceased on his appearance at the same time there was nothing forbidding in his manner, which might restrain the pupils from freely applying to him for advice or assistance. All this excellence, says sir Joshua Reynolds, had a firm foundation; he was a man of sincere and ardent piety, and has left an illustrious example of the exactness with which the subordinate duties may be expected to be discharged by him whose first care is to please God. Few men have passed a more inoffensive, or perhaps a more happy life; if happiness or enjoyment of life consists in having the mind always occupied, always intent upon some useful art, by which fame and distinction may be acquired. Mr. Moser’s whole attention was absorbed, either in practice, or something that related to the advancement of art.

Mr. Moser died at his apartments in Somerset-place, Jan. 24, 1783, in the seventy-eighth year of his age, leaving one daughter, who has distinguished herself by the admirable manner in which she paints and composes pieces of flowers, of which many samples have been seen in the exhibitions. She has had the honour of being much employed in this way by their Majesties, and for her extraordinary merit has been received into the royal academy. She married a gentleman some years ago of the name of Lloyd, but is now a widow.

, a celebrated Armenian archbishop, who flourished about the year 462, was esteemed one of the most learned men of his nation, having studied Greek at Athens, from which language he made many versions into the Armenian. His principal work is “A History of Armenia,” from the deluge to the middle of the fifth century, first published in Armenian in 1695, by Thomas Vanandensis, an Armenian bishop, from one single manuscript, and that f a very faulty one. It was reprinted with a Latin version, in 1736, by William and George, the sons of the famous William Whiston, with a preface concerning the literature of the Armenians, and their version of the Bible; and an appendix containing two epistles, the one of the Corinthians to Paul the Apostle, the other of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, entire, from a ms. 4to. Of Moses, Messrs. Whiston say that he appears to have been a man of probity, simplicity, and sincerity, but of moderate learning, and rather too credulous. They think it was written in the latter end of the fifth century. They speak also of “An Abridgment of Geography,” published at Amsterdam in 1668; and some “Sacred Canticles,” to be sung in the Armenian language on the anniversary of Christ’s presentation at the temple. His history was the first book published in England in the Armenian language, at a time when no person here understood that language, and but two on the continent, La Croze, librarian to the king of Prussia, and Schroder, professor of the Oriental languages at Marpurg in Germany. It is a work now of rare occurrence.

, an illustrious German divine, was born at Lubeck, in 1695, of a noble family, which might seem to open to his ambition a fair path to civil promotion; but his zeal for the interests of religion, his thirst after knowledge, and particularly his taste for sacred literature, induced him to consecrate his talents to the service of the church. Where he was educated we have Dot learned; fcut he is said to have given early indications of a promising capacity, and of a strong desire of mental and literary improvement; and, when his parents proposed to him the choice of a profession, the church suggested itself to him as a proper department for the exercise of that zeal which disposed him to be useful to society. Being ordained a minister in the Lutheran church, he soon distinguished himself as an eloquent and useful preacher. His reputation in this character, however, was local and confined, but the fame of his literary ability diffused itself among all the nations of Christendom. The German universities loaded him with literary honours the king of Denmark invited him to settle at Copenhagen the duke of Brunswick called him thence to Helmstadt, where he filled the academical chair was honoured with the character of ecclesiastical counsellor to the court an,d presided over the seminaries of learning in the duchy of Wolfembuttle and the principality of Blakenburg. When a design was formed of giving an uncommon degree of lustre to the university of Gottingen, by filling it with men of the first rank in letters, king George II. considered Dr. Mosheim as worthy to appear at the head of it, in quality of chancellor; and he discharged the duties of that station with zeal and propriety, and his conduct gave general satisfaction. Here he died, universally lamented, in 1755. In depth of judgment, in extent of learning, in purity of taste, in the powers of eloquence, and in a laborious application to all the various branches of erudition and philosophy, he is said to have had very few superiors. His Latin translation of Cud worth’s “Intellectual System,” enriched with large annotations, discovered a profound acquaintance with ancient learning and philosophy. His illustrations of the Scriptures, his labours in defence of Christianity, and the light he cast upon religion and philosophy, appear in many volumes of sacred and prophane literature. He wrote, in Latin, 1. “Observationes sacra?, et historico- critic^,” Amst. 1721, 8vo. 2. “Vindicise antiquae Cnristianorum discipline, adv. J, Tolandi Nazarenum,” Hamb. 1722, 8vo. 3, “De aetate apologetici Tertulliani et initio persecutionis Christianorum sub Severo, commentatio,” Helm. 1724, 4to. 4. “Gallus glorias J. Christi, Spiritusque Sancti obtrectator, publicae contemtioni expositus,” Helm. 1736, 4to. 5. “Historia Tartarorum ecclesiastica,” Helm. 1741, 4to. 6. “De rebus Christianorum ante Constantinum Magnum commentarii,” ibid. 1753, 4to. 7. “Historia Mich. Served,” &c. But that by which he is best known in this country is his church-history. This was at first a small work, which appeared under the title of “Institutiones Historic Christiana?,” and passed through several editions. He was repeatedly urged by his learned friends to extend a work which they represented as too meagre for the importance of the subject. He acknowledged the objection, but alleged various avocations as an excuse for non-compliance. At length, however, he acceded to the wish of the public, and having employed two years in the augmentation and improvement of his history, he published it in 1755, before the end of which year he died. This was soon after translated into English by Dr. Maclaine, of whom we have recently given some account, and is now a standard book in our libraries. The best edition, as we have noticed in Maclaine’s article, is that of which Dr. Charles Coote was the editor and contimlator, in 1811, 6 vols. 8vo. This edition is also enriched by a masterly dissertation from the pen of Dr. Gteig, of Stirling, on the primitive form of the church, calculated to obviate certain prejudices which Mosheim had discovered in various parts of his otherwise Valuable history.

