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

All this conduct rendered him very odious in Scotland, and he was accused of treachery and perfidy, and reproached by his old friends as a traitor and a renegado. The absurd and wanton cruelties which were afterwards committed, and which were imputed in a great measure to the archbishop, rendered him still more detested. Nor were these accusations without foundation, for when after the defeat of the presbyterians at Pentland-hills, he received an order from the king to stop the executions, he kept it for some time before he produced it in council.

Sharp had a servant, one Carmichael, who by his cruelties had rendered himself particularly odious to the presbyterians. Nine men formed the resolution, in 1679, of waylaying him in Magus-moor, about three miles from St. Andrew’s. While they were waiting for this man, the primate himself appeared in a coach with his daughter, and the assassins immediately considered this as a fit opportunity to rid the world of such a monster of perfidy and cruelty, and accordingly dispatched him with their swords, with every aggravation of barbarity, regardless of the tears and intreaties of his daughter. Such is the account given by all historians of the murder of Sharp; and that he fell by the hands of fanatics whom he persecuted, is certain. A tradition, however, has been preserved in different families descended from him, which may here be mentioned. The primate had, in the plenitude of his archiepiscopal authority, taken notice of a criminal amour carried on between a nobleman high in office and a lady of some fashion who lived within his diocese. This interference was in that licentious age deemed very impertinent; and the archbishop’s descendants believe that the proud peer instigated the deluded rabble to murder their ancestor. Such a tradition, however, is contrary to all historical testimony, and all historians have been particularly desirous to prove that the meeting with the assassins was purely accidental.

, a learned and worthy prelate, was descended from the Sharps of Little Horton near Bradford, in the county of York, a family of great antiquity. He was son of Mr. Thomas Sharp, an eminent tradesman, and was born at Bradford, in Feb. 1644. In April 1660, he was admitted a member of Christ college, Cambridge, where he pursued his studies with unwearied diligence, and obtained the degree of B. A. in Dec. 1663, with considerable reputation. Yet most of the time he had been afflicted with a quartan ague, the long continuance of which had also brought on hypochondriac melancholy. The favourite studies of his youth are said to have been those of botany and chemistry. About 1664, he was desirous to obtain a fellowship in his college, but the fellowships belonging to the county of York being then full, he was excluded by the statutes. At a future vacancy, however, the whole society were unanimous in their offer of it to him; but he had then better views.

In 1667, he took the degree of M. A. and was ordained both deacon and priest. In the same year, he was recommended by the celebrated Dr. Henry More, as domestic chaplain to sir Heneage Finch, then attorney-general to four of whose sons he was tutor two of whom, having afterwards entered into orders, he successively collated, when archbishop of York, to the rich prebend of Wetwang in his cathedral. At the opening of the Sheldonian theatre in July 1669, he was incorporated M. A. with several other Cambridge gentlemen, whom the fame of that intended solemnity had brought to Oxford. In 1672, sir Heneage Finch obtained for him from the king, the archdeaconry of Berkshire, vacant by the promotion of Dr. Mews to the see of Bath and Wells. In the same year, sir Heneage was appointed lord keeper of the great seal, when he gave an eminent proof of the confidence which he placed in the judgment and integrity of his chaplain. Attached to the interests of the church of England, he had considered the necessity of inquiring into the characters of those who might be candidates for benefices in the disposal of the seal. But the many avocations of his high office prevented his personal attention to this point: he therefore addressed his chaplain to this effect: “The greatest difficulty I apprehend in the execution of my office, is the patronage of ecclesiastical preferments. God is my witness, that I would not knowingly prefer an unworthy person; but as my course of life and studies has lain another way, I cannot think myself so good a judge of the merits of such suitors as you are. I therefore charge it upon your conscience, as you will answer it to Almighty God, that upon every such occasion, you make the best inquiry, and give me the best advice you can, that I may never bestow any favour upon an undeserving man; which, if you neglect to do, the guilt will be entirely yours, and I shall deliver my soul.” This trust, so solemnly committed to his care, Dr. Sharp faithfully discharged and his advice was no less faithfully followed by his patron, so long as he continued in office and never was a conscientious disposal of church preferment of more importance than in the dissolute reign of Charles II.

In 1674, he preached a sermon, the first in the collection of his printed works, which occasioned a controversy; and to that controversy we are indebted for his excellent “Discourses on Conscience.” In 1675, he was preferred by the kindness of the lord keeper to a prebend of Norwich, as also to the valuable rectory of St. Bartholomew Exchange, London; and not long afterwards, to the rectory of St. Giles’s in the Fields. At this time, there were resident in London, some of the most eminent divines of our nation, with whom he had the happiness to be well acquainted. Tillotson and Clagett were his more particular friends: his connection with Tillotson had commenced early in life, and to Clagett he was attached by a similarity of manners, of study, and of inclination. On the death of Ciagett, he published a volume of his sermons, to which he prefixed an account of his worthy friend. (See William Clagett.) In 1679, he took the degree of D.D. in which year he had accepted the lectureship at St. Laurence Jury, which he resigned in 1683. In 1681, he was promoted by the interest of his former patron, now lord high chancellor, to the deanery of Norwich. Upon the death of Charles II. he drew up the address of the grand jury for the city of London. He had been chaplain to that monarch, as he was also to his infatuated successor.

In the reign of James, he was one of those distinguished preachers, who vindicated with boldness the reformed religion, and exposed with success the errors of popery. On May 2, 1686, he delivered in his church of St. Giles’s, a memorable discourse, in which he expressed a contempt of those who could be converted by any arguments in favour of the Romish faith. It was therefore considered as a reflection not only upon those courtiers who had conformed to that religion, but even upon the king himself; and he accordingly experienced the resentment of James and his party. On June 17 following, a mandate was issued to Compton, bishop of London, to suspend the obnoxious preacher; but Compton was too firm to the protestant interest to obey so tyrannical a command. He wrote a letter to lord Sunderlaud, which he requested might be communicated to the king. In this letter, he said “that the only power he had over Sharp, was as his judge; and that he could not in that capacity condemn him, without the forms of law.” He added, " Sharp was so willing to give his majesty all reasonable satisfaction, that he made him the bearer of the letter/' But to this no answer was returned, nor was Sharp admitted. The bishop therefore recommended Sharp to desist from the exercise of his function: and prevailed on him to write a petition to the king, in which he expressed his sorrow for constructions that were offensive, and promised to be more guarded for the future. But the petition was not admitted to be read. It had been resolved indeed to humiliate Compton, as well as to punish Sharp. For, because the mild prelate refused to condemn him uncited, unheard, undefended, untried, he was himself suspended by that ecclesiastical commission, which suspended also Sharp; and was another example of the vengeance which arbitrary power determined to execute on those who had the courage to oppose it.

Dr. Sharp, during his suspension, resided at his deanery at Norwich. He there amused his leisure hours in collecting coins, of which, as well British, Saxon, and English, as Greek and Roman, he then and afterwards amassed sufficient to furnish a choice and valuable cabinet. To his researches of this kind, the learned and the curious are indebted for his ingenious and accurate “Remarks on the English, Scots, and Irish money,” which he communicated in 16.98-9 to Mr. Ralph Thoresby; in an introductory letter to whom he acknowledges his partiality to the study of antiquity, but modestly fears that he made that a business, which should be only a recreation. Part of these “Remarks” were published by Mr. Ives in his “Select Papers,” but the whole by Mr. Nichols, in 1785, in his “Bibliotheca Topographica Britannica,” vol. VI. They were communicated to him by Mr. Gough, who purchased them in ms. at the sale of Mr. Ralph Thoresby’s Museum, in 1764.

Dr. Sharp did not remain long in disgrace. In January 1686-7, he received information from lord Sunderland that he was restored, and might return to his parochial charge. From the time of his suspension, till this welcome news arrived, a guard or sentinel is said to have attended hi* lodgings. In Aug. 1688, he was summoned with the other archdeacons, before the ecclesiastical commission, for disobeying the king’s orders in respect to the “Declaration for liberty of conscience.” But they agreed not to appear before that court, and Dr. Sharp drew up the reasons of their refusal.

On Jan. 27 following, he preached before the prince of Orange, and on the 30th, before the convention. On botii occasions he prayed for king James. The first time it gave no offence, because the abdication of the monarch had not then been voted. But the throne being declared vacant on the 28th, the prayer of Dr. Sharp for the king, as well as some passages in his sermon on the 30th, were heard not without surprise, nor without disgust. The vote of thanks to him for his discourse was long debated. The compliment at length was paid, with a request to print it: which, however, he thought proper to decline. Unfavourable as this affair might seem to his promotion on the accession of William, yet he explained himself in such a manner to that prince, as to become an object of his regard. Accordingly, on the promotion of Dr. Tillotson to the deanery of St. Paul’s, he was promoted to the deanery of Canterbury, and installed Nov. 25, 1689: and was succeeded in the deanery of Norwich by Dr. Henry Fairfax. About this time, he was appointed one of the commissioners for “revising the Liturgy;” an employment in which he assisted with particular attention, but the spirit of opposition prevailing, the labours of these commissioners were rendered useless.

The merit of dean Sharp was now in the highest estimation, and upon the deprivation of those bishops who refused the oaths to William and Mary, he was considered as a proper person to succeed to one of the vacant sees. But neither the favour of his majesty, nor the persuasion of his friends, could prevail on him Ho accept the offer. He declined the promotion, not from any scruple of conscience, but from a delicacy of feeling; for he entertained a particular esteem for the prelates who were deprived. This refusal, however, which reflects equal honour on his disinterestedness and on his sensibility, displeased the king. But his friend, Dr. Tillotson, the day after his nomination to the see of Canterbury, waited on him, and proposed an expedient, by which he might accede, without violating his resolution, to the kind intention of his majesty. This was, that he should promise to accept the see of York, when it should become vacant, and that he should ground his present refusal on his wish to be preferred to his native county. To this he agreed, and Dr. Tillotson acquainted the king with what had passed; when his majesty signified his approbation of Dr. Sharp’s intention. In a few days afterwards, Lamplugh, the archbishop of York, died, and Sharp was consecrated in his room, July 5, 1691. His elevation to this dignity, says Thoresby, the historian of Leeds, was not only to the comfort and honour of his native county and family, but to the universal satisfaction and joy of the whole nation.

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

On the accession of queen Anne, the archbishop was sworn one of her privy council, and was appointed lord almoner. In 1705, he Concurred with those who apprehended the church to be in danger; but their opinions, however zealously defended, when they became the subject of parliamentary debate, were discountenanced by a great majority; and the church was declared to be “in a most safe and flourishing condition.” In 1706, he was nominated one of the commissioners for treating of the union between England and Scotland. He is said to have been appointed merely out of respect to his dignity; but would not be present, even once, at the treaty. In the affair of Sacheverell, on which the opinions of men were so much divided, in 1709, he joined with those peers, who expressed the most contemptuous opinion of the sermon, bat did not > think the preacher guilty of a misdemeanour and who entered their protest against the sentence of the majority. He afterwards opposed the intended promotion of Swift to an English mitre, in this remarkable caution to the queen, "that her majesty should be sure that the man whom she

(was going to make a bishop, was at least a Christian." To this, it is said, he was induced by the solicitation of Swift’s implacable enemy, the duchess of Somerset: to whose earnest intreaties, rather than to the interposition of Sharp, Swift owed his disappointment. The archbishop, we are told, was more reconciled to Swift afterwards, and even asked his forgiveness; yet, although his grace might be led to an unjust insinuation of Swift’s not being a Christian, and might, as all do, respect his uncommon talents, it does not appear, from a review of the whole of his character, that he would have done much honour to the episcopal bench.

In 1712, archbishop Sharp perceived his health to decline, and was recommended to try the benefit of the Bath waters, but his recovery soon appeared hopeless. Not long before his death, he procured sir William Dawes to be appointed his successor, merely from his good opinion of him, “that he would be diligent in executing the duties of his office.” In the reign of queen Anne, the greatest attention was always paid to his recommendation, and in that of William, also, he had been joined with several other disinterested prelates, in a commission from his majesty, “to recommend deserving clergymen for the crown-preferments.” Among the many distinguished divines who, on rarious occasions, had been indebted to his interest, were his particular friend Tillotson, the bishops Bull, Beveridge, Wilson, Potter, and Gibson; Dr. Prideaux, though he himself thought otherwise, and Dr. Mills.

He died at Bath, Feb. 2, 1713-14, in the sixty-ninth year of his age. His remains were removed to York, and interred privately in the cathedral on the 16th following, where a marble monument of the Corinthian order, was afterwards placed to his memory, with an elegant Latin inscription by bishop Smalridge, one of his intimate friends. Archbishop Sharp had married, in 1676, Elizabeth, the youngest daughter of William Palmer, of Winthorp, in the county of Lincoln, esq. by whom he had issue. His eldest son, John Sharp, esq. a learned and ingenious gentleman, is said to have been member of parliament for Rippon, in the county of York, but this must have been before the union, as we find no such name in the list of members for Rippon since that event. His son Thomas we shall soon have occasion to notice.

The character of Sharp, says Mr. Todd, whose accurate and well-arranged memoir we have followed, affords one of the best examples that can challenge imitation, whether he is considered as a man, as a scholar, as a divine, or as a diocesan. His amiable disposition and unshaken integrity, his distinguished learning and extensive charity, will transmil his name to latest ages, as one of the greatest ornaments of this country. He was that faithful and vigilant governor, who promoted the diligent clergy of his own diocese to the dignities in his cathedral: who conferred, indeed, on the deserving whatever was in his own gift, without the least regard to political opinions and partv interest; who enforced the laudable injunction of residence to the prebendaries of York, Southwell, and Rippon: who, in all respects, promoted by true discipline the decency of the church, as “by sound doctrine he exhorted and convinced the gainsayers.”

His “Sermons,” which are collected into 7 vols. 8vo, have always been admired, as written with clearness, and they were delivered with grace and justness. It was observed of Tillotson and Sharp, that the two metropolitical sees were filled by the t two best preachers of their time. In the management of controversy he was calm and candid, and scorned to calumniate or misrepresent the subjects of dispute. He was wont to say of himself, “That in his sermons against the papists he had always dealt honestly and fairly with them, chargiBg them with nothing but what their church openly avowed in her creed, and councils, and public offices.”

, a younger son of the preceding, was born about 1693. He was admitted of Trinity college, Cambridge, in 1708, and took his degrees of B. A. in 1712, and M. A. 1716. He was also a fellow of his college, and took the degree of D. D. in 1729. He was chaplain to archbishop Dawes; and in July 1720, was collated to the rectory of Rothbury, in the county of Northumberland. He held the prebend of Southwell, and afterwards that of Wistow, in York cathedral. In 1722, he was collated to the archdeaconry of Northumberland; and in 1755, succeeded Dr. Mangey in the officially of the dean and chapter. He died March 6, 175S, and was interred in Durham cathedral, of which also he had held the tenth prebend from the year 1732. He published a “Concio ad Clerum,” when he took his doctor’s decree; and in 1753, “The Rubric in the book of Common Prayer, and the Canons of the church of England, so far as they relate to the Parochial Clergy, considered in a course of visitation sermons,” 8vo. A volume of his “Sermons on several occasions” was published in 1763, 8vo. Dr. Sharp also engaged, but, as Mr. Jones says, much against his will, in the Hutchinsonian controversy, and published two dissertations concerning the etymology of the Hebrew words Elohim and Berith, and “Discourses on the antiquity of the Hebrew tongue and character.”

Dr. Thomas Sharp left three sons, John, who after various promotions became also archdeacon of Northumberland, and a prebendary of Durham, and died in 1792. He had the merit of arranging and establishing lord Crew’s noble charity for sick and lame seamen at Bamborough, and conducted the institution with the greatest care and humanity. Dr. Sharp’s other sons were William, many years an eminent surgeon in London, who died in Is 10, aged eightyone, and Granville, the subject of the next article.

, eminent as a Christian, a scholar, and a gentleman, one of the sons of Dr. Thomas Sharp, and grandson to the archbishop, was born in 1734. He was educated for the bar, but did not practise at it. When he quitted the legal profession, he obtained a place in the ordnance office, which he resigned at the commencement of the American war; of the principles of which he did not approve. He now took chambers in the Temple, and devoted himself to a life of study; at the same time, laying himself out for public utility. He first became known to the public in the case of a poor and friendless negro, of the name of Somerset. This person had been brought from the West Indies to England, and falling into bad health, was abandoned by his master, and turned into the streets, either to die, or to gain a miserable support by precarious charity. In this destitute state, almost, it is said, on the point of expiring on the pavement of one of the public streets of London, Mr. Sharp chanced to see him. He instantly had him removed to St. Bartholomew’s hospital, attended personally to his wants, and in a short time had the happiness to see him restored to health. Mr. Sharp now clothed him, and procured him comfortable employment in the service of a lady. Two years had elapsed, and the circumstance almost, and the name of the poor negro, had escaped the memory of his benefactor, when Mr. Sharp received a letter from a person, signing himself Somerset, confined in the Poultry Compter, stating no cause for his commitment, but intreating his interference to save him from a greater calamity even than the death from which he had before rescued him. Mr. Sharp instantly went to the prison, and found the negro, who in sickness and misery had been discarded by his master, sent to prison as a runaway slave. Mr. Siiarp went immediately to the lord major, William Nash, esq. who caused the parties to be brought before him; when, after a long hearing, the upright magistrate decided that the master had no property in the person of the negro, in this country, and gave the negro his liberty. The master instantly collared him, in the presence of Mr. Sharp and the lord mayor, and insisted on his right to keep him as his property. Mr. Sharp now claimed the protection of the English law, caused the master to be taken into custody, and exhibited articles of peace against him for an assault and battery. After various legal proceedings, supported by him with most undaunted spirit, the twelve judges unanimously concurred in an opinion that the master had acted criminally. Thus did Mr. Sharp emancipate for ever the race of blacks from a state of slavery, while on British ground, and in fact banished slavery from Great Britain. Such an incident could not fail deeply to impress a benevolent mind; and slavery, in every shape and country, became the object of his unceasing hostility. In 17G9, he published a work, entitled “A Representation of the injustice and dangerous tendency of toleratinaSlavery, or of admitting the least claim of private property in the persons of men in England. 7 ' Having succeeded in the case of an individual negro, he interested himself in the condition of the many others who were seen wandering about the streets of London, and at his own expence collected a number of them, whom he sent back to Africa, where they termed a colony on the river Sierra Leone. He performed a still more essential service to humanity, by becoming the institutor of the” Society for the abolition of the Slave trade;“which, after contending against a vast mass of opposition, at length succeeded, as far as this country was concerned, and it is hoped will soon be universal. Similar principles led Mr. Sharp to use his endeavours to restrain the practice of marine impressment; and a citizen of London having been carried off by a press-warrant, Mr. Sharp obtained a habeas corpus from the court of king’s bench, to bring him back from a vessel at the Nore; and by his arguments obliged the court to liberate him. His political principles led him to become the warm advocate of” parliamentary reform,“and he published” A Declaration of the people’s natural right to a share in the legislature, which is the fundamental principle of the British constitution of state." In this he proposed to restore the ancient tithing$, hundreds, &c. and the whole body of the people were to form a national militia, each thousand to constitute a regiment, the alderman or magistrate to be the colonel; and each hundred to constitute a company, the constable of each fo.r the time being to be their captain. So many of the thousands to be summoned once in every year, by their magistrate, as would have a right to vote in their respective hundreds, before the constable, in the choice of their part of the representative legislature. After stating that the division of this kingdom into tithings and hundreds was instituted by the immortal Alfred, he endeavours to prove that such a division is consistent with the most perfect state of liberty that man is capable of enioying, and yet fully competent to answer all the purposes of mutual defence, to secure the due execution of the laws, and maintain public peace. Mr. Sharp was educated in the principles of the established church, and through life shewed a warm attachment to them. This led him to recommend an episcopal church in America; and he introduced the first bishops from that country to the archbishop of Canterbury for consecration.