, a learned English clergyman, the eldest son of Robert Moss, of Posswick, in Norfolk, was born at Gillingham in that county, in or about 1666. His father had an estate which enabled him to provide handsomely for his four sons; Robert, the subject of this article, Samuel, who was brought up- as a merchant William, who died possessed of his father’s estate at Posswick and Charles Moss, M. D. Robert, after being educated at the public school at Norwich, was entered as a sizar of Bene‘t college, Cambridge, in 1682, and distinguished himself so much in his academical studies, that, after having taken his bachelor’s degree, he was chosen to a Norfolk fellowship, and became eminent also as a successful tutor. H’e received deacon’s orders in 1688, and priest’s in 1690. In 1693 he was appointed one of the twelve university preachers. His sermons at St. Mary’s were always attended by a full audience, as well as his disputations in the schools, in which he shewed a clear and distinguishing head, reasoned justly and closely in defending a question, and urged his objections with great acuteness when he bore the part of the opponent, always expressing himself with great ease and fluency, and in elegant Latin. After he had kept a divinity-act in the schools, in 1696, for the degree of B. D. there being a public commencement that year, he voluntarily undertook another on that occasion in St. Mary’s, where the commencement was held before the erection of the new regent-house, and acquitted himself in both to the general satisfaction; particularly, in maintaining the necessity of believing our Saviour as the true God, against the doctrine of Episcopius.

His first remove from the university was in consequence of his being appointed preacher to the honourable society of Gray’s. Inn, July 11, 1698, which preferment he enjoyed till 1714. In the following year, January 1699, he was named preacher-assistant of St. James’s, Westminster, by the rector, Dr. Wake, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury. In April 1701 he was appointed chaplain in ordinary to king William, and continued in the same office in the following reign. He was one of the chaplains in waiting, when queen Anne, in April 1705, visited the university of Cambridge, and he was on that occasion created D. D. In 1708 he was chosen, by the parish, Tuesday lecturer at St. Lawrence’s Jewry, near Guildhall, in the room of Dr. Stanhope, who then resigned it, and supported the credit and character of that lecture with great approbation until 1727, when his growing infirmities induced him to resign it. In 1708-9 he was involved in a dispute with Dr. Thomas Greene, afterwards bishop of Norwich, but then master of Bene't college, who expected Dr. Moss to resign his fellowship on account of his non-residence and preferments in town. The debate was carried on by letter, and with too much warmth on both sides; but it appears, without ultimately creating any breach of friendship. On the death of Dr. Roderick, in 1712, Dr. Moss was appointed by her majesty to the deanery of Ely, and on this occasion quitted his fellowship in the college, and about 1714- resigned the preachership of Gray’s Inn, and at the same time was collated by Dr. Robinson, bishop of London, to the living of Gilston, alias Geddleston, a small rectory on the Eastern side of Hertfordshire, which, though of no great value, was of great service to him when incapacitated from taking long journeys, being a convenient distance between London and Ely, and an agreeable retirement.