Mr. Sharp died July 6, 1813, and like Cato, though advanced to the age of 79, he pursued his studies with all the ardour of youth. He was an able linguist, deeply read in theology, and was well acquainted with the scriptures in the original tongues. He was pious and devout, without gloom, strictly moral and temperate, a great lover of music, and cheerful in conversation. His services to humanity were very distinguished, and few persons in private life have deserved a higher or more honourable commemoration. He possessed a very extensive library, in which the theologian, lawyer, classical scholar, politician, antiquary, and orientalist, might find almost every thing of which they could stand in need; and his collection of bibles was esteemed the best in the kingdom; some of these last he gave to the library of the British and Foreign Bible society, of which he was a zealous promoter. The rest, and remaining part of his library, were sold by auction by Messrs. Leigh and Sotheby.

Mr. Sharp wrote, besides the works already mentioned 1. “Remarks on several very important Prophecies in five Parts. I. Remarks on the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 16th Verses in the seventh Chapter of Isaiah; in answer to Dr. Williams’s Critical Dissertation on the same subject; II. A Dissertation on the nature and style of Prophetical Writings, intended to illustrate the foregoing Remarks III. A Dissertation on Isaiah vii. 8 IV. On Gen. xlix. 10; V. Answer to some of the principal Arguments used by Dr. Williams in Defence of his Critical Dissertation,” 1768, 8vo. 2. “A Representation of the injustice and dangerous tendency of tolerating Slavery, &c.” with some other tracts in support of his opinions. 3. “Remarks on the Encroachments on the Riyer Thames, near Durham Yard,” 1771, 8vo. 4. “Remarks on the Opinions of some of the most celebrated writers on Crown Law, respecting the due distinction between Manslaughter and Murder; being an attempt to shew tiiat the plea of sudden anger cannot remove the imputation and guilt of murder, when a mortal wound is wilfully given with a weapon: that the indulgence allowed by the courts to voluntary manslaughter in rencounters, and in sudden affrays and duels, is indiscriminate, and without foundation in law: and that impunity in such cases of voluntary manslaughter is one of the principal causes of the continuance and present increase of the base and disgraceful practice of duelling. To which are added, some thoughts on the particular case of the gentlemen of the army, when involved in such disagreeable private differences. With a prefatory address to the reader, concerning the depravity and folly of modern men of honour, falsely so called; including a short account of the principles and designs of the work,” 1773, 8vo. 5. “Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article in the Greek of the New Testament; containing many new proofs of the Divinity of Christ, from passages which are wrongly translated in the common English Version. To which is added a plain matter-of-fact argument for the Divinitv of Christ, by the Editor,” Durhiin, '798, 8vo. The first twenty pages of this important, critical, and theological work, appeared in t797, in the second fasciculus of the “Museum Oxoniense,” published by Dr. Burgess, the present very excellent bishop of St. David’s. A Supplement to the Remarks was, at the same time, promised in the third fasciculus of the Museum. “But,” says Dr. Burgess, “as many learned friends concurred with the editor in thinking that the Remarks contain a very valuable accession to the evidences of Christ’s divinity, he was unwilling to detain the Supplement, which exemplifies the rules of the Remarks, any longer from the public; and has, therefore, prevailed on Mr. Sharp to permit him to publish it with the Remarks. He earnestly recommends them both to Mr. Wakeneiu’s must deliberate consideration. To Mr. Sharp’s Remarks and Supplement he has subjoined a plain historical proof of the divinity or Cnrist, iounded on Chnst’s own testimony of himself, attested and, interpreted by his living witnesses and enemies, the Jews; on the evidence of his trial and crucifixion; and on the most explicit declarations of the apostles after the resurrection of Christ. What appeared to him on a former occasion (in a sermon on the divinity of Christ, 1792, second edition), to be a substantial and unanswerable argument, he has, in this little exercise on the subject, endeavoured to render an easy and popular proof of our Saviour’s divinity. It was printed separately for the use of the unlearned part of his parishioners; and is subjoined to this treatise for the convenience of other unlearned readers, and such as have not much considered the subject.” A second edition of the “Remarks” was published in 1804, with the following letter to Mr. Sharp prefixed: “Dear sir, I have great pleasure in presenting you with a new edition of your valuable tract. That you have very happily and decisively applied your rule of construction to the correction of the common English version of the New Testament, and to the perfect establishment of the great doctrine in question, the divinity of Christ, no impartial reader, I think, can doubt, who is at all acquainted with the original language of the New Testament. I say decisively applied, because I suppose, in all remote and written testimony, the weight of evidence must ultimately depend on the grammatical analogy of the language in which it is recorded. I call the rule yours; for, though it was acknowledged and applied by Bege and others to some of the texts alluded to by you, yet never so prominently, because singly, or so effectually, as in your remarks, In the addition to the former edition, I wished to excite the attention of a learned and declared enemy to the doctrine of our Saviour’s divinity; but he is no more and J do not know that he even expressed, or has left behind him, any opinion on the subject, or that any other Socinian has undertaken to canvass the principles of your Remarks. The public has, however, lately seen an ample and learned confirmation of your rule, drawn from a very minute, laborious, and candid examination of the Greek and Latin fathers, in ‘Six Letters addressed to Granville Sharp, Esq. respecting his Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article in the Greek Text of the New Testament. London, 1802.’ I have taken some pains to improve the plain argument for Christ’s divinity, which I before subjoined to your Remarks. In this edition I have prefixed to it a table of evidences by Dr. Whitby, which I hope the younger part of your readers will find useful to them in pursuing the different branches of this most important subject; and you, J think, will not disapprove, because it is conducive to the principal purpose of your tract.” Bishop Burgess afterwards adverted, in a note on his primary charge, to a weak attack on Mr. Granville Sharp, in a publication entiled “Six more Letters, &c. by Gregory Blunt, esq.” 1803. Of this Dr. Burgess says with great truth, “These letters are very well calculated to mislead the unlearned reader, by abstract questions, gratuitous assertions, and hypothetical examples, but communicate nothing on the score of authority, which bears any comparison with the unanimous consent of the Greek fathers; and nothing at all which has any pretence to grammatical observation.” In the latter part of 1812, Mr. Sharp demonstrated that his faculties retained their full vigour, by an elaborate illustration of the LXVIIIth Psalm, relative to the Hill of Bashan, and the calling together of the Jews.

, not related, as we have been told, to the preceding family, was an able and distinguished surgeon in the middle of the last century. He was a pupil of the celebrated Cheselden, and afterwards studied his profession with great zeal at the hospitals of Paris. He is said to have commenced his profession rather late in lire; yet after settling in London, and obtaining an appointment as surgeon of Guy’s hospital, his genius and assiduity soon obtained for him a high degree of celebrity, and extensive practice. He speaks of having known Voltaire early in life, and of being sometimes his conductor when that extraordinary genius was in London. He saw him likewise at Paris in 1749, and visited him for the last time during his travels in 1765. In the beginning of 1749 he was elected a fellow of the Royal Society, and a foreign member of the Academy of Surgery at Paris; and he contributed to the improvement of his art by two valuable publications, which passed through many editions, and were translated into several foreign languages. The first of these was “A Treatise on the Operations of Surgery, with a Description and Representation of the Instruments; and an Introduction on the Nature and Treatment of Wounds, Abscesses, and Ulcers;” first printed in 1739. The edition printed in 1751, is the sixth. The second work was entitled “A critical Inquiry into the present State of Surgery;” first printed, we believe, in 1750. The edition of 1761 is the founh. In 1765 Mr. Sharp visited the continent for the sake of health, if we mistake not; and on his return published “Letters from Italy, describing the Manners and Customs of that Country,” an 8vo volume, written in a lively pleasant style, but giving such an account of Italy as roused the indignation of Baretti (See Baretti, vol. III. p. 465.) and produced his “Account of the Manners and Customs of Italy;” and a reply afterwards from each of the parties. Some time before his death Mr. Sharp retired from business, and died March 24, 1778.

, D. D. F. R. and A. Ss. master of the Temple, and chaplain in ordinary to his majesty, was born in Yorkshire in 1713, and, after passing some time at the grammar-school of Hull, came to Westminster, where he studied under the celebrated Dr. Freind. While here, he fell into a youthful mistake, which rendered his continuance at the seminary uneasy to himself and his relations, who becoming acquainted with the late Principal Blackwell, then at London, they settled Mr. Sharpe with him in the summer of 1731. Mr. Blackwell was at that time Professor of Greek in the Marischal College of Aberdeen, and was publishing his “Enquiry into the Life and Writings of Homer,” so that Mr. Sharpe’s friends judged he might have a fair opportunity of making a considerable proficiency in the Greek language under a person so eniinently skilled in it. Mr. Sharpe was boarded in his house four years without stirring out of Scotland; and after he had finished his studies, returned to England, and in a few years entered into orders. When Dr. Seeker was promoted to the deanery of St. Paul’s, Mr. Sharpe was appointed minister of the Broad -way chapel, St. James’s, in which he continued till the death of Dr. Nicholls, of the Temple, when, on account of his great learning, he was declared the Doctor’s successor, and in this station he was at his death, which happened at the Temple-house, Jan. 8, 1771. The Doctor never was married. His abilities and attainments in every kind of useful knowledge were conspicuous, and his skill in the Oriental languages extensive and uncommon.

His works were, 1. “A Review of the Controversy about the meaning of Demoniacs in the New Testament,” 1738. 2. ' A Defence of the late Dr. Clarke, against the reply of Sieur L. P. Thummig,“1744. 3.” Two Dissertations, the first upon the origin of languages, the second upon the original powers of letters, with a Hebrew Lexicon,“1751. 4.” A Dissertation on the Latin Tongue,“1751. 5.” An Argument in defence of Christianity, taken from the concessions of the most ancient adversaries,“1755. 6.” An Introduction to Universal History, translated from the Latin of Baron Holberg,“1758. 7.” A second argument in defence of Christianity, taken from the ancient prophecies,“1762. 8.” The rise and fall of the holy city and temple of Jerusalem,“1764. 9.” The want of universality no objection to the Christian religion,“1765. 10.” Syntagma Dissertationum quas olim auctor doctissirnus Thomas Hyde, S. T. P. separatim edidit,“1767. Some of the prints in this were etched by Dr. Sharpe, who had a good talent in that branch of art, and sometimes, for his amusement, took likenesses of singular persons, and engraved them. Cole speaks of” an admirable etching“by him, of a country farmer asleep in a chair. He was a tenant of the Temple estate, and so very lethargic as to fall asleep in the chair when he was waiting for Dr. Sharpe’s receipt for his rent. 11.” The origin and structure of the Greek tongue,“1768. 12.” A Letter to the Right Rev. the Bishop of Oxford, containing remarks upon some strictures made by Archbishop Seeker on Merrick’s Annotations on the Psalms,“1769. 13.” The advantages of a Religious Education, a sermon preached at the Asylum,“1770. These publications are incontestable evidences of the abilities and application of the learned author, who also carried on an extensive literary correspondence with many eminent scholars both of his own and other countries, particularly Dr. Sykes and Dr. Hunt. Two volumes of his original letters are now before us, the one entitled * c From the time I went abroad,” which appears to have been in 1752; the other “Concerning the Latin and Hebrew Dissertations.” There are few particulars of a biographical kind in them, but abundant proof of the facility with which he could enter upon learned discussions without apparent preparation. After his death a volume of his “Sermons” was published by the Rev. Joseph Robertson in 1772.

, a clergyman’s son, born at Adstock, in Buckinghamshire, in the seventeenth century, was sent from Winchester school to New college, Oxford, where he was admitted perpetual fellow in 1649. In 1660 he took the degree of doctor of civil law, was prebendary and archdeacon of Winchester, and rector of Bishop’s Waltham, in Hampshire. He died July 11, 1684, having the character of a good divine, civilian, and lawyer,and well skilled in the nature and philosophy of plants. His works are: “The History of the Propagating and Improvement of Vegetables, by the concurrence of Art and Nature, &c.” Oxon. 1666, and 1672, 8vo. “Hypothesis de Officiis secundum Humanae Rationis Dictata, seu Naturae jus, unde Casus omnes Conscientitc quatenus Notiones a Natura supersunt dijudicari possint,” &c. ibid. 1660, 8vo, and 1682. This book was written against Hobbes. “Judicia (seu Legum Censurae) de variis Incontinentioe speciebus.” ibid. 1662, 8vo. “De finibus virtutis Christians,” or the ends of the Christian religion, in ten sermons, 4to.

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

In London his first employment was as a writer for the newspapers. In the spring of 1760 he was at St. Edmond’s Bury, probably a member of the Norwich company of comedians, and published under the name of W. Seymour, “Odes on the Four Seasons,” 4to, a performance which had been one of his youthful productions. In the summer of that year he joined the hasty raised troop with which Mr. Foote opened the Hay market with the “Minor,” in. which Shaw performed the part of Sir George Wealthy. The winter of that year he passed either in Ireland or in some country company, and afterwards performed on both the London theatres; but about 1762 abandoned a pursuit from which he was likely to derive neither profit nor credit. In the same year he resumed the pen, and the poetical war kindled up by Churchill raging at that juncture with great violence, he wrote a satire, called cc The Four Farthing Candles,“4to. in which he attacked Messrs. Lloyd, Churchill, Colman, and Shirley. This performance was executed with some spirit and success, and obtained so much notice, as to encourage him to proceed as an author. In 1766, he published” The Race, a poem," 4to, in which he characterized the chief poets of that period, and some of them with great severity. This poem was re-published and enlarged in the next year. It appears from it, that he had, by this time, no want of confidence in his powers. He had learnt to deal his satire about with no unsparing hand; and if it was not felt by the parties against whom it was directed, it was owing to no lenity or forbearance in the satirist.

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

In the foregoing poems are many allusions to the misery of their author, independent of the circumstances which gave rise to them. He was at this period afflicted with disease, which put on its most disgraceful form, and rendered him an object almost offensive to sight. He had possessed no small portion of vanity about his person, and this alteration added pungency to his afflictions. He however still continued to write, and in 1769 published “Corruption, a Satire, inscribed to the Right Hon. Richard Grenville, Karl Temple,” 4to. He afterwards is supposed to have written many political as well as poetical performances, and is recollected to have been a contributor, if not the editor of “The Freeholder’s Magazine.” One of his last pieces was an Elegy on the death of Charles Yorke, the Lord Chancellor, which was generally suspected to have been suppressed on the family’s paying a sum of money to the author: it even has been insinuated that it was written with that view, and it is to be feared that the morals of the author would not discountenance the opinion. At length, overwhelmed with complicated distress, he died at his house in Titchfield-street, Ox ford -market, Sept. 1, 1771, having exhibited to the world a miserable example of genius, extravagance, vanity, and imprudence genius to be commended, vices to be avoided, and follies to be despised.

, an eminent naturalist, the younger of two sons of the rev. Timothy Shaw, was born Dec. 10, 1751, at Bienon in Buckinghamshire, of which place his father was vicar. His propensity for the studies which rendered him distinguished, discovered itself at the early age of four years; when, entering into no such amusements as those with which children are generally delighted, he entertained himself with books, or wandered by the sides of ditches, catching insects, and taking them home with him, where he would spend all his leisure time in watching their motions and examining: their structure. He was educated entirely by his father; and as the precocity of his intellect gave him an aptitude for acquiring whatever it was wished that he should acquire, he was, to the credit of the preceptor as well as the pupil, abundantly qualified at the age of little more than thirteen, to enter upon a course of academical studies. In 1765 he was entered at Magdalen -hall, Oxford, where he was no less distinguished by the regularity of his conduct than by an uncommonly diligent application to his studies. On May 24, 1769, he was admitted to the degree of bachelor of arts; and on May ^6, 1772, to that of master of arts. That he might assist his father in his clerical duties, he took orders, and was ordained deacon in 1774, at Buckden, by Green, bishop of Lincoln, and performed regularly the duty at Stoke and Buckland, two chapels, each three miles apart from Bierton, the mother-church. As his predilection for natural science never forsook him, and feeling a stronger inclination for studies more connected with it than parochial duties and theological acquirements, he laid aside the clerical habit, and went to Edinburgh, where he engaged in a course of reading, and qualified himself for a profession more congenial with his favourite pursuit. Having directed his views to medicine, he attended for three years the lectures of Black and Cullen, and other eminent professors, and then returned to Oxford, where he obtained an appointment by which he acquired much celebrity, viz. deputy botanical lecturer. To this office he was appointed by Dr. Sibthorp, the botanical professor, who was then upon the eve of setting out upon his travels in Greece, &c. Upon the death of Dr. Sibthorp, Dr. Shaw was a candidate for the vacant chair of the professor of botany; and so high did the votes of the members of the university run in his favour, that he would have succeeded in his wishes, had it not been discovered that the statute relating to that professorship enacted that no person in orders should be deemed eligible. On October 17, 1787, he was admitted to the degrees of bachelor and doctor of medicine. It appears from the catalogue of of Oxford graduates that when he took these degrees he had removed his name from Magdalen-hall to Magdalencollege. In this year Dr. Shaw removed to London, where he practised as a physician. In 1788 some gentlemen, distinguished for their attachment to the study of, and eminent for their acquirements in natural history, established a society for the advancement of this science, under the name of the Linmean Society. Dr. (now sir James) Smith was elevated to the chair of president of this society, and Dr. Shaw was appointed one of the vice-presidents. Among the Linnsean transactions appear the following articles, contributed by Dr. Shaw: “Description of the Stylephorus cordatus, a new fish.” “Description of the Cancer stagnalis of Linnaeus.” “Remarks on Scolopendra electrica, and Scolopendra subterranea.” “A Note to Mr. Kirby’s Description of the new species of Hirudo.” “Account of a minute Ichneumon.” “Description of a species of Mycteria,” “Description of the Mus Bursarius, and Tubularia magnifica.”

Dr. Shaw’s fame, which had already beamed forth in Oxford, now began to shine with effulgence in London; for about this time he was becoming popular as a lecturer, and admired as an author. His lectures at the Leverian Museum, both before and after that rich and incomparable collection was removed from Leicester-house, never failed to attract a numerous and scientific audience. An elegant production, entitled “The Naturalist’s Miscellany,” made its appearance in 1789: this work was published monthly, in numbers, and had extended at the time of the decease of Dr. Shaw as far as No. 286. A posthumous number, with an index, closed this beautiful and extensive production, which comprises, in one thousand and sixty-four plates, figures of the more curious and remarkable productions of the three kingdoms of Nature, more particularly of the animal kingdom, with descriptions in English and Latin. In this year also Dr. Shaw was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society, an honour which few among its members have better deserved, and none ever more justly prized. A periodical work appears to have been projected by him in 1790, entitled “Speculum Linnseum, or Linnsean Zoology,” 4to: one number only appeared. A vacancy happening in the British Museum in 1791, Dr. Shaw became a candidate for the office of a librarian upon that great national establishment; and his eminent qualifications procured him the appointment of assistant keeper of the Natural History. The melancholy scenes and the disagreeable effluvia of a sick chamber, had given him a disgust for the practice of a profession whose studies he had pursued with considerable ardour and delight. Upon this appointment, therefore, he resigned with cheerfulness whatever prospects he might have had as a physician, for the narrow income of an office which afforded him the most enlarged opportunities of prosecuting his researches into that science to which he was most devoted. Between the years 1792 and 1796 appeared “Musei Leveriani explicatio Anglica et Latina, opera et studio Georgii Shaw, M.D. R.S.S. Adduntur figurae eleganter sculptse et coloratas. Irnpensis Jacobi Parkinson.” In 1794 a splendid publication was undertaken by Dr. Shaw, in conjunction with sir James Smith and Mr. Sowerby, illustrative of the accessions which had been made to natural science by the discoveries of those who had attempted to explore the undefined shores of New Holland. The animals peculiar to that country were described by Dr. Shaw, in a work published in one volume 4to, entitled “The Zoology of New Holland;” the beautiful and accurate figures which adorned it were delineated by Mr. Sowerby: the botanical part, which formed another portion of this work, was written by sir James Smith, and published under the title of “The Botany of New Holland.” Sixty large and beautiful prints, published by J. Miller, the celebrated editor of the Gardener’s Dictionary, under the title of “Various subjects in Natural History, wherein are delineated Birds, Animals, and many curious Plants,” not meeting with a quick sale, from want of letter-press containing descriptions of the plates, Dr. Shaw was applied to, to supply the deficiency. This work was published in 1796, under the following title: “Cimelia Physica: Figures of rare and curious Quadrupeds, Birds, &c. together with several most elegant Plants, engraved and coloured from the subjects themselves: with descriptions by Geo. Shaw, M. D. F. R. S.” This, and the Museum Leverianum, are amongst the most magnificent publications England has produced.

From the extended state of natural history, the objects of which had become exceedingly numerous by the discoveries of those, who through love of enterpnze, or stimulated by commerce, ventured to traverse the globe in search of new regions, it became desirable that a work should be accomplished which should give, in a systematic, yet a popular form, the description and history of those numerous beings, among which man holds so elevated a place, and which, equally with himself, have proceeded from the grand source of creative power and goodness. The verbosity and the reveries of BufTon rendered his, otherwise valuable, work uselessly extensive; and the systematic brevity of Linnæus was too dry for any but philosophers. To give a systematic history of the animal kingdom, free from the redundancies of the one, and more inviting to the general reader than the philosophic production of the other, was a comprehensive and arduous undertaking, which Dr. Shaw ventured to attempt, and had, with an ability which will for ever render him illustrious amongst his countrymen, nearly completed. This work was entitled “General Zoology, or Natural History, with plates from the best authorities, and most select specimens.” Of this celebrated work, Parts I and 2 of the first volume were published in 1800, and from time to time seven more volumes in the life-time of the author. Among his papers was found a ninth volume prepared for the press, which is intended for publication.

A course of Zoological lectures was read by Dr. Shaw at the Royal Institution in the years 1806 and 1807; and the same course, with little alteration, was delivered in 1809 at the Surrey Institution. These were published in 1809, in two volumes 8vo. In the first nine lectures the author compresses the substance of what he had already published in his General Zoology. The last three lectures have now become more particularly valuable, as they not only contain materials which have hitherto been almost untouched, but may be further considered as a sketch of what he intended to accomplish in completing his General Zoology. In 1807, upon the death of Dr. Gray, keeper of the natural history in the British Museum, Dr. Shaw was promoted to that office. An Abridgment of the Philosophical Transactions, in 18 vols. 4to, by Dr. Charles Button, Dr. George Shaw, and Dr. R. Pearson, made its appearance in 1809. All the papers relating to natural history, and these amounted to near fifteen hundred, were abridged by Dr. Shaw, and were rendered more interesting than they app'eared in their original form, by the insertion of the Linnaean generic and specific names, and still further so by occasional annotations, pointing out where the subject has been more fully investigated in some of the subsequent volumes of the Transactions, or in other works. After this, no new undertaking engaged his pen. His time was altogether employed upon his two progressive works, his Naturalist’s Miscellany, and his General Zoology, when death, upon a short warning, terminated his useful labours on July 22, 1813, in the sixty-second year of his’age. His illness, which was but of a few days’ continuance, originated in a constipation of the bowels. In this he had relief, and confident hopes of his recovery were beginning to be entertained, when an abscess formed on a portion of the intestines, and brought on speedy dissolution. His senses and his recollection only forsook him with his breath. He died as he had lived, with a philosophic composure and serenity of mind, which neither the acute pains which he endured, nor the awful change which he was about to experience, could in any visible degree disturb.

As few men have left behind them a character more estimable in every quality that regards personal merit, or public service, his name will be transmitted to posterity among those who give lustre to their age and country, who do honour to human nature by their virtues, and who contribute to the advancement of science and the interests of literature by their superior talents. Endued by nature with considerable intellectual parts, and those improved by assiduous cultivation, he acquired a vast stock of general knowledge. His extensive information was treasured up without confusion, applied in his works with discernment, and communicated to every inquirer with cheerfulness and freedom. At an early period of life he became an excellent scholar. He wrote Latin with facility, with elegance, and with great purity, Upon most subjects of polite literature he manifested in his conversations a critical taste, and a high relish for the productions of genius. Among the relaxations from graver studies, poetical compositions occasionally employed his talents, and the productions of this kind, which are dispersed in his General Zoology, and in Dr. Thornton’s “Temple of Flora,” are equally creditable to his taste and his imagination. He had a prodigious and a most tenacious memory: to such a perfection did he enjoy this faculty, that he could refer persons correctly to almost every author he had read, for any fact that they needed. In trials that have been made upon him in the earlier part of his life, he could repeat the preceding or following line of any one recited from Milton’s Paradise Lost, or the works of Horace. Dr. Shaw’s reputation was great in botany, but still greater in Zoology. Herein posterity will be ever indebted for the services he has rendered this branch of natural history, especially that portion of it which relates to arrangement and description. A clear and correct account of the generic and specific character of animals, the essentials of this science, is the remarkable feature and meritorious character of all his works. Having in the first place strictly attended to these, he then proceeded to give his subjects all the suitable embellishments that extensive erudition, good taste, and a correct memory could bestow. His descriptions, if they were minute, yet they were never trifling; if enlivened by anecdote, and rich in information, it was done with propriety, and without being tedious; they were too, always popular, and at the same time possessing all that the dignity of science required. His hours of amusement were frequently employed upon mechanical contrivances, connected with his philosophical pursuits, or his domestic comforts, in which he shewed great ingenuity in invention, and a delicate neatness in execution. His behaviour was remarkably polite. In his person he was neat, gentlemanlike in his dress, methodical in his habits, in the disposition of his library, his papers, and in the order of every thing that belonged to him. His natural temper was lively, good-humoured, sociable. His conversation was precise, full of information, always amusing, frequently smart and witty. He was universally esteemed by men of science, beloved by a large circle of his friends, and had it not been for a few sarcastic expressions which he had, without any malicious intention, suffered to escape him, he had lived without an enemy. None of those passions which produce so much disquietude and misery amongst mankind, seem ever to have found a place in his bosom. He was frugal in his expences, moderate in his wishes, temperate to an uncommon degree in eating and drinking, and so chaste in his desires, that no one could reproach him with the commission of an indecent action, or the use of an immodest word; nay, such was the delicacy and purity of his mind, that the writer of this memoir has repeatedly heard him assert, thnt he had scrupulously endeavoured to avoid in his writings every expression which a woman would blush to read. Sincerity of heart, innocence of mind, and simplicity of manners, eminent!/ and uniformly marked his whole character. Of his religious sentiments little is known, as he was remarkably reserved upon all subjects connected with his personal conduct and opinions. He however sufficiently shewed in his conversation, and by performing the public duties of religion in his attendance upon the service of the Church of England, that his notions were, in this respect, serious and pious.

, a physician of the last century, was the author of several works which enjoyed a considerable reputation in their day. His first professional publication, was entitled “New Practice of Physic,” in two volumes, and first printed in 1726: it contained a brief description of diseases and the methods of treating them, and was often reprinted, the 7th edition in 1763. His next work was an “Enquiry into the Virtues of Scarborough Spaw Waters,” which he visited during the season; it was printed in 1734-. In the same year he published also “Chymical Lectures publicly read in London 1731, 1732, and Scarborough 1733.” This was deemed a scientific and valuable work, and was translated into French. He published some minor works: “A Portable Laboratory,” 1731; “On Scurvy,” 1736; “Essays on Artificial Philosophy,” 1731 “On the Juice of the Grape,” 1724; and he edited the “Dispensatory of the College of Physicians of Edinburgh,” in 1727. Dr. Shaw was elected F. R. S. in 1755, an honour which he seems to have merited by his “Abridgment of Boyle’s Philosophical works,” 3 vols. 4to. and of “Lord Bacon’s” in the same form: he translated also Hoffman on Mineral Waters, Strahl’s Chemistry, and Boerhaave’s Elementa Chemica, in conjunction with Chambers. Notwithstanding these multifarious labours, he had an extensive share of practice, and was physician in ordinary to his present majesty, but resigned in favour of his son-in-law, Dr. Richard Warren, some time 'before his death, which happened March 15, 1763. He also left Dr. Warren his fortune.

, a learned non- conformist, was born at Repton in the county of Derby, in 1635, and educated at the free-school there. At the age of fourteen he was sent to Cambridge, and became a member of St. John’s college. When he had completed his studies, he removed to Tamworth, in Warwickshire, and was usher of the freeschool there in 1656, From Tamworth he removed to Mosely, a small place on the borders of Worcestershire, and on his arrival was ordained by the classical presbytery of Wirksworth in Derbyshire, and in 1658 obtained a presentation from Cromwell to the rectory of Long Whatton, which was in the gift of the crown. In June the same year he had full possession of this living, in which he continued until the Restoration in 1660. At that juncture, apprehending some disturbance, he, in September, obtained a fresh presentation under the great seal of England; but notwithstanding his title was thus corroborated, interest was made with the lord chancellor, and our author was turned out of his preferment about a year before the act of uniformity took place. He was afterwards offered his living again, without any other condition than re- ordination, which he refused, as he would not declare his presbyterian ordination invalid.

From Whatton he removed to Cotes, a small village near Loughborough, and during his stay there both himself and his family were afflicted with the plague, being infected by some relations from London, who came from thence to avoid it. He buried two friends, two children, and a servant, of that distemper, during the progress of which he and his wife attended each other, and he himself was forced to bury the dead in his own garden. Towards the latter end of the year 1666, he removed to Asliby de la Zouch, and was chosen in 1668 to be sole school-master of the free-school there, the revenue of which he procured to be increased for himself and his successors, and by his interest with the gentlemen in the neighbourhood, was enabled to re-build the school and school-house: he also obtained a licence from archbishop Sheldon to teach school in any part of his province; and Dr. Fuller, bishop of Lincoln, in whose diocese the school was situated, granted him the same upon such terms as to subscription as Mr. Shaw chose. This school, his piety, learning, and temper, soon raised into such reputation, that the number of his scholars increased in so great a degree, that he had often 160 boys or more under his care. Many of these afterwards became distinguished characters in the three professions of law, physic, and divinity.

He died Jan. 22, 1696, in the 59th year of his age, leaving behind him the character of an upright, modest, sensible, aud moderate man, an ornament to his profession, and a benefactor to his country. Besides bishop Fuller abovementioned, who said that he was glad to have so worthy a man in his diocese upon any terms, he appears to have been highly respected by Dr. Barlow, the subsequent bishop of Lincoln, and lived likewise on friendly terms with the vicar of Ashby de la Zouch. When toleration was granted to the dissenters, he licensed his school for a place of worship, but contrived that the meetings should be between church, hours, and attended the church at the usual periods with his whole school and many of his congregation. He wrote several religious tracts, particularly “Immanuel;” “The True Christian 1 s Test,” “The voice of one crying in the wilderness, &c;” and a Latin grammar, and an epitome of the same; with, what may seem very odd in one of his character, two comedies, 'the one called “Words made visible, or Grammar and Rhetoric,” 1679, 8vo the other, “The different Humours of Men,” 1692, 12mo, which were acted by his scholars for their amusement before the neighbours at Christmas.

, the historian of Staffordshire, was son of the rev. Stebbing Shaw, rector of Hartshorn, on the borders of Derbyshire, near Ashby de la Zouch. He was born in 1762, at or near Stone, in Staffordshire; in the neighbourhood of which town, his mother inherited a small landed estate, which descended to this her only child. He was educated at the school of Repton, near Harishorn, first under the rev. Dr. Prior, and afterwards under his successor, the rev. William Bagshaw Stevens, an ingenious poet and scholar, who died in 1800. From this accomplished man, for whom he retained an unabated friendship till death, he early imbibed a warm love of literature. At the close of the month of October, 1780, he became a resident member of Qu.en’s-college, in Cambridge. At this period, his first literary predilections were fixed on English poetry, of which he had caught an enthu iastic fondness from his last master. But even this partiality yielded to his propensity for music; in which his performance on the violin occupied a large portion of his time, and he had already attained considerable excellence. In due time he took his degree of B. A. was elected to a fellowship, and went into orders. Not long afterwards, the intimacy which, for almost half a century, had subsisted between his father and his neighhour, sir Robert Burdett, of Foremark, in which hospitable mansion the son had passed many of his early days, induced him to undertake the superintending care of the present sir Francis, then lately released from Westminster school, at his father’s villa at Ealing. With this pupil, he made a tour to the Highlands of Scotland in the autumn of 1787, of which he kept a diary. This diary, originally composed merely for private amusement, he afterwards inconsiderately published; and thus, it must be confessed, made his first appearance as an author with some disadvantage; luckily, however, the publication was anonymous. In the following year, he made a tour to the West of England, of which he published a more laboured account, with his name. The book was well received; and, though the style is not simple and easy (an attainment which indeed the author never reached), yet it discovered a dawning attention to the history of families and property, to which his industrious researches were afterwards directed with considerable success. In 1789, about the time of the publication of his tour, he obtained admission to the reading-room of the British Museum. His account of the vast stores of topographical and genealogical materials deposited there, fired the imagination of one of his learned friends, who resided in London, and with whom he passed much of his time. To this connection may be ascribed the origin of a periodical publication, entitled “The Topographer,” which commenced in the spring of 1789, and was carried on for more than two years, during which many useful materials towards the Topographical History of the Kingdom were communicated. Amongst other researches, Mr. Shaw spent part of the summer of 1790 in Sussex, and visited very many parishes, and collected a large store of church notes, of which only a small number was exhausted when the work closed. In these perambulations, his own faithful and constantly exercised pencil, enabled him to be doubly useful.

In the Summer of 1791, Mr. Shaw retired to his father’s house at Hartshorn. Here still amusing himself with topographical researches, he soon afterwards, during his fre-r quent visits into Staffordshire, conceived the idea of undertaking the history of that county. The scheme at first appeared bold even to the partiality of his friends; but he persevered, and his mild and inoffensive manners procured attention to the assistance he asked; his acquaintance every day enlarged, and his materials accumulated. Instead of confining himself merely to the dry investigations of antiquarian lore, he conciliated by an attention awake to every thing which the title of his work could comprehend. Natural history, agriculture, scenery, manufactories, and arts, all excited his curiosity, and flattered the various turns of those by whom the acquisition of his materials was facilitated.

At length, by his assiduous inquiries, he discovered and obtained the vast treasure of Mss. written and collected by Dr. Wilkes for a similar undertaking; which had long been supposed to be lost, and of which some malicious attempts were made, by the assertion of wilful falsehoods, to stifle his pursuit. From the moment of this acquisition, his success became certain the expectation of the county rapidly increased and he received countenance and assistance from every quarter. He had already made a great variety of drawings of mansions, churches, monuments, and antiquities; and many of these were now engraved at the expence of the owners, some of which have since enriched the part already published; and a large proportion still remain with his unpublished materials. He now employed four years in augmenting and digesting his collections; and about 1796 began to print the first volume, which was laid before the public in August 1798, and answered and exceeded the expectations it had raised. It is in truth a rich and splendid volume in many respects. The typography, the number and variety of engravings, the luminous and well-laboured genealogical tables, the inexhaustible notices of the past drawn from the buried treasures of time, intermixed with modern facts and descriptions of more general attraction, render the work highly valuable, and will secure the reputation of the compiler.