In 1717 he is supposed to have been the author of “The Report vindicated from Misreports; being a defence of my lords the bishops, as well as the clergy of the lower house of convocation, in a letter from a member of that house to the prolocutor, concerning their late consultations about the bishop of Bangor’s writings; with a postscript, containing some few remarks upon the letter to Dr. Sherlock.” Dr. Moss did not meddle much in the controversies of the times, yet took some part in that which arose from the Ban'gorian dispute, and that on the validity or invalidity of lay-baptism. Concerning the latter he published a sermon entitled “The extent of Christ’s commission to baptize; with a preface, addressed to the dissenters.” Except these, we know not of any separate publications from his pen.

His constitution had been impaired by frequent and severe returns of the gout, with which he was afflicted early in life, and which at last deprived him of the use of his limbs. This, however, has partly been attributed to an injudicious regimen which he adopted, and the use of sulphur, although his brother, Dr. Charles Moss, physician at Hull, had endeavoured to point out the consequences, which proved to be exactly what he foretold. He died at a house in which he had for some time resided at Cambridge, March 26, 1729, in the sixty-third year of his age.

By his widow, a Mrs. Hinton, of Cambridge, he had no issue; but left her a comfortable provision, and after some legacies, bequeathed the bulk of his fortune to his third brother’s son, Mr. Charles Moss, who, as his biographer says, “was a promising youth, and student of Caius college, Cambridge.”

This “promising youth” was afterwards a fellow of his college, B. A. 1731, M. A. 1735, and D. D. 1747. He became archdeacon of Colchester, prebendary of Salisbury, rector of St. Andrew Under.shaft, of St. James’s, Westminster, 1750, and of St. George’s, Hanover-square, in 1759. He was elected bishop of St. David’s in 1766, and translated to Bath and Wells in 1774. He died April 13, 1802. Besides four or five sermons preached on public occasions, he printed “A Charge to the Clergy of the archdeaconry of Colchester, occasioned by the uncommon Mortality and quick succession of Bishops in the see of London, at a visitation holden in May 1764;” and twenty years before, an admirable tract in defence of bishop Sherlock’s celebrated “Tryal of the Witnesses of the Resurrection of Jesus.” This tract was entitled, “The Evidence of the Resurrection cleared from the exceptions of a late pamphlet, entitled * The Resurrection of Jesus considered by a moral philosopher, in answer to the Tryal of the Witnesses,'” &c. Lond. 1744. It afterwards appeared with the following title “The Sequel of the Tryal of the Witnesses of the Resurrection being an answer to the exceptions of a late pamphlet, &c. &c. revised by the author of the Tryal of the Witnesses,” ibid. 1749. “The title-page, however, alone is new; as the impression is identically the same as in 1744; but the inscription signed” C. M." is omitted in 1749. It was to Sherlock he owed his promotions, to whom he had been chaplain. His son, Dr. Charles Moss, to whom he left a vast property, was educated at Christ Chnrch, Oxford, of which diocese he became bishop in 1807, and died in 1811.

Dr. Robert Moss was buried, agreeably to his will, without much ostentation or expence, in the presbytery of the cathedral church of Ely, where the bishops, deans, and prebendaries are usually interred. After his death, Dr. Snape, provost of King’s college, published eight volumes of his sermons, the first four in 1736, with this character of him, “that he was of so open and generous a disposition, and such a stranger to all artificial disguise, that he affirmed, and you believed him he promised, and you trusted him you knew him, and you loved him that he was very communicative both of his substance and his knowledge, and a man of so much honour and integrity, candour and humanity, as, joined with his other Christian virtues and intellectual endowments, as well as a graceful person, genteel address, and engaging conversation, gained him universal respect;.” In his early college days he wrote some poetry. A Latin ode of his is printed in cc Moestissimae ac Iretissimse Academic Cantabrigiensis affectus decedente Carolo II. succedente Jacobo II.“and a Latin, poem and an English ode in the” Lacrymse Gantabrigienses in Obitum serenissimse Reginae Marix." Besides which he wrote several other poems, three of which were printed for the first time in the General Dictionary, 1Q vols. fol. Among his lesser legacies, it ought to be mentioned that he left a perpetual annuity of 5L issuing out of lands in Cheshire, to the master’s sizar of Caius college, as an augmentation of his salary. This sizar is to be of the name of Moss, if there be such an one of the college, otherwise of Norfolk, and of the free-school of Norwich, and may hold the place for seven years.