In 1801 he published the first part of his second volume, which was in all respects equal to the former. He had now succeeded his father, who died at the close of 1799, in the living of Hartshorn, a village rendered remarkable as the birth-place of the celebrated dean Stanhope, whose father enjoyed this preferment. Here he spent the summer, and found some relaxation from his severe studies, in improving his house and garden. But his enjoyments were not uninterrupted. A bilious habit rendered him perpetually subject to slow fevers. The fatigue of exercise in a burning sun now brought on a more fierce attack. He recovered, however, and returned to London in the winter of 1801, and went on with his work. But it was soon perceived that his constitution had received an alarming shock. Early in the spring he found himself unfit for his usual occupations. A new attack of a dreadful and lamentable fever ensued but from this too he was at length restored. All application to books was now prohibited and in June or July it was deemed advisable for him to pay a visit to the Kentish coast, attended by his only relation, an affectionate half-sister, the daughter of his father by a second wife. They went first to Ramsgate, and thence removed to the more quiet seclusion of Sandgate, near Hythe. Here he passed the autumn, and was so well that he joined some friends in a few days expedition to the opposite coast, and visited Boulogne. Towards the end of October 1802 his disorder suddenly returned with more violence than before. After a struggle of ten days, it was deemed right to remove him to London for better advice, where he died on the 28th, aged forty-one, deeply lamented by all vvho knew him, and leaving a chasm in the department of literature which he had embraced, not easy to be supplied

, a celebrated traveller, son of Mr. Gabriel Shaw, was born at Kenda!, in Westmorland, about 1692. He received his education at the grammar-school of that place; was admitted of Queen’s-college, Oxford, Oct. 5, 1711, where he took the degree of B. A. July 5, 1716; M. A. Jan. 16, 1719; went into orders, and was appointed chaplain to the English factory at Algiers. In this station he continued several years, and thence took opportunities of travelling into several parts. During his absence he was chosen fellow of his college, March J 6, 1727 and at his return in 1733 took the degree of doctor in divinity, July 5, 1734, and in the same year was elected F. R. S. He published the first edition of his “Travels” at Oxford in 1738, and bestowed on the university some natural curiosities, and some ancient coins and busts (three of which are engraved among the “Marmora Oxoniensia”) which he had collected in his travels. On the death of Dr. Felton in 1740, he was nominated by his college principal of St. Edmund-hall, which he raised from a ruinous condition by his munificence; and was presented at the same time to the vicarage of Bramley in Hants. He was also regius professor of Greek at Oxford till his death, which happened Aug. 15, 1751. He was buried in Bramley church, where a monument was erected to his memory, with an inscription written by his friend Dr. Browne, provost of Queen’s-college, Oxford. His “Travels” were translated into French, and printed in 1743, 4to, with several notes and emendations communicated by the author. Dr. Richard Pocock, afterwards bishop of Ossory, having attacked those “Travels” in his “Description of the East,” our author published a supplement, by way of vindication, in 1746. In the preface, to the “Supplement” he -says, the intent and design of it is partly to vindicate the Book of Travels from some objections that have been raised against it by the author of “The Description of the East, &c.” He published <c A farther vindication of the Book of Travels, and the Supplement to it, in a Letter to the Right reverend Robert Clayton, D. D. lord bishop of Clogher.“This letter consists of six folio pages, and bears date in 1747. After the doctor’s death, an improved edition of his book came out in 1757, under the title of” Travels or Observations relating to several parts of Barbary and the Levant, illustrated with cuts. The second edition, with great improvements. By Thomas Shaw, D. D. F. R. S. regius professor of Greek, and principal of St. Edmund Hall, in the university of Oxford." The contents of the supplement are interwoven in this edition; and the improvements wero made, and the edition prepared for the press, by the author himself, who expressly presented the work, with these additions, alterations, and improvements, to the public, as an essay towards restoring the ancient geography, and placing in a proper light the natural and sometimes civil history of those countries where he travelled. The Sliawia in botany received its name in honour of Dr. Shaw, who has given a catalogue, in alphabetica order, accompanied with rude plates, of the rarer plants observed by him in Barbary, Egypt, and Arabia. The species amount to 632, and the catalogue is enriched witli several synonyms, as well as occasional descriptions and remarks. His dried specimens are preserved at Oxford. The orthography of the name is attended with difficulty to foreigners, our w being as unmanageable to them, as their multiplied consonants are to us. Some of them blunder into Schawia, Shaavia, or Shavia. Perhaps the latter might be tolerated, were it not for the ludicrous ambiguity of Shavius itself, applied by facetious Oxonians to the above famous traveller and his namesakes.

, a notorious political writer, was born at Biddeford in Devonshire in 1709. His father was an attorney, but having small practice and little fortune, he carried on also the business of a corn-factor. Of his children, John was the eldest, and was educated at the free-school of Exeter, then conducted by the learned Mr. Zachary Mudge. Of his progress at school, it is recorded that he had a tenacious memory, much application, some wit, and a temper quarrelsome, dissatisfied, and irritable. In his fifteenth or sixteenth year he was bound apprentice to a surgeon in his native town, and acquired a considerable share of medical knowledge. To this situation he brought the unamiable disposition of his earlier years; no one could give him the slightest offence with impunity, and almost every person avoided his acquaintance. When out of his time he set up in trade for himself, and then shewed a taste for chemistry; but having little business, removed in 1736 to Bristol.

In 1739 he attracted the attention of the public, we are told, by an epitaph to the memory of Thomas Coster, esq. member for Bristol; in which it has been observed, “that he has contrived to raise emotions of pity, grief, and indignation, to a very high degree.” How far these lines are calculated to produce such an effect the reader may judge. The next year he published a pamphlet on the Bristol waters; but from this period we hear no more of him until 1752, when he was at Paris, and there obtained the title of Doctor, if he obtained it at all. Until this time he appears to have lived in obscurity, but at an age when vigorous exertion usually subsides, he seems to have resolved to place himself in a conspicuous situation whatever hazard might attend it, and commenced a public writer with a high degree of intrepidity and virulence. In 1754 he began this career with “The Marriage Act,” a political novel, in which he treated the legislature with such freedom, that it occasioned his being taken into custody, from whence, however, he was soon released. This was followed by “Letters on the English Nation, by Battista Angeloni, a Jesuit, who resided many years in London. Translated from the original Italian by the author of the Marriage Act,” 1755, 2 vols. 8vo. It is perhaps unnecessary to say that the author and translator were the same person, and that the imposition was immediately detected by the similarity of language, and virulent abuse of the establishment in church and state to that which pervades the “Marriage Act.” But his most celebrated performances were a series of “Letters to the People of England,” written in a style vigorous and energetic, though slovenly and careless, yet well calculated to make an impression on common readers; and they were accordingly read with avidity, and circulated with diligence. They had a very considerable effect on the minds of the people, and galled the ministry, who seem to have been at first too eager to punish the author. On the publication of the “Third Letter,” we find warrants dated March 4th and 8th, 1756, issued by lord Holdernesse, to take up both Scott the publisher and the author. This prosecution, however, seems to have been dropped and the culprit proceeded for some time unmolested, “having declared (says one of his answerers) that he would write himself into a post or into the pillory, in the last of which he at length succeeded.” On Jan. 12, 1758, a general warrant was signed by lord Holdernesse, to search for the author, printer, and publishers of a wicked, audacious, and treasonable libel, entitled “A sixth Letter to the People of England.” At this juncture government seems to have been effectually roused: for having received information that a seventh letter was printing, by virtue of another warrant dated Jan. 23, all the copies were seized and entirely suppressed. In Easter Term an information was filed against him by Mr. Pratt, then attorney-genera], afterwards lord Camden; and on June 17th, the information was tried, and the author found guilty. On Nov. 28th following, he received sentence, by which he was fined five pounds, ordered to stand in the pillory Dec. 5, at Charing Cross, to be confined three years, and to give security for his good behaviour for seven years, himself in 500l. and two others in 150l. each.

On the day appointed he was exhibited on the pillory; but the under sheriff, a Mr. Beardmore, himself a political writer, and Shebbeare’s coadjutor in the “Monitor,” a paper of the same tendency with the “Letters,” &c. permitted him merely to stand on the platform of the pillory, tmconfined and at his ease, with a servant in livery (an Irish chairman equipped for the occasion) holding an umbrella over his head. For this wilful perversion of the sentence, Mr. Beardmore was fined 50l. and suffered two months imprisonment. Some time before Shebbeare was tried for the publication already mentioned, the duchess of Queensbury as heir of Lord Clarendon, obtained an injunction to stop the publication of the continuation of that nobleman’s history; a copy of which had got into the hands of Francis Gwyn, esq. between whom and the doctor there had been an agreement to publish it and equally divide the profits. The care and expences attending the publication were to be wholly Dr. Shebbeare' s, who caused it to be handsomely printed in 4to, with a Tory preface, containing frequent reflections on, and allusions to, recent events, and living characters, which gave it the appearance rather of a temporary pamphlet than of a work calculated for posterity. On the injunction being obtained, Dr. Shebbeare was under the necessity of applying to the aid of law to recover the money expended by him in printing, amounting to more than 500l., of which more than half had been wasted on his side in the courts of law and equity*.

* This story has been differently the publisher, and the edition was suptold. Mr. Gough, in a letter in the pressed, so that the rarity of the quarto Gent. Mag. Vol. LXXII. says that copies, more than any intrinsic merit, “Shebbeare being engaged by the has now enhanced their value.” This university to arrange or transcribe the seems probable, except what relates to Clarendon Mss. transmitted a copy to Cooper being an assumed name. M. a ncokseller in London to publish under or Mary Cooper was at that time a the assumed name of Cooper. The well known bookseller in Paternosteruniversity, a? soon as they discovered row, and was frequently Dodsley’s city the trick, obtained an injunction against publisher. While confined in the King’s Bench prison, he solicited Subscriptions for the first volume of a History of England, ' from the revolution to the then present time; but this, at the persuasion of his friends, he altered to a first volume of the History of England and of the.constitution from its origin, and is said to have made some progress in the design, which, however, after many excuses and promises, was never accomplished. At the expiration of his imprisonment a new reign had commenced, and the king was not only persuaded to entertain a favourable opinion of Dr. Shebbeare, but to grant him a pension. From this time he became an uniform, defender of the measures of government; but still his character was not such as to conciliate the good opinion of all the friends of power. Smollet introduced him in no very respectful light, under the name of Ferret, in the novel of Sir Launcelot Greaves, and Hogarth made him one of the groupe in the third Election print. Scarce a periodical publication was without some contemptuous notice of him, to which he in general paid little attention: but in 1774 he published a pamphlet in his own defence, coupled with such a virulent attack on the character of king William, as roused the indignation of every Whig in the kingdom.

Early in life he appears to have written a comedy, which in 1766 he made an effort to get represented at Coventigarden; and as the manager, Mr. Beard, had not returned it in what Shebbeare called proper time, the latter published a pamphlet of correspondence on the subject. In 1768 he wrote the review of books in the “Political Register” for three mouths, and was often engaged to write for particular: persons, with whom he frequently quarrelled when he came to be paid, and sometimes prosecuted them in the courts. His pen seems to have been constantly employed, and he wrote with great rapidity what certainly can now be read with little satisfaction, and must soon be forgotten. Though pensioned by government, he added little to its support, and gave disgust to its friends from the virulence with which he attacked its adversaries, and which defeated his own purpose. During the latter part of his life, he retired more from public view. In defence, however, of the measures of administration respecting the American war, he wrote two pamphlets, one against Mr. Burke, and another against Dr. Price.

His publications, satirical, political, and medical, amount, it is said, to thirty-four, besides a novel called “Lydia, or Filial Piety,” in which also he has introduced living characters. He died Aug. 1, 1788, leaving, we are told, among those who knew him best, the character of a benevolent man, which, from the affectionate manner in which he speaks of his relations, he probably deserved. His character, in other respects, cannot be held up to admiration.

, a learned English clergyman, was born in the village of Linton in Craven, Yorkshire, March 18, 1740. His father, who, having no trade or profession, lived upon and farmed his own estate, was a rery sensible and intelligent man, so far superior to those among whom he lived, and so disinterested in the application of his talents, that he was highly popular and useful in his native village. His mother was a woman of very superior understanding. He was educated at the grammarschool of the parish; and in 176 1 was admitted of St. John’s college, Cambridge, where his singular facility in the acquirement of philosophical knowledge quickly became so conspicuous, that, at a time when other under-graduates find sufficient employment in preparing for their own exercises and examinations, he had no less than six pupils. At this time also he laid the foundation of a lasting friendship with two young men of great promise in the university, John Law and William Paley, both of Christ’s college; the one afterwards bishop of Elphin, the other the late celebrated writer. In St. John’s he lived upon terms of almost equal intimacy with Mr. Arnald, the senior wrangler of his year, whose genius, always eccentric, after a short career of court ambition, sunk in incurable lunacy. His academical exercises also connected him more or less with the late lord Aivanley, the present Mr. baron Graham, and the learned and pious Joseph Milner, afterwards of Hull; all of whom, as well as Law, took their first degrees at the same time with himself. Such a constellation of talent has scarcely been assembled in any single year from that time to the present.

In January 1766, he took the degree of A. B.; and in 1767 was elected fellow of 1 his college, on the foundation of Mr. Platt. In 1767, he took the degree of A. M. In part of the years 1771 and 1772, he served the office of moderator for the university with distinguished applause. During this period he numbered among his pupils several whom he lived to see advanced to high stations in their respective professions, particularly the present bishop of Lincoln and the chief justice of the King’s Bench. In 1773> he accepted from the University the rectory of Ovington in Norfolk; and, having married an highly respectable person, the object of his early attachment, settled at the village of Grassington, where he received into his house a limited number of pupils, among whom, in the years 1774 and 1775, was Dr. Thomas Dunham Whitaker, the learned author of the “History of Craven.” In 1777, he removed to Leeds; and in the same year, by the active friendship of Dr. John Law, then one of the prebendaries of Carlisle, he was presented by that chapter to the living of Sebergham in Cumberland. In 1783 he was appointed to the valuable cure of St. John’s church in Leeds; and in 1792 he was collated, by his former pupil Dr. Pretyman, bishop of Lincoln, to a prebend in his cathedral, which, by the favour of the present archbishop of York, he was enabled to exchange, in 1794 or 1795, for a much more valuable stall at Carlisle, vacated by the promotion of Dr. Paley to the subel eanery of Lincoln. This was the last of his preferments, and probably the height of his wishes; for he was in his own nature very disinterested. After having been afflicted for several years with calcukms complaints, the scourges of indolent and literary men, he died at Leeds, July 26, 1810, and was interred in his own church.

In vigour and clearness of understanding, Mr. Sheepshanks was excelled by few. His spirits were lively, and his conversation was inexhaustibly fertile in anecdote and reflection. His knowledge of common life, in all its modes, was that of an original and acute observer his eyes were most penetrating and expressive. In short, nature had endowed him with faculties little, if at all, inferior to those of the two great men with whom he lived in habits of most intimate friendship. His conversation had much of the originality and humour which distinguished that of Dr. Paley; and, when he thought proper, it was equally profound and sagacious with that of Dr. Law. When he could be prevailed upon to write at all, he wrote with the clearness and force peculiar to his school; so that, if his industry had borne any proportion to his natural talents, and if these had been sedulously applied to elucidate and expand those branches of science in which he so much excelled, he would have wanted no other memorial. But a constitutional indo<­lence, adds his biographer, “robbed him of the fame which he might have attained the privation, however, occasioned neither a struggle nor a pang for his want of ambition was at least equal to his hatred of exertion andj as far as could be gathered from a conversation in the highest degree open and undisguised, he was equally careless of living and of posthumous reputation. Had the same indifference extended to his surviving friends, this short account would not have been written.”

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

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

Thus rapidly did he make his way both to military and civil honours and employments; yet, busy as he was, he did not neglect his studies, but at least cultivated poetry; in which he must have been early considered as uncommonly skilful, if, says Dr. Johnson, it be true which is reported, that, when he was not yet twenty years old, his recommendation advanced Dryden to the laurel. But this, Malone says, happens not to be true, for Sheffield was not lord chamberlain till fifteen years after Dryden’s appointment.

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

“Providence, however, defeated this malicious scheme, by giving them remarkably tine weather through the whole voyage, which lasted three weeks; at the termination of which, by the assistance of pumping the whole time to discharge the water, which leaked in very fast, they arrived safe at Tangier. And perhaps there cannot be a more striking instance of innate firmness and magnanimity than in the behaviour of this nobleman during the voyage. For, though he was fully convinced of the hourly dangers they were in, yet was his mind so calm and undisturbed, that he even indulged his passion for the Muses amidst the tumults of the tempestuous elements, and during this voyage composed a poem, which is to be met with among his other works.” Such is the story as compiled by Baker from various authorities, and which those who are accustomed to weigh evidence will probably not think very credible in all its circumstances.

The consequence of this expedition was the retreat of the Moors, and the blowing-up of Tangier. The poem above alluded to was “The Vision,” a licentious one, such as was fashionable in those times, with little power of invention or propriety of sentiment. At his return he found the king kind, who, as Dr. Johnson says, perhaps had never been angry, and he continued a wit and a courtier as before. At the succession of king James, to whom he was intimately known, and by whom he thought himself beloved, he was admitted into the privy council, and made lord chamberlain. He accepted a place in the high commission without knowledge, as he declared after the Revolution, of its illegality. Having few religious scruples, he attended the king at mass, and kneeled with the rest; but had no disposition to receive the Ilomish faith, or to force it upon others; for when the priests, encouraged by his appearances of compliance, attempted to convert him, he told them, as Burnet has recorded, that he was willing to receive instruction, and that he had taken much pains to believe in God who had made the world and all men in it; but that he should not be easily persuaded “that man was quits, and made God again.” A pointed sentence, says Dr. Johnson, is bestoweo^ by successive transmission to the last whom it will fit; this censure of transubstantiation, whatever be its value, was uttered long ago by Anne Askew, one of the first sufferers for the Protestant religion, who, in the time of Henry VIII. was tortured in the Tower; concerning which there is reason to wonder that it was not known to the historian of the Reformation.

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

Finding king James irremediably excluded, he voted for the conjunctive sovereignty, upon this principle, that he thought the title of the prince and his consort equal, and it would please the prince their protector to have a share irt the sovereignty. This vote gratified king William; yet, either by the king’s distrust, or his own discontent, he lived some years without employment. He looked on the king with malevolence, and, if his verses or his prose may be credited, with contempt. He was, notwithstanding this aversion or indifference, made marquis of Normanby in 1694, but still opposed the court on some important questions; yet at last he was received into the cabinet council, with a pension of three thousand pounds.

On the accession of queen Anne, that princess, who ever bad a great regard for him, loaded him with employments and dignities. In April 1702, he was sworn lord privy seal, made lord lieutenant and custos rotulorum for the north riding of Yorkshire, and one of the governors of the Charter-house; and the same year was appointed one of the commissioners to treat of an union between England and Scotland. On the 9th of March, 1703, he was created duke of Normanby, and on the 19th of the same month duke of Buckinghamshire, there being suspected to be somewhere a latent claim to the title of duke, of Buckingham.

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

His grace died on the 24th of February, 172O, in the seventy-fifth year of his age, and after lying in state for some days at Buckingham house, was interred with great solemnity in Westminster-abbey, where a handsome monument has since been erected to his memory, with an epitaph written by himself, and directed by his will to be engraved on it. He left only one legitimate son behind him, named Edmund, who died in the bloom of youth. It is observable, that the duke’s three wives wer all widows. The duchess died in 1742. She published a splendid edition of his works in 1723, 2 vols. 4to, which were afterwards reprinted in 1729 and 1740, 2 vols. 8vo. The first contains his poems upon various subjects: the second, his prose works, which consist of historical memoirs, speeches in parliament, characters, dialogues, critical observations, essays, and letters; but the edition of 1729 is castrated, some particulars relating to the revolution in 1723 having given offence.

His character, says Dr. Johnson, is not to be proposed as worthy of imitation. His religion he may be supposed to have learned from Hobbes; and his morality was such as naturally proceeds from loose opinions. His sentiments with respect to women he picked up in the court of Charles; and his principles concerning property were such as a gaming-table supplies. He was censured as covetous, and has been defended by an instance of inattention to his affairs, as if a man might not at once be corrupted by avarice and idleness. He is said, however, to have had much tenderness, and to have been very ready to apologize for his violences of passion.

As a poet, if we credit the testimony of his contemporaries, he was one of no vulgar rank; but modern criticism represents him as a writer that sometimes glimmers, but rarely shines, feebly laborious, and at best but pretty. His songs are upon common topics; he hopes, and grieves, and repents, and despairs, and rejoices, like any other maker of little stanzas; to be great, he hardly tries; to be gay, is hardly in his power.

In the “Essay on Satire” he was always supposed to have had the help of Dryden, but, according to Mr. Malone’s account, that did not amount to much. His “Essay on Poetry” is the great work for which he was praised by Roscommon, Dryden, and Pope; and doubtless by many more, whose eulogies have perished.

Upon this piece he appears to have set a high value; for he was all his life-time improving it by successive revisals, so that there is scarcely any poem to be found of which the last edition differs more from the first. “The coldness and neglect,” says Warton, "with which this writer, formed only on the French critics, speaks of Milton, must he considered as proofs of his want of critical discernment, or of critical courage. I can recollect no performance of Buckingham that stamps him a true genius; his reputation was owing to his rank. In reading his poems, one is apt to exclaim with our author:—

Yet Dryden extolled this essay highly, and it may be justly said that the precepts are judicious, sometimes new, and often happily expressed. Sheffield’s memoirs also are lively and agreeable; he had the perspicuity and elegance of an historian, but not the fire and fancy oi a poet.

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

During his majesty’s being at Newmarket that year, and afterwards in the Isle of Wight, Dr. Sheldon attended on him as one of his chaplains. On March 30, 1647-8, he was ejected from his wardenship by the parliament-visitors, and imprisoned with Dr. Hammond, in Oxlord, and other places, that they might not only be no hindrance to the changes going on in the university, but be prevented from attending the king at the Isle of Wight. Dr. Sheldon remained confined above six months, and then the reforming committee set him at liberty, Oct. 24, 1648, on condition that he should never come within five miles of Oxford; that he should not go to the king in the Isle of Wight, and that he should give security to appear before them at fourteen days’ warning, whenever cited. Upon his release he retired to Snelston in Derbyshire, where, at his own expence, and by contributions from his friends, he sent money constantly to the exiled king, and followed his studies until the approach of the restoration. On March 4, 1659-60, Dr. John Palmer, who iiad ^been placed in the wardenship in his room, dying, and there being an immediate prospect of his majesty’s return, there was no election made of a successor, but Dr. Sheldon was restored, though he never took re-possession. On the king’s return he met his majesty at Canterbury, and was soon after made dean of the royal chapel; and upon bishop Juxon’s translation to the see of Canterbury, was made bishop of London, to which he was elected October 9, 1660, and consecrated the 28th of that month. He held the mastership of the Savoy with that bishopric; and the famous conference between the episcopal and presbyterian clergy concerning alterations to be made in the liturgy, in 1661, was held at his loggings in the Savoy, in the course of which he exerted himself much against the presbyterians. Upon archbishop Juxon’s death he was elected to the see of Canterbury Aug. 11, 1663. In 1665, during the time of the plague, he continued at Lambeth, and exerted the utmost benevolence to those who would otherwise have perished in their necessities; and by his letters to all the bishops, procured considerable sums to be returned out of all parts of his province. On December 20, 1667, he was elected chancellor of the university of Oxford, but on the 31st of July, 1669, resigned that office. He died at Lambeth, November 9, 1677, in the eightieth year of his age, and was interred in Croydon church in Surrey, where a monument was erected to his memory by his heir, sir Joseph Sheldon, then lately lord mayor of London, son of his elder brother Ralph Sheldon of Stanton in Staffordshire.

Dr. Sheldon’s character has been represented with the discordance that must be expected in the reports of contending parties. It would appear on an impartial view of contemporary authorities, that he was more eminent as a politician than a divine; and that in the former character, resentment of personal injuries, as well as of the more extensive evils brought on the church by the abettors of the usurpation, led him to take a very decided and severe part in the penal laws enacted against the nonconformists. Burnet, with due allowance for his talents and many good qualities, speaks with censure on his conduct in this respect. The character given of him by Dr. Samuel Parker, bishop of Oxford, who had been his chaplain, seems in a great degree to correspond with other authorities, and confirms the general opinion that Sheldon was not precise as a divine.

Parker, in his “Comrnentarii de rebus sui temporis,” tells us, that archbishop Sheldon (t was a man of undoubted piety; but though he was very assiduous at prayers, yet he did not set so great a value on them as others did, nor regarded so much worship as the use of worship, placing the chief point of religion in the practice of a good life. In his daily discourse he cautioned those about him not to deceive themselves with an half religion, nor to think that divine worship was confined within the walls of the church, the principal part of it being without doors, and consisting in being conversant with mankind. If men led an upright, sober, chaste life, then and not till then they might look upon themselves as religious; otherwise it would signify nothing what form of religion bad men followed, or to what church they belonged. Therefore having spoken to this effect, he added with a kind of exultation and joy, ‘Da well, and rejoice/ His advice to young noblemen and gentlemen, who by their parents’ commands resorted daily to him, was always this; ’ Let it be your principal care to become honest men, and afterwards be as devout and religious as you will. No piety will be of any advantage to yourselves or any body else, unless you are honest and moral men/ He had a great aversion to all pretences to extraordinary piety, which covered real dishonesty; but had a sincere affection for those, whose religion was attended with integrity of manners. His worthy notions of religion meeting with an excellent temper in him, gave him that even tranquillity of mind, by which he was still himself, and always the same, in adversity as well as in prosperity; and neither over rated nor despised life, nor feared nor wished for death, but lived agreeably to himself and others."

It is as a prelate of great munificence that Sheldon will be handed down to posterity with the highest honours. On the accession of Charles II. when the members of the university who bad been ejected by the usurping powers, be* gan to restore the ancient establishments, a design was formed of erecting some building for the acts, exercises, &c. which had formerly been performed in St. Mary’s church, with some inconvenience to the university, and some injury to the church. Certain houses were accordingly purchased, which stood on the site of the present theatre; and in 1664, Sheldon, then archbishop of Canterbury, having contributed [QOOl. the foundation-stone was laid July 26, with great solemnity before the vice chancellor, heads of houses, &c. And when no other benefactors appeared to promote the work, archbishop Sheldon munificently took upon himself the whole expence, which amounted to 12,470l. 1 \s. \\d. and gave also 2000l. to be laid out in estates for repairs, or the surplus to be applied to the establishment of a printing-house. The architect employed was the celebrated sir Christopher Wren, and the building was completed in about five years. It was one of sir Christopher’s first works, and a happy presage of the talents which he afterwards displayed in the metropolis. Nor did the archbishop’s liberality stop here. Mr. Henry Wharton has enumerated the following sums he bestowed on other public purposes: To lord Petre for the purchase of London House, the residence of the bishops of London, 5200l. He abated in his fines for the augmentation of vicarages 1680l. He gave towards the repair of St. Paul’s before the fire 2169l. 17s. lOd. and the repairs of his houses at Fulham, Lambeth, and Croydon, 4500l. To All Souls’ chapel, Trinity college chapel, Christ church, Oxford, and Lichfield cathedral, 450l. When first made bishop, the leases being all expired, he abated in his fines 17,733l. including probably the article of 1680l. above mentioned.

, eldest son of a plain uneducated country gentleman, of Hales-Owen, Shropshire, who farmed his own estate, was born Nov. 18, 1714. He learned to read of an old dame, commemorated in his poem of the “School-mistress;” and soon received such delight from books, that he was always calling for new entertainment, and expected that, when any of the family went to market, a new book should be brought him, which, when it came, was in fondness carried to bed and laid by him. It is said, that> when his request had been neglected, his mo^ ther wrapped up a piece of wood of the same form, and pacified him for the night. As he grew older, he went for a while to the grammar-school in Hales-Owen, and was placed afterwards with Mr. Crumpton, an eminent schoolmaster at Solihul, where he distinguished himself by the quickness of his progress. When he was young (June 1724) he was deprived of his father; and soon after (August 1726) of his grandfather; and was, with his brother, who died afterwards unmarried, left to the care of his grandmother, who managed the estate. From school he was sent in 1732 to Pembroke-college in Oxford, a society which for half a century had been eminent for English poetry and elegant literature. Here it appears that he found delight and advantage; for he continued his name there ten years, though he took no degree. After the first four years he put on the Civilian’s gown, but without shewing any intention to engage in the profession. About the time when he went to Oxford, the death of his grandmother devolved his affairs to the care of the reverend Mr. Dolman, of Brome in Staffordshire, whose attention he always mentioned with gratitude. At Oxford he amused himself with English poetry; and in 1737, printed at Oxford, for private circulation, a small miscellany of juvenile verses, without his name. He then for a time wandered about, to acquaint himself with life 7 and was sometimes at London, sometimes at Bath, or any place of public resort; but he did not forget his poetry. He published in 1740 his “Judgment of Hercules,” addressed to Mr. Lyttelton, whose interest he supported with great warmth at an election: this was, two years afterwards, followed by the “School-mistress.” Mr. Dolman, to whose care he was indebted for his ease and leisure, died in 1745, and the care of his own fortune now fell upon him. He tried to escape it a while, and lived at his house with his tenants, who were distantly related; but, finding that imperfect possession inconvenient, he took the whole estate into his own hands, more to the improvement of its beauty than the increase of its produce. His delight in rural pleasure was now excited, and his ambition of rural elegance: he began from this time, says Johnson, “to point his prospects, to diversify his surface, to entangle his walks, and to wind his waters; which he did with such judgment and such fancy, as made his little domain the envy of the great, and the admiration of the skilful; a place to be visited by travellers, and copied by designers.” Of these employ* merits Dr. Johnson has perhaps formed a harsh estimate^ yet Shenstone’s affectionate apologist, Mr. Greaves, is obliged to confess that he spent his whole income in adorning the Leasowes, and that it added little to his comfort, the only happiness he felt being confined to the moment of improvement. It i$ said, that, if he had lived a little longer, he would have been assisted by a pension such bounty could not have been ever more properly bestowed and overtures appear to have been made lor that purpose, but they came too late he died at the Leasowes, of a putrid fever, Feb^ 11, 1763 and was buried by the side of his brother in the church-yard of Hales-Owen. He was never married, though it appears that he was twice in love, and Johnson says he might have obtained the lady, whoever she was, to whom his “Pastoral Ballad” was addressed. He is represented by his friend Dod^lev as a man of great tenderness and generosity, kind to all that were within his influence but, if once offended, not easily appeased inattentive to (economy, and careless of his expences; in his person larger than the middle size, with something clumsy in his form; very negligent of his cloaths, and remarkable for wearing his grey hair in a particular manner; for he held that the fashion was no rule of dress, and that every man was to suit his appearance to his natural form. These, says Mr. Greaves, were not precisely his sentiments, though he thought right enough, that every one should, in some degree, consult his particular shape and complexion in adjusting his dress; and that no fashion ought to sanctify what was ungraceful, absurd, or really deformed.

His life was unstained by any crime, for the Elegy on “Jessy,” which has been supposed tp relate an unfortunate and criminal amour of his own, was known by his friends to have been suggested by the story of Miss Godfrey in Richardson’s lt Pamela."

His “Works” were collected by Mr. Dodsley, in S vols. 8vo, and still retain a good share of popularity. The first consists of elegies (of which there are twenty-six) t odes, songs, and ballads, levities, or pieces of humour, and moral pieces; many of which are distinguished by elegance and simplicity. The second contains his prose works, and consists of several detached observations on men, manners’, and things, thrown together in small chapters, without any order or connection. His sentiments and reflections are for the most part natural and just; many of them new, lively, and entertaining, a few of them rather paradoxical, and some that are false and ill-supported, though, upon the whole, they seem to have been the genuine fruits of a good understanding and an amiable disposition. The third volume consists of “Letters to his Friends.” On his general merits as a writer, Mr. Greaves says, that Shenstone, “through indolence and ill-health, and perhaps too great a fondness for amusement, lavished and exhausted the talents given him by nature on a few topics which presented themselves to his imagination; but in those few he generally excelled.”

, a celebrated Latin poet and linguist, was born at Sugworth, in the parish of Radley, near Abington in Berks, about 1509. He was educated in Corpus Christ! college, Oxford, of which he was admitted probationer fellow in 1528, and completed his degrees in arts in 1533. At that time he was Greek reader in his college, and succeeded Robert Wakefield in the Hebrew professorship of the university of Oxford about 1538. Three years afterwards, by leave from the heads of the university, he began to expound in the public schools the book of Genesis in Hebrew, and would have proceeded through the other books of the Pentateuch, had he not been prevented by death. He died at Agmondesham in Buckinghamshire, in 1542. He was thought to have surpassed Origen for memory, and Ovid for expedition in versifying; it having been but an ordinary matter with him to compose one hundred good verses every day, at vacant hours. Leland cejebrates him in his “Encomia,” and in his “Cygnea Cantio,” in which he calls him “clecus utriusque linguae.” He is praised likewise in White’s “Diacosiomartyrion,” and by Pits. His works are, 1. Summa et synopsis Novi Test, distichis ducentis sexaginta comprehensa,“Strasb. 1556, 8vo, reprinted at London and Oxford. 2.” Hippolytus Ovidianae Phaedrae respondens.“Oxon. 1584. 3.” Vita et epicedion Joannis Claymundi,“a ms. in Corpus college library. He wrote also some translations from the Greek, and some poems and orations which remain in ms. He had a nephew William, who in the beginning of queen Elizabeth’s reign left England on account of his adherence to popery, and died at Rome in 1598. He was educated also at Corpus, and had the reputation of a man of learning. He left some Mss. on catholic subjects, and one 4to printed at Rome in 1596, entitled” The literal connexion of the Psalms of our lady’s office, and their confirmation, from the Greek, Hebrew, Syriac, Chaldaic, Arabic, Æthiopic, &c." If acquainted with all these languages, he could have been no common scholar in the sixteenth century.

, a very learned botanist, was the son of George Sherwood, of Bushby, in Leicestershire. It does not appear at what time or for what reason the alteration in the name was made. He was born in 1659, educated first at Merchant Taylors’ school, and then at St. John’s college, Oxford, where he entered in 1677. He subsequently became a fellow of this college, and took the degree of bachelor of law, December 11, 1683. Being appointed travelling tutor successively, to Charles, afterwards the second viscount Townshend, and to Wriothesley lord Howland, son of the celebrated patriot lord Russel, who in 1700 became the second duke of Bedford, Sherard made two successive tours through Holland, France, Italy, &c. returning from the last, as sir J. Smith thinks, not. much before the year 1700, when his last-mentioned pupil was twenty years old. Dr. Pulteney supposes him to have come back in 1693, led perhaps by the date of Ray’s “Sylloge Stirpium Europaearum,” printed in 1694, to which Sherard communicated a catalogue of plants gathered on mount Jura, Saleve, and the neighbourhood of Geneva. About this time we find he was in Ireland, on a visit to his friend sir Arthur Rawdon, at Moira. Long before either of his foreign journeys he had travelled over various parts of England, and proceeded to Jersey, for the purpose of botanical investigation; and the fruits of hi* discoveries enriched the publications of the illustrious Ray.

Botany was ever the prominent pursuit of Sherard in all his journeys. He cultivated the friendship and correspondence of the most able men on the continent, such as Boerhaave, Hermann, Tournefort, Vaillant, Micheli, *&c. He is universally believed to have been the author of a 12mo volume, entitled “Schola Botanica,” published at Amsterdam in 1689, and reprinted in 1691 and 1699. This is a systematic catalogue of the Paris garden. Its preface, dated London, Nov. 1688, is signed S.W. A., which the French writers have interpreted Samuel Wharton, Anglus, under which name the book occurs in Haller’s “Bibliotheca Botanica,” v. I. 643. But as no one ever heard of such a botanist as Wharton, and the preface in question displays the objects and acquisitions of one of the first rank, who could certainly not long remain in obscurity, the above initials are presumed to mean William Sherard, to whom alone indeed, with or without a signature, that preface could belong. Its writer is described as having attended three courses of Tourne fort’s botanical lectures, in 1686, 87, and 88, all which years, he says, he spent at Paris. In the summer of 1688 he describes himself as having passed some time in Holland, collecting specimens of plants from the rich gardens of that country, and getting them named by professor Hermann himself, who allowed him to peruse the manuscript rudiments of his “Paradisus Batavus,” to examine his herbarium, and to compose a Prodromus of that work, which is subjoined to the little volume now under our consideration. All this can apply to Sherard only, who became the editor of Hermann’s book itself, and who in Hs preface, dated from Geneva in 1697, appears under his own name, and speaks of himself as having long enjoyed the friendship and the communications of that eminer>t man, whose judgment and talents he justly commemorates, and of whose various literary performances, as well as of his botanical principles, he gives an account. Dr. Pulteney cpnceives this preface to have been written during a third tour of its author to the continent; but we presume him to have then been with the young lord Rowland, and consequently on his second tour only.

Sherard communicated to the Royal Society, in 1700, a paper relative to the making of Chinese or Japan varnishes, which is printed in the Philosophical Transactions, vol. XXII. The information which it contains was sent by the Jesuits to the grand duke of Tuscany, and probably obtained by our author at Florence. He now entered on a more public walk of life, becoming one of the commissioners for sick and wounded seamen at Portsmouth; and about the year 1702, or soon after, was sent out -as British consul to Smyrna. Here his botanical taste met with fresh gratification; nor was he neglectful of other curiosities of science dr literature, He visited the seven churches of Asia, copied several ancient inscriptions, and communicated to the Royal Society an account of the new volcanic island, near Santorini, which rose out of the sea May 12, 1707. Botany, however, continued to be his leading object. He had a villa at Sedekio, near Smyrna., where he could with the more ease resign himself to the contemplation of plants, and where he began his great herbarium. Hasselquist visited this spot, with the devotion of a pilgrim, in the spring of 1750. He saw the house, with a small garden laid out by Sherard, but not enriched at any great expence, nor storeid with extensive collections of exotics. Many of the latter indeed might, in the course of thirty-two years, have disappeared. Whatever specimens Sherard could obtain from Greece, and the neighbouring countries, he here carefully preserved and being well aware of the insufficiency of Baubin’s “Pinax,” as a clue to the botanical knowledge then in the world, he is said to have here formed the project of continuing it, and even to have made some progress in that arduous undertaking, before he returned to his native country in 1718. Soon after his return he received at Oxford the degree of LL.D.

In 1721, Dr. Sherard revisited the continent. Vaillant was now in a declining state of health, and died in May 1722. Previous to his decease he concluded, through the mediation of Sherard, the sale of his manuscripts and drawings of Parisian plants, to Boerhaave, who published in 1727 the splendid “Botanicon Parisiense.” This work, though not free from imperfections in the distribution of its materials, would doubtless have been far less correct, but for the superintendance of Sherard, who passed a summer with Boerhaave in revising the manuscript. Our great botanist had already rendered a more important service to his favourite science, by bringing with him from Germany, in August 1721, the celebrated Dillenius. (See Dillenius.) By a comparison of dates, it appears that Sherard made several visits to the continent. He went from Paris to Holland in 1721, and thence with Dillenius, the same year, to England. He stayed some time with Boerhaave again in 1724, or perhaps 1725. We know not precisely when or where it happened that he was, like Linnæus in Norway, in danger of being shot for a wolf.

What principally attached Sherard to Dillenius, was the similarity of their tastes respecting those intricate tribes of vegetables now termed cryptogamic. To these the attention of both had long been directed, and hence originated the cultivation, which this line of botanical study has received, from that period, in England and Germany. This taste, however, was not exclusive; for these friends and fellow labourers left no department of botany unimproved. James Sherard, seven years younger than his brother, who had acquired opulence by medical practice, first as an apothecary, and then as a physician, in London, had a great fondness for the same pursuit, and reared at his country seat at Eltham, a number of exotic plants, from every climate. Hither the more learned subject of our present article frequently resorted. He had acquired affluence by his public appointments, but his style of living was simple and private Devoted to the cultivation of knowledge in himself, and to the diffusion of that of others, he lent his aid to all who required it, without coming forward conspicuously as an author. *He assisted Catesby with information and with money, to bring out his natural history of Carolina, though neither that work, nor the “Hortus Elthamensis” of Dillenius, appeared till some time after his decease, which happened at Eltham Aug. 12, 1728, when he was 69 years of age. He was buried at Eltham Aug. 19. His brother died Feb. 12, 1738-9, aged/72, and is buried in Evington church, near Leicester, with his wife, whose maiden name was Lockwood, by whom he had no children.

The most ostensible and splendid service to botany was rendered by the will of Dr. William Sherard, who left 3000l. for the endowment of the botanical professorship at Oxford, besides 500l. which he gave in his life-time for the improvement of the garden. He bequeathed to this establishment his choice botanical library, his ample herbarium, and the manuscript of his “Pinax,” the completion of which he intended should be one of the objects and duties of the new professor. He bequeathed also his books (with the exception of the botanical part) and many curiosities to St. John’s college, Oxford. In 1766, some of his Mss. were presented by Mr. Ellis to the Royal Society.

, an English poet, was descended from an antient family of the same name at Stanyhurst, in Lancashire. His grandfather, Henry, appears to have belonged, but in what capacity is not known, to Corpus Christi college, Oxford, and settled in that city, where Edward the father of our poet was born. This Edward went afterwards to London, and became secretary to the first East India company, established by queen Elizabeth’s charter, and in 1613, obtained a reversionary grant of the office of clerk of the ordnance. He was afterwards knighted by Charles I. He married Frances, the second daughter pf John Stanley of Roydon Hall, in Essex, esq. and resided in Goldsmith’s Rents, near Redcross-street, Cripplegate. Mis son, the poet, was born here Sept 18, 1618, and educated by the celebrated Thomas Farnaby, who then taught a school in Goldsmith’s rents. On his removal to Sevenoaks in Kent, in 1636, young Sherburne was educated privately, under the care of Mr. Charles Aleyn, the poetical historian of the battles of Cressy and Poictiers, who had been one of Farnaby’s ushers. On the death of Aleyn in 1640, his pupil being intended for the army, was sent to complete his education abroad, and had travelled in France and part of Italy, when his father’s illness obliged him to return. After his father’s death in 1641, he succeeded to the clerkship of his majesty’s ordnance, the reversion of which had been procured for him in 1638,- but the rebellion prevented his retaining it long. Being a Roman catholic, and firmly attached to the king, he was ejected by a warrant of the house of Lords in April or May 1642, and harassed by a long and expensive confinement in the custody of the usher of the black rod.

On his release he determined to follow the fortunes of his royal master, who made him commissary-general of the artillery, in which post he witnessed the battle of Edge-hill, and afterwards attended the king at Oxford, where he was created master of arts, Dec. 20, 1642. Here he took such opportunities as his office permitted of pursuing his studies, and did not leave Oxford untilJune 1646, when it was surrendered to the parliamentary forces. He then went to London, and was entertained by a near relation, John Povey, esq. at his chambers in the Middle Temple. Being plundered of all his property, and what is ever most dear* to a man of learning, his ample library, he would probably have sunk under his accumulated sufferings, had he not met with his kinsman, Thomas Stanley, esq. father of the learned Thomas Stanley, esq. who was a sufferer in the same cause, and secreted near the same place. But some degree of toleration must have been extended to him soon after, as in 1648, he published his translation of Seneca’s “Medea,” and in the same year, Seneca’s answer to Lucilius’s question “Why good men suffer misfortunes, seeing there is a divine providence?” In 1651, he published his “Poems and Translations,” with a Latin dedication to Mr. Stanley; and when sir George Savile, afterwards marquis of Halifax, returned from his travels about that time, he appointed Mr. Sherburne superintendant of his affairs; and by the recommendation of his mother, kidy Savile, he was afterwards made travelling tutor to her nephew, sir John Coventry. With this gentleman he visited various parts of the continent, from March 1654 to October 1659. On the restoration, sir Anthony Ashley Cooper, afterwards lord Shaftesbury, put another into his place in the ordnance, but on Mr. Sherburne’s application to tlve House of Peers, it was restored to him, although its emoluments were soon greatly retrenched.

The peace of the country being now re-established, he appears to have applied himself to a studious life, and replenished his library, which, according to Wood, was esteemed one of the most considerable belonging to any gentleman in or near London. In 1675, he published “The Sphere of Marcus Manilius, made an English poem, with annotations, and an astronomical index,” which was honoured by the very particular and liberal approbation of the Royal Society; and in 1679, he published a translation of Seneca’s “Troades, or the Royal Captives/' and he left in manuscript a translation of” Hyppolitus,“which two, with the” Medea" before mentioned, he endeavoured to prove were all that Seneca wrote.

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

To these scanty notices, may be added his acquaintance with Dr. Bent ley, which was occasioned by that learned critic’s announcing an intention of publishing a new edition of Manilius. Sir Edward, who had formerly translated the first book of that poet into English verse, took this opportunity of sending to Bentley his collection of editions and papers belonging to Caspar Gevanius, who had also intended an edition of Manilius, but was prevented by death.

The writer of his life in the Biographia Britannica, concludes it with lamenting the misfortune of Anthony Wood’s carrying on his history no longer than the year 1700, and thus leaving it doubtful when sir Edward Sherburne died; but this is one of the many instances of carelessness which occur in those latter volumes of the Biographia that were principally intrusted to Dr. Nichols. Collier, whose Dictionary is in less reputation than it deserves, and which contains many curious facts not easily to be found elsewhere, ascertains Sherburne’s death from his epitaph, part of which he wrote for himself. He died Nov. 4, 1702, and was interred on the 8th in the chapel belonging to the Tower of London.

In Sherburne’s poems considerable genius may be discovered, but impeded by the prevailing taste of his age for strained metaphors and allusions. Poetical lovers then thought no compliments too extravagant, and ransacked the remotest, and apparently most barren sources for what were considered as striking thoughts, but which appear to us unnatural, if not ridiculous. He appears to have derived most of his reputation from his translations. He was a man of classical learning and a critic, and frequently conveys the sense of his author with considerable spirit, although his versification is in general flat and inharmonious. In his sacred poerns he seems to rise to a fervency and elegance which indicate a superior inspiration.

, D. D. the intimate friend of Dean Swift, is said by Shield, in Cibber’s “Lives of the Poets,” to have been born about 1684, in the county of Cavan, where, according to the same authority, his parents lived in no very elevated state. They are described as being unable to afford their son the advantages of a liberal education; but he, being observed to give early indications of genius, attracted the notice of a friend to his family, who sent him to the college of Dublin, and contributed towards his support while he remained there. He afterwards entered into orders, and set up a school in Dublin, which long maintained a very high degree of reputation, as well for the attention bestowed on the morals of the scholars, as for their proficiency in literature. So great was the estimation in which this seminary was held, that it is asserted to have produced in some years the sum of one thousand pounds. It does not appear that he had any considerable preferment; but his intimacy with Swift, in 1725, procured for him a living in the south of Ireland, worth about 150l. a year, which he went to take possession of, and, by an act of inadvertence, destroyed all his future expectations of rising in the church; for, being at Corke on the first of August, the anniversary of king George’s birth-day, he preached a sermon, which had for its text, “Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof.” On this being known, he was struck out of the list of chaplains to the lord-lieutenant, and forbidden the castle.

This living Dr. Sheridan afterwards changed for that of Dunboyne, which, by the knavery of the farmers and power of the gentlemen of the neighbourhood, fell as low as 80l. per annum. He gave it up for the free school of Cavan, where he might have lived well in so cheap a country on 80l. a year salary, besides his scholars; but the air being, as he said, too moist and unwholesome, and being disgusted with some persons who lived there, he sold the school for about 400l. and having soon spent the money, became infirm in health, and died Sept. 10, 1738, in his fifty-fifth year.

Lord Corke has given the following character of him “Dr. Sheridan was a schoolmaster, and in many instances perfectly well adapted for that station. He was deeply versed in the Greek and Roman languages, and in their customs and antiquities. He had that kind of good nature which absence of mind, indolence of body, and carelessness of fortune, produced; and although not over-strict in his own conduct, yet he took care of the morality of his scholars, whom he sent to the university remarkably well founded in all kinds of classical learning, and not ill instructed in the social duties of life. He was slovenly, indigent, and cheerful. He knew books much better than men; and he knew the value of money least of all. In this situation, and with this disposition, Swift fastened upon him as upon a prey with which he intended to regale himself whenever his appetite should prompt him.” His lordship then mentions the event of the unlucky sermon, and adds, “this ill-starred, good-natured, improvident man returned to Dublin, unhinged from all favour at court, and even banished from the castle. But still he remained a punster, a quibbler, a fiddler, and a wit. Not a day passed without a rebus, an anagram, or a madrigal. His pen and his fiddlestick were in continual motion, and yet to little or no purpose,” &c. &c. This character is in a great measure confirmed by his son, in his Life of Swift.

One of the volumes of Swift’s Miscellanies consists almost entirely of letters between him and the dean. He published a prose translation of Persius-, to which he added the best notes of former editors, together with many judicious ones of his own. This work was printed at London, 1739, in 12mo.

, son to the preceding, by his wife Miss Macpherson, daughter of a Scotch gentleman, was born at Quilca in Ireland, the residence of Swift, in 1721. Swift was one of his sponsors, and treated him with kindness as long as he lived. The early part of his education he received from his father, who in 1734 sent him to Westminster school, at a time when he could very ill afford it. Our author was there immediately taken notice of upon examination, and although a mere stranger, was by pure merit elected a king’s scholar. But this maintenance sometimes falling short, his father could not add fourteen pounds to enable his son to finish the year, which if he had done, he would have been removed to a higher class, and in another year would have been elected to Oxford or Cambridge. Being thus obliged to return to Dublin, he was sent to the university there, and took his master’s degree in arts. In 1738 he lost his father, and at that time intended to devote himself to the education of youth, and would immediately after taking his degree have entered upon this office, had he not now conceited that high opinion of the art of oratory from which he never afterwards receded, and in the restoration of which art (for he considered it as lost) he laboured with an uncommon degree of enthusiasm. In order to qualify himself for this undertaking, he fancied that he must himself learn the practice of oratory, and that the stage was the only school. With this last strange notion, he appeared on the theatre in Smock- alley, in January 1743, in the character of Richard III. and met with the greatest encouragement. His career, however, was soon interrupted by a petty squabble, the first of many in which it was his fate to be involved, with Gibber about Cato’s robe. The abusive correspondence which passed on this important occasion was printed in a pamphlet entitled * The Buskin and Sock, being controversial letters between Mr. Thomas Sheridan, tragedian, and Mr. Theophilus Gibber, comedian," 12 mo.

In Jan. 1744, Mr. Sheridan accepted an engagement at Covent-Garden, and came over to England accordingly. During his residence here, he published proposals, dated Oct. 16, 1744, for printing in 4to the works of his father, but from warn of encouragement or some other reason, the volume never appeared; and when, a few years before hi* death, he was asked where the Mss. w^re, could not recollect their fate. He played in 1744 at Covent-Garden, and in 1745 at Drury-Lane. During this latter season, some injudicious friends endeavoured to set up a rivalship between Sheridan and Garrick, which occasioned a quarrel between them, which was not made up when Sheridan left London. It is curious to observe how Sheridan treated Garrick on this occasion. Having on his return to Dublin undertaken the management of the theatre there, he, wrote to Garrick, informing him, “that he was then sole manager of the Irish stage, and should be very happy to see him in Dublin: that he would give him all advantages and encouragement which he could in reason expect.” He also made an offer to divide all the profits with him, from their united representation, after deducting the incurred expences; but told him at the same time, that he must expect nothing from his friendship, for he owed him none: yet that all the best actor had a right to command, he might be very certain should be granted. Soon after the receipt of this letter Garrick arrived in Dublin, and had a meeting with Sheridan, who repeated the offer, and taking out his watch, which he laid on the table, said he would wait a certain number of minutes for his determination Such was Garrick’s situation at this time, that he accepted the terms, which, as well as his acquiescence in the arrogant manner of proposing them, he probably did not recollect with much pleasure, when his own merit and public favour had placed him on a vast height of superiority above his manager.

Mr. Sheridan appeared to much more advantage afterwards as a reformer of the manners of the Dublin audience, which he attempted with great spirit. The young and unruly among the male part of the audience, had long claimed a right of coming into the green-room, attending rehearsals, and carrying on gallantries, in the most open and offensive manner, with such of the actresses as would admit of them, while those who would not were perpetually exposed to insult and ill-treatment. These grievances Sheridan determined by degrees to remove, and at last happily effected, though not until he was involved in contests with the most tumultuous audiences, both at the hazard of losing his means of subsistence, and even of losing his life, from the resentment of a set of lawless rioters, who were at length, through an exertion of justice in the magistracy of Dublin in the support of public decency, convinced of their error, or at least of the impracticability of pursuing it any farther with impunity. During the space of about eight years, Mr. Sheridan possessed the office of manager of the theatre royal of Dublin, with all the success both with respect to fame and fortune that could well be expected; till at length he was driven from the stage and its concerns by another of those popular tumults by which managers and performers are daily liable to suffer. In the summer of the year 1754, in which the rancour of political party arose to the greatest height that it had almost ever been known to do in Dublin, Mr. Sheridan unfortunately revived a tragedy, viz. Miller’s “Mahomet.” In this play were many passages respecting liberty, bribery, and corruption, which pleased the anti-courtiers as expressive of their own opinions in regard to certain persons at that time in power, and therefore they insisted on those passages being repeated, a demand which, on the first night of its representation, the actor in whose part most of them occurred, complied with. The absurdity, however, of such repetitions, merely as destroying the effect of the tragedy, having occurred to the manager, the same speeches, when again called for by the audience on the succeeding night, were refused by the actor, and he being obliged to hint the cause of his refusal, the manager became the object of their resentment. On his not appearing to mollify their rage by some kind of apology, they flew out into the most outrageous violence, cul the scenery to pieces with their swords, tore up the benches and boxes, and, in a word, totally despoiled the theatre; concluding with a resolution never more to permit Mr. Sheridan to appear on that stage.

In consequence of this tumult he was obliged to place the management of his ravaged playhouse in other hands for the ensuing season, and come himself to England, where he continued till the opening of the winter of the year 1756, when the spirit gf party being in some degree subsided, and Sheridan’s personal opponents somewhat convinced of the impetuous rashness of their proceedings, he returned to his native country, and having preceded his first appearance on the stage by a public apology for such parts of his conduct as might have been considered as exceptionable, he was again received with the highest favour by the audience. But now his reign, which had been thus disturbed by an insurrection at home, was yet to undergo a second shock from an invasion from abroad. Two mighty potentates from England, viz. Mr. Barry and Mr. Woodward, having found means to sound the disposition of the people of Dublin, with whom the former, exclusive of his allowed theatrical merit, had great interest by being their countryman, and finding it the opinion of many that a second theatre in that city would be likely to meet with eocouragenaent, if supported by good performers, immediately raised a large subscription among the nobility and gentry, set artificers to work, erected a new play-house in Crow-street during the summer season, and, having engaged a company selected from the two theatres of London, were ready for opening by the beginning of the ensuing winter. And now, at a time when Mr. Sheridan needed the greatest increase of theatrical strength, he found himself deserted by some of his principal performers, who had engaged themselves at the r>ew house and, at the same time, some valuable auxiliaries which he had engaged from England, among whom were Mr. Theophilus Gibber and Mr. Maddox the wire-dancer, lost their lives in the attempt to come to Ireland, being driven by a storm and cast away on the coast of Scotland. This completed that ruin which had begun to take place, and had been so long impending over his head. He was now compelled entirely to throw up his whole concern with that theatre, and to seek out for some other means of providing for himself and family.

In the year 1757 Mr. Sheridan had published a plan, by which he proposed to the natives of Ireland the establish^ ment of an academy for the accomplishment of youth in every qualification necessary for a gentleman. In the formation of this design he considered the art of oratory, his favourite hobby, as one of the principal essentials; and in order to give a stronger idea of the utility cf that art, by example as well as theory, he delivered in public two or three orations calculated to give the highest proofs of the abilities of the proposer, and his fitness for the office of superintendant of such an academy, for which post he modestly offered his service to the public. His biographer, however, gives us no further account of this plan, but proceeds to relate more of his theatrical disputes, in which he always appears to have been unfortunate, although with a shew of reason on his side. In 1759 we find him again in England as a lecturer on his darling elocution. Four years before he had published a volume in 8vo, called “British Education the source of the Disorders of Great Britain. Being an essay towards proving that the immorality, ignorance, and false taste which so generally prevail, are the natural and necessary consequences of the present defective system of education; with an attempt to shew that a revival of the art of speaking, and the study of our own language, might contribute in a great measure to the cure of those evils.” In confirmation of this opinion, he fiad composed a course of lectures on elocution^ and began to deliver them in London, Oxford, Cambridge, and other places, with the success which generally attends novel plans; and in one instance with very extraordinary success, for at Cambridge, March 16, 1759, he was honoured with the same degree he had received in Dublin, that of M. A. In the winter of 1760, he again appeared at Drury-lane theatre, and again had a quarrel with Garrick, which put an end to his engagement.

On the accession of his present majesty a pension was granted to him, and for some few years after this he appears to have been employed in delivering his lectures in different parts of the kingdom. In Scotland he was Ikh noured with so much attention, that a society was formed under the title of “The Society for promoting the reading and speaking of the English language in Scotland/' This was to be done by procuring a proper number of persons from England, duly qualified to instruct gentlemen in the knowledge of the English tongue, to settle at Edinburgh: and Mr. Sheridan,” whose ingenious and instructive lectures in this city first suggested the idea of establishing the society proposed, not only engaged to find out teachers and masters, and to communicate to them his ideas concerning the proper method of performing their duty, but also offered to visit Edinburgh as often as the situation of his affairs would permit,^ &c. In a long list of directors, ordinary and extraordinary, of this society, we find the names of Drs. Blair, Robertson, and Ferguson, with other men of learning, and some noblemen and gentlemen of rank, but of the further progress of the society we have no account.

But Mr. Sheridan was not yet discouraged, and after sone occasional engagements on the stage, published, in 1769, his “Plan of Education for the young nobility and gentry of Great Britain,” addressed to the king: in which he made a tender of his services^ and offered to dedicate the remainder of his days to the execution of the plan which he then proposed, which he considered as absolutely necessary to the plan itself; for he tells his majesty, “if the design be not executed by myself, it never will be by any other hand,” so strongly was his imagination possessed by this project. But unfortunately the novelty of the plan had worn off, its usefulness was disputed, its necessity had been doubted, its reputation had suffered not a little by ridicule, and its patrons had cooled much in their zeal for its propagation. The proposal, therefore, made to his majesty in the above address passed without notice. The author, however, whose enthusiasm was increased rather than weakened by neglect, determined to persevere in spite of every obstacle. By writing, by conversation, and by public lectures, he endeavoured to support his plan; and when he saw himself unattended to, was not sparing of his invectives against the taste of the times. From this period his disappointment led him frequently to express himself with asperity, even against his royal benefactor; and it is remembered that on the declaration of American independence, in a moment of vexation and resentment, he declared a resolution of benefiting the new world with the advantages ungratefully neglected by his own country.

In 1769, 1770, and 1776, he performed at the Haymarket and Covent-garden theatres, after which last year he appeared no more as an actor. Though still willing to contribute to the public amusement, it was his misfortune to find the theatres shut against him by an influence which he always complained of, although unable to conquer it. On the retirement of Garrick in 1776, the purchasers of the share in Drury-lane, of which his celebrated son was one, agreed to invest our author with the powers of a manager; but here his usual ill luck attended him, for in about three years he relinquished his post, as not tenable but on what he thought ignominious terms.

The theatres being shut against him as a performer, he now returned to his literary avocations, and produced his 11 Dictionary of the English Language,“and his” Life of Swift," the only two of all his list of publications that are likely to^erpetuate his name. In 1784 and 1785, in conjunction with Henderson the actor, he read select passages from various authors, which was his last public exhibition. The following year he visited Ireland, where he is said to have been much consulted on certain improvements to be introduced in the modes of education in that kingdom. During his residence there he found his health deciine, and in hopes to re-establish it, came to England in the summer of 1788, and went to Margate, intending to proceed to Lisbon if he found no amendment. His strength however, rapidly failed, and he died at Margate, Aug. 14, 1788, in the sixty-seventh year of his age.

Mr. Sheridan’s biographer asserts that “his talents were more solid than brilliant, and his genius inferior to his industry.” If this opinion refers to his merit on the stage, we are not enabled to appreciate its justice: if to his writings, we perceive very little that is either solid or brilliant, or. that deserves to be called genius. He set out in life with absurd and wild notions of the utility of oratory to cure the moral and political evils of the world, and he persisted in them to the last. His biographer allows that he had no mean opinion of himself, and might have added that this opinion of himself, with its concomitant, envy, his preposterous schemes, and his lofty sense of superiority, became the bane of his life, marked as it “uniformly” might be “with uprightness and integrity.” In his biography of Swift, he was fortunate in obtaining the best materials, but peculiarly unfortunate in a want of judgment to make use of them, and in not seeing, what every one else saw, that although they might furnish an impartial account of that.extraordinary man, they could by no art support a continued panegyric. Sheridan’s early attachment to the stage, where he was to learn his wonderworking oratory, proved of lasting detriment to him. It disturbed his imagination, threw his mind out of a regular train of thinking, and, with the distresses which his repeated quarrels and failures brought upon him, led him to the quackery of itinerant lectures, which were neglected after the first curiosity had been gratified.

Mr. Sheridan’s wife, Frances, was born in Ireland about the year 1724, but descended from a good English family which had removed thither. Her maiden name was Chamberlaine, and she was grand-daughter of sir Oliver Cham* berlaine. The first literary performance by which she distinguished herself, was a little pamphlet at the time of the political dispute relative to the theatre, in which Mr. Sheridan had newly embarked his fortune. A work so well timed exciting the attention of Mr. Sheridan, he by an accident discovered his fair patroness, to whom he was soon afterwards married. She was a person of the most amiable character in every relation of life, with the most engaging manners. After lingering some years in a very weak state of health, she died at Blois, in the south of France, in the year 1767. Her “Sydney Bidclulph” has been ranked with the first productions of the novel class in ours, or in any other language. She also wrote a little romance, in one volume, called “Nourjahad,” in which there is a great deal of imagination, productive of an ad­Vol. XXVII. H H mirable moral. And she was the authoress of two comedies; “The Discovery,” and “The Dupe.”

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

, a learned English divine, was born in South wark about 1641, and educated at Eton 1 school, where he distinguished himself by the vigour of his genius and application to his studies. Thence he removed to Peter-house in Cambridge in May 1657, where he took a bachelor of arts degree in 1660, and a master’s in 1665. He now went into holy orders, and officiated as a curate until 1669, when he was preferred to the rectory of St. George’s, Botolph-lane, in London. In this parish he discharged the duties of his function with great zeal, and was esteemed an excellent preacher. In 1673, he.published “A discourse concerning the knowledge of Christ, and our union and communion with him,” which involved him in a controversy with the celebrated nonconformist Dr. John Owen, and with Mr. Vincent Alsop. In 1680, he took the degree of D. D. and about the same time published some pieces against the nonconformists. Soon after he was collated to a prebend of St. Paul’s, was appointed master of the Temple, and had the rectory of Therfield in Hertfordshire. In 1684 he published a pamphlet, entitled “The case of Resistance to the Supreme Powers stated and resolved, according to the doctrine of the holy Scriptures;” and continued to preach the same opinion after the accession of James II. when it was put to the test. He engaged also in the controversy with the papists, which shews that he was not a servile adherent to the king, but conscientious in his notions of regal power. This likewise he shewed at the Revolution, when he refused to take the oaths to William and Mary, and was therefore suspended from all his preferments. During his suspension, he published his celebrated treatise, entitled “A practical discourse on Death,” 1690, which has passed through at least forty editions, and is indeed the only one of his works now read. But before the expiration of that year, he thought proper to comply with the new government, and taking the oaths, was reinstated in all his preferments, of which, though forfeited, he had not been deprived. Being much censured for this step by those who could not yield a like compliance, he endeavoured to vindicate himself in a piece entitled “The Case of the Allegiance due to the Sovereign Princes stated and resolved, according to Scripture and Reason, and the principles of the Church of England, with a more particular respect to the Oath lately enjoined of Allegiance to their present Majesties king William and queen Mary, 1690,” quarto. This was followed by twelve answers. His design was to lay down such principles as would prove the allegiance due to William and Mary, even supposing them to have no legal right, which the celebrated Mr. Kettlewell could by no means agree with, and therefore wrote, upon another principle, “The duty of Allegiance settled upon its true grounds.” The dispute is perhaps now of little consequence; but Sherlock persisted in preaching his doctrine of non-resistance in the new reign, and had undoubtedly some merit in this kind of consistency, and in rendering that plausible in any degree, which the other nonjurors thought contradictory in every degree. In 1691, he published his “Vindication of the doctrine of the holy and ever blessed Trinity;” but his attempt to explain this mystery was not satisfactory, and involved him in a controversy with Dr. South. What was more mortifying, a fellow of University-college, Oxford, having preached his doctrine in a sermon at St. Mary’s, the university issued a decree, censuring that doctrine as false, impious, and heretical, and warned all persons under their jurisdiction not to preach or maintain any such notions. The controversy being exasperated by this indignity, the king at last interposed, and issued directions “to the archbishops and bishops,” ordaining, that “all preachers should carefully avoid all new terms, and confine themselves to such ways of explanation as have been commonly used in the church.” After this, it is but fair to state Dr. Sherlock’s notion: he thought that there were three eternal minds 9 two of these issuing from the father, but that these three were one by a mutual consciousness in the three to every one of their thoughts. Dr. Sherlock was promoied to the deanery of St. Paul’s in 1691. He died at Hampstead June 19, 1707, in his 67th year; and was interred in the cathedral of St. Paul. He left two sons and two daughters; the eldest of his sons was Dr. Thomas SherLck, bishop of London. Burnet says, that “he was a clear, polite, and a strong writer, but apt to assume too much to himself, and to treat his adversaries with contempt. This created him many enemies, and made him pass for an insolent haughty man.” He was, however, a man of considerable learning and abilities, and conscientious, however mistaken, in those peculiar opinions which engaged him in such frequent controversies with his brethren.

, eldest son to the preceding, and bishop of London, was born in that city in 1678. He was sent at an early age to Eton school, where he laid the foundation of that classical elegance which is visible in most of his works, especially in his much-admired sermons, About 1693 he was removed to Cambridge, and admitted of Katherine-hall, under the tuition of Dr. Long, afterwards bishop of Norwich. Here he took his degree of B. A. in 1697, and that of M. A. in 1701, and between these periods was elected to a fellowship, and entered into holy orders. How highly he must have been esteemed even at this early period, appears from his first preferment in the church, which was to one of its highest dignities, under the bench, the mastership of the Temple, to which he was appointed in 1704. That such a rapid elevation should have given offence, can excite no surprize. It was probably unprecedented, and in so young a man, might be thought unjustifiable, yet it took place at a time when preferments were not lightly bestowed, and Mr. Sherlock in a very short time exhibited such talents as removed all prejudices against him. Indeed he appears to have felt it necessary to justify the authors of his promotion, both upon his own account and that of the church. He exerted the utmost diligence, therefore, in the cultivation of his talents and the display of his learning and eloquence, and in the course of a few years became one of the most celebrated preachers of his time; and notwithstanding some decree of natural impediment (what is called a thickness of speech), he delivered his sermons with such propriety and energy as to rivet the attention of his hearers, and command their admiration.

In 1714, at which time he took his doctor’s degree in divinity, he succeeded sir William Dawes in the mastership of Katherine-hall, and when appointed vice-chancellor, in his turn, discharged the duties of that office in a manner the most beneficial to the university. In particular he exerted himself in inspecting and bringing into order the public archives, and in the course of this employment acquired such a knowledge of the constitution, history, power, and immunities of the university, as gave his opinion a very great weight in all subsequent disputes. He likewise, during his residence in Katherine-hall, discovered not only very superior abilities with deep and extensive learning, but also much wisdom, policy, and talents for governing. It was in allusion to this political sway, that Dr. Bentley during his disputes at Cambridge, gave Dr. Sherlock the nickname of cardinul Alberom, while about the same time Bentley’s antagonist, Middleton, called Sherlock, “the principal champion and ornament of both church and university.” This was very high praise from one who reflected so little honour on either.

In 1716 he obtained the deanery of Chichester, and soon after this promotion appeared as an author, for the first time, in the memorable Bangorian controversy, during the course of which he published several tracts. One of the principal is entitled “A Vindication of the Corporation and Test Acts: in answer to the Bishop of Bangor’s Reasons for the Repeal of them. To which is added a second part, concerning the Religion of Oaths,” 1718, 8vo. The bishop of Bangor answered him in a piece entitled “The common Rights of Subjects defended, and the Nature of the Sacramental Test considered,” 1719, 8vo: yet, while he opposed strenuously the principles of his antagonist, he gave the strongest testimony that could be of his abilities; for, in the beginning of his preface, he calls his own book “An Answer to the most plausible and ingenious Defence, that, he thinks, has ever yet been published, of excluding men from their acknowledged civil Rights, upon the account of their differences in Religion, or in the circumstances of Religion.” Sherlock replied to the bishop, in a small pamphlet, in which he sets forth “The true Meaning and Intention of the Corporation and Test Acts asserted, &c.” 1719, 8vo. It has been said, by the writer of his life in the Biog. Brit, that in his latter days, Dr. Sherlock did not approve of these writings against bishop Hoadly, and that he told a friend, “that he was a young man when he wrote them,” and he would never have them collected into a volume. That Dr. Sherlock might have changed his sentiments in his latter days is not improbable, but it could not be asserted that he was at this time a young man, for he had passed his fortieth year*. Some part, however, which he took in this controversy, before he published on it, seems to have given offence at court, for in 1717, he and Dr. Snape were removed from the list of king’s chaplains.

In 1724 Collins published his insidious attack, entitled “A Discourse of the Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Religion” in which he endeavours to fix the evidences of it chiefly, if not solely, upon the prophecies of the Old Testament; and then explains these prophecies in such a manner, as to make it appear that they have no better foundation than the Divination among the heathens “who learnt,” says he, “that art in schools, or under discipline, as the Jews did prophesying in the schools and colleges of the prophets.” This work occasioned many pieces to be written upon the subject of prophecy; and, though Sherlock did not enter directly into the controversy, yet he took an opportunity of communicating his sentiments, in six discourses delivered at the Temple church, in April and May 1724, which he published the year after, with this title, “The Use and Intent of Prophecy, in the several ages of the world,” 8vo. In these we have a regular series of prophecies, deduced through the several ages from the beginning, and presented in a connectecj view; together with the various degrees of light distinctly marked out, which were successively communicated in such a manner, as to answer the great end of religion and the designs of providence, till the great events to which they pointed should receive thtir accomplishment. These discourses have been exceedingly admired, and gone through several editions. The fourth, corrected

than its subject. Of his general sen- spirit, and the comfortable hopes of

timents on leligion, we have the fol- religion, lost in the abundance of spelowing testimony in a letter which he culation, and the v;in pretences of

wrote in 1749 to Dr. Doddridge: setting up natural religion in opposi­" Whatever points of difference there lion to revelation; and there will be

ing the knowledge of the gospel, and and him crucified." Doddridge’s LeU

for reforming the lives and manners ters, 1790, 8vo, p. 457. and enlarged, was published in 1744, 8vo; to which are added, “Four Dissertations: I. ‘The Authority of the second Epistie of St. Peter.’ 2. ‘ The Sense of the Ancients before Christ, upon the Circumstances and Consequences of the Fall.’ 3. ‘ The blessing of Judah,’ Gen. xlix. 4. ‘ Christ’s Entry into Jerusalem’.” Three of these dissertations, if we mistake not, accompanied the discourses from their first publication; the fourth was added afterwards. In 1749, Sherlock, then bishop of London, published “An Appendix to the second Dissertation, being a farther enquiry into the Mosaic account of the Fall,” 8vo. An advertisement is prefixed, setting forth, that the dissertation was drawn up some years since, and intended as an examination of the objections made to the History of the Fall by the author of “The Literal Scheme of Prophecy;” but that author being dead, was now published, not in answer to him, but to all who call in question, or are offended with, the History of the Fall, as it stands recorded by Moses. Whether Dr. Middleton, who had ridiculed the “Literal History of the Fall,” considered himself as particularly aimed at here, or whether he acted from other private motives of resentment, which has been asserted, we know not, but he published the year after, 1750, a sharp and satirical “Examination of the Discourses upon Prophecy, with Animadversions upon this Dissertation:” in which he undertakes to explain and affirm these four points: 1. “That the use of Prophecy, as it was taught and practised by Christ, his Apostles, and Evangelists, was drawn entirely from single and separate predictions, gathered by them from the books of the Law and the Prophets, and applied, independently on each other, to the several acts and circumstances of the life of Jesus, as so many proofs of his Divine Mission; and, consequently, that his Lordship’s pretended chain of Antediluvian Prophecies is nothing else but a fanciful conceit which has no connection at all with the evidences of the Gospel.” 2. “That the Bishop’s exposition of his text is forced, unnatural, and inconsistent with the sense of St. Peter, from whose epistle it is taken.” 3. “That the historical Interpretation, which he gives to the account of Fall, is absurd and contradictory to reason; and that the said account cannot be considered under any other character than that of Allegory, Apologue, or Moral Fable.” 4. “That the Oracles of the Heathen World, which his Lordship declares to have been given out by the, Devil, in the form of a Serpent, were all impostures, wholly managed by human craft, without any supernatural aid or interposition whatever.”

On tins pro.notion, he had the misfortune to differ with Dr. Herring, then archbishop of Canterbury, who had made his option for the rectory of St. George’s Hanoversquare, which being one of the most valuable livings in his diocese, the bishop was very unwilling to relinquish it, and drew up a pamphlet respecting the nature of the archbishop’s options, and resolved to oppose the present claim. The matter, however, was accommodated by his giving up the living of St. Anne’s, Solio, which the archbishop accepted. Dr. Sherlock printed fifty copies of his thoughts on the subject, in 1757, for private distribution, in a folio pamphlet, entitled “The Option; or an Inquiry into the grounds of the claim made by the archbishop, on all consecrated or translated bishops, of the disposal of any preferment belonging to their respective sees that he shall make choice of.” The chief argument of the author, deduced from the registers, &c. of the archbishops, is that the archbishop of Canterbury never had, nor at this tune has a right to an option from a translated bishop; but he allows that the claim on consecrated bishops is well founded, for it is properly a consecration fee, and becomes due ratione consecrationis. Archbishop Herring, to whom he had sent a ms copy, in 1749, reprinted the whole afterwards in 4to, with a short answer in onu page, and distributed it among his friends. Dr Sherlock, however, we see, virtually gave up the point, by giving up the living of St. Anne’s.

Bishop Sherlock held the mastership of the Temple, where he was much beloved, and in which he generally resided, until 1753; anil when his resignation was accepted by his majesty, he addressed an affecting letter to the treasurer and masters of the bench, gratefully acknowledging their goodness to him, during the long course of his ministry among them; assuring them that he should always remember the man) and distinguished instances of their favour to him; and declaring that he esteemed his relation to the two societies of the Temple to have been the greatest happiness of his life, as it introduced him to some of the greatest men of the age, and afforded him the opportunities of living and conversing with gentlemen of a liberal education, and of great learning and experience.

Bodily infirmities now began to affect him very much, and, though for three or four years he applied himself to business, and made one general visitation of his diocese in person, yet he was then visited with a severe illness, which deprived him almost first of the use of his limbs, and then at times of his speech, insomuch that he could not be understood but by those who were constantly about him. Still the powers of his understanding and his accustomed cheerfulness continued; and under this weak state of body, in which he lay many years, he revised, corrected, and published, 4 vols. of “Sermons” in 8vo. The last time in which he probably used his pen, was in an affectionate congratulatory letter to his present majesty on his accession, being incapable of waiting on him in person . He He died July 18, 1761, in his eighty-fourth year, and was interred in the church-yard at Fulham, in a vault made for that purpose: where likewise a monument was erected to his memory, with an inscription drawn up by Dr. Nicholls, who succeeded him, in the mastership of the Temple, and speaks thus of his character:

“His learning was very extensive: God had given him a great and an understanding mind, a quick comprehension, and a solid judgment. These advantages of nature he improved by much industry and application; and in the early part of his life had read and digested well the ancient authors, both Greek and Latin, the philosophers, poets, and orators: from whence he acquired that correct and elegant style, which appears in all his compositions. His knowledge in divinity was obtained from the study of the most rational writers of the church, both antient and modern: and he was particularly fond of comparing scripture with scripture, and esperially of illustrating the epistles and writings of the apostles, which he thought wanted to be more studied, and of which we have some specimens in his own discourses. His skill in the civil and canon law was very considerable; to which he had added such a knowledge of the common law of England, as few clergymen attain to. This it was that gave him that influence in all causes where the church was concerned; as knowing precisely what it had to claim from its constitutions and canons, and what from the common law of the land.” Nicholls then mentions his constant and exemplary piety, his warm and fervent zeal in preaching the duties and main* taining the doctrines of Christianity, and his large and diffusive munificence and charity. “The instances of his public charities,” says he, “both in his life-time and at his death, are great, and like himself.” He has given large sums of money to the corporation of clergymen’s sons, to several of the hospitals, and to the society For propagating the gospel in foreign parts: and at the instance of the said society, he consented to print at his own charge an Impression of two thousand sets of his valuable discourses at a very considerable expence; and they have been actually sent to all the islands and colonies in America; and, by the care of the governors and clergy, it is hoped that by this time they are all properly distributed among the people of those respective colonies, to their great improvement in the knowledge of rational and practical Christianity. And, to mention one instance more of his great charity and care for the education of youth, ne has given to Catherine-hall in Cambridge, me place of his education. his valuable library of books, anu uonations for the founding a librarian’s place, a.'^d a scholarship."

Bishop Sherlock hud acquired mu< h knowleage of the laws and constitution of England, which enabled him to appear with great weight, both as a governor of the church, and a lord of parliament. In cases of ecclesiastical law, brought before the House of Peers, he had sometimes the honour of leading the judgment of that august assembly, in opposition to some of the great luminaries of the law, who had at first declared themselves of a different opinion: and in general when he assisted at the deliberations of that house, he entered freely into many other questions of importance, as appears by his speeches printed in the parliamentary debates.

In 1707, he married Miss Judith Fountaine, descended from a goud family in Yorkshire, a very amiable woman; but they had no children. She survived him, and died in 1764, aged seventy-seven, and was interred in the same vault with her husband. By the death of his younger brother, he acquired a fortune of 30,000l. and notwithstanding his many charities, died possessed, as it is said, of upwards of 100,000l. the bulk of which came to sir Thomas Gooch, his sister’s son, by Dr. Thomas Gooch, bishop of Ely.

Besides the works already enumerated, a fifth volume of his “Sermons” was published in 1776: this consists of fourteen occasional sermons, printed at the expense of Lockyer Davis and Thomas Davies, two well-known booksellers, whose initials D. D. are subscribed to the preface, and but for this notice, may perhaps perplex some future inquirer. He was also the author of “The Trial of the Witnesses of the Resurrection of Jesus,” first published in 1729, without his name, and which went through fourteen editions. Dr. Leland remarks that this piece has been “very justly admired for the polite and uncommon turn, as well as the judicious way of treating the subject.” It is indeed a very ingenious effort both of argument and imagination, and places Sherlock’s talents in a new light*. On

* Mr. Woolston having bent his ef- evidences of the resurrection are exforts with particular virulence against amined in the form of a judicial proour Saviour’s resurrection Dr. Sher- ceeding. In 1749 was published lock wrote this pamphlet, io which the “The sequel of the Trial of the Witoccasion of the earthquake at Lisbon in 1750, which alarmed, this country, he addressed an excellent” Pastoral Letter" to the clergy and inhabitants of Lon 'on, of which fifty- five thousand were dispersed, besides pirated editions to nearly the same amount. The effect of this letter was for some time visible in the repression of public licentiousness, and in a remarkable show of outward penitence and decency, but all this abated as the danger disappeared.

In bishop Sherlock’s sermons are many passages of uncommon animation. It is said that when Dr. Nichblls waited upon lord chancellor Hardwicke with the first volume of these sermons, in Nov. 1753, his lordship asked him whether there was not a sermon on John xx. 30, 31 and, on his replying in the affirmative, desired him to turn to the conclusion, and repeated verbatim the animated contrast between the Mahometan and Christian religion, beginning, “Go to your natural religion,” &c. to the end. Yet it was thirty years since that sermon had been published singly. Such was the impression it made on lord Hardwicke. This interesting anecdote, however, would want some of its effect, if we did not add, that at a later period, Dr. Blair, in his “Lectures on Rhetoric,” pointed out this identical passage, as an instance of personification, carried as far as prose, even in its highest elevation, will admit. After transcribing it, Blair adds, “this is more than elegant: it is truly sublime.” The frequency of such coincidences of sentiment between men of real taste, renders it unnecessary to question whether Blair had heard the anecdote of lord Hardwicke.

, a learned and accomplished prelate, was born about 1714. His education was liberal, and at a proper age he was entered of Christ Church, Oxford, where while bachelor of arts he exhibited a talent for poetry, which with cultivation might have risen to excellence. On the death of queen Caroline, he wrote some verses in the Oxford collection, which are said to have been the best that were produced on that occasion. In April 1738 he took his degree of M. A. and soon afterwards entered into holy orders, and obtained a living. May 27,

nesses ofthe Resurrection, &c. Revised nesses." This was either written by by the Author ofthe Trial ofthe Wit- the bishop, or under his inspection. 1743, he was installed a prebendary in the cathedral church of Winchester; and in March 1745 was appointed chaplain to the duke of Cumberland, to attend him abroad. On October 14, 1748, he took the degree of doctor of divinity; and on January 28, 1749, became canon of Christ Church in Oxford. In the year 1760 he was advanced to the deanery of Winchester, and at the same time was permitted by dispensation to retain the livings of Silchester and Chilbolton. His last preferment took place in the year 1769, when on the death of bishop Newcombe he was promoted to the bishopric of St. Asaph, in which he remained until his death, which took place at his house in Bolton-row, Piccadilly, Dec, 9, 1788. He was buried at Twyford, near Winchester.

Dr. Shipley gave an early and decided opinion against the coercive measures adopted towards America, to which his friends imputed his receiving no further advancement. In the year 1774 he published “A speech intended to have been spoken on the bill for altering the charters of the Colony of Massachusetts-bay,” 8vo the style of which was much admired even by those who disliked the sentiments. Mr. Mainvvaring, in the introduction to his “Sermons,” p. 28, 8vo, speaks of it in the following terms “If it were allowable for a moment to adopt the poetical creed of the antients, one would almost imagine, that the thoughts of a truly elegant writer were formed by Apollo, and attired by the Graces. It would seem, indeed, that language was at a loss to furnish a garb adapted to their rank and worth; that judgment, fancy, taste, had all combined to adorn them, yet without impairing that divine simplicity for the want of which nothing can compensate.” And in a note on this passage, he says, “Amongst all the productions, antient or modern, it would be difficult to find an instance of more consummate elegance than in a printed Speech intended to be spoken in the House of Lords.” Besides this effort, his lordship during the whole American war, continued to be an opponent of Government; but his character, talents, and manners were always highly respected by men of all parties. His works, consisting of sermons, charges, and parliamentary speeches, were published in 2 vols. 8vo, in 1792.

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

He and his two brothers, sir Thomas and sir Robert, rendered themselves so famous by their travels and gallant exploits, that in 1607, they were made the subject of a comedy called “The Travels of the three brothers Shirleys,” by John Day, 4to, 1607, of which, and of them, some other particulars may be seen in our authorities; but their adventures seem to be confused together. The late lord Orford had an intention to have cleared up these mistakes, as among his papers are many notes on the subject.

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

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

There was one Mr. Henry Shirley, a contemporary of our author, who wrote a tragedy called “The Martyred Soldier;” which was often acted with applause. It was printed in 1631, and dedicated by the publisher J. K. to sir Kenelm Digby; the author being then dead. More recently there was a William Shirley, who was for some years resident in Portugal, in a public character, as it is supposed. On some disgust, however, or dispute in which he had involved himself there, he returned to England about 1749. He was esteemed well versed in affairs of trade, and the commercial interests and connections of different kingdoms, especially those of Great Britain and Portugal. He was also considered as the author of several letters on those subjects, published in the Daily Gazetteer, and signed Lusitanicus; and wrote a pamphlet, entitled “Observations upon the sentence of the conspirators against the king of Portugal,” 1755, 8vo. In his poetical capacity, however, Mr. Shirley does not stand in so considerable a light, though several of his plays have been represented on the stage; but others were rejected by Garrick, whom tie abused in the newspapers. He is said to have written for the stage as late as 1777, when he must have been advanced in years; but the time of his death is not specified in our authority.

, son of sir Thomas Shirley, ofWiston in Sussex, and related to the Shirleys the travellers, was born in St. Margaret’s parish, Westminster, in 1638. He lived with his father in Magdalen-college, Oxford, while the city was garrisoned by the king’s forces, and was educated at the school adjoining the college. Afterwards he studied physic abroad, and took his degrees in that faculty. On his return he became a very eminent practitioner, and was made physician in ordinary to Charles II. He was immediate heir to his ancestors’ estate of near 3000l. a year at Wiston, which was seized during the rebellion; but although he applied to parliament, never was able to recover it. This disappointment is thought to have hastened his death, which took place April 5, 1678. Besides “Medicinal counsels,” and “A Treatise of the Gout,” from the French of Mayerne, he published “A philosophical essay of the productions of Stones in the earth, with relation to the causes and cure of stones in the bladder, &c.” Lond. 1672; and “Cochlearia curiosa, or the curiosity of Scurvygrass,” from the Latin of Molinbrochius of Leipsic. Both these are noticed in the Philosophical Transactions, No. 81, and No. 125.

, an eminent optician, was born in Edinburgh in the year 1710. At the age of ten being left in a state of indigence by the death of both his parents, he was admitted into Heriot’s hospital, where he soon shewed a fine mechanical genius, by constructing for himself a number of curious articles with common knives, or such other instruments as he could procure. Two years after he was removed from the hospital to the high- school, where he so much distinguished himself in classical learning, that his friends thought of qualifying him for a learned profession. After four years spent at the high-school, in 1726 he was entered a student of the university of Edinburgh, where he passed through a regular course of study, took his degree of master of arts, and at the earnest entreaties of his relations, attended the divinity lectures: after which, in 1731, he passed his examination to fit him for a preacher in the church of Scotland. He soon, however, gave up all thoughts of a profession which he found little suited to his talents, and from this period he devoted his whole time to mathematical and mechanical pursuits. He was pupil to the celebrated Maclaurin, who perceiving the bent of his genius, encouraged him to prosecute those particular studies for which he seemed best qualified by nature. Under the eye of his preceptor he began, in 1732, to construct Gregorian telescopes; and, as the professor observed, by attending to the figure of his specula, he was enabled to give them larger apertures, and to carry them to greater perfection, than had ever been done before him.

In 1736 Mr. Short was invited to London by queen Caroline, to instruct William duke of Cumberland in the mathematics; and on his appointment to this office, he was elected a member of the Royal Society, and patronized by the earls of Macclesfield and Morton. In the year 1739 he accompanied the former to the Orkney islands, where he was employed in making a survey of that part of Scotland. On his return to London he established himself as an optician, and in 1743, he was commissioned by lord Thomas Spencer to make a reflector of twelve- feet focus, for which he received 600 guineas. He afterwards made several other telescopes of the same focal distance, with improvements and higher magnifiers: and in 1752 he completed one for the king of Spain, for which, with the whole apparatus, he received 1200l. This was the noblest instrument of the kind that had ever been constructed, and has probably not been surpassed, unless by the grand telescopes manufactured by Dr. Herschel.

Mr. Short was accustomed to visit the place of his nativity once every two or three years during his residence in London, and in the year 1766 he paid his last visit to Scotland. He died at Newington Butts, near London, in June 1768, after a very short illness, in the fifty-eighth year of his age. Mr. Short was a very good general scholar, besides well skilled in optics and mathematics. He was a very useful member of the Royal Society, and wrote a great many excellent papers in the Philosophical Transactions, from 1736 to the time of his death. His eminence as an artist is universally admitted, and he is spoken of by those who knew him from his youth upwards, as a man of virtue and very amiable manners.

, a physician of the early part of the last century, anci the author of many works relating to chemistry, meteorology, and medicine, was a native of North Britain, and settled early in life as a physician at Sheffield, and had considerable reputation and practice, both in the town and among persons of rank and fortune in the neighbourhood. In 1732 he niaivied Mary, daughter of Mr. Parkins of Mortimley, near Sheffield, by whom he had two sons and two daughters, all since dead. On the death of this wife in 1762, he retired to llotheram, where he died at an advanced age, Nov. 28, 1772, and was buried at Sheffield. Some time before his decease he requested that his corpse might not be disturbed in the bed in which he departed, until it was removed into his coffin. He had acquired some property in Pea-street, where he resided, and in other parts of Sheffield. In his person he was tall, thin, and hard-featured, affected the Scotch accent in his speech, and a bluntness and freedom in conversation that were not always agreeable. He had an utter aversion to swine’s flesh, was irritable in his temper, and impatient of contradiction. But he had undoubted abilities in his profession, was indefatigable in his pursuit after knowledge, and irreproachable in his moral conduct. Of his publications, the most valuable was his “Comparative History of the Increase and Decrease of Mankind in England, and several countries abroad, &c.” published by subscription in 1767. Among his other works are, “Memoir on the Natural History of Medicinal Waters,” 1725. “A Dissertation on Tea,” 1730. “Natural History of the Mineral Waters of Yorkshire, Lincolnshire, and Derbyshire,” 1733. “A General Chronological History of the Air, Weather, Seasons, Meteors, &c. for the space of 250 Years,” 1749. “Discourses on Tea, Sugar, Miik, made Wines, Spirits, Punch, Tobacco, &c.” 1749. “New Observations, Natural, Moral, Civil, Political, and Medical, on Bills of Mortality,” 1750. Having for several years rented the Holt spa of the Nevile family, he wrote a pamphlet on the subject, of which a considerable part is given in Mr. Nichols’s “Leicestershire,” vol. II.

, an eminent English admiral, was born near Clay, in Norfolk, about 1650, of parents in middling circumstances, and put apprentice to some mechanic trade, to which he applied himself for som.e time. He is said to have early discovered an inclination for the naval service, and at length went to sea, under the protection of sir Christopher Mynns, as a cabbin-boy, and applying himself very assiduously to the study of navigation, became an able seaman, and quickly arrived at preferment. In 1674, our merchants in the Mediterranean being very much distressed by the piratical state of Tripoly, a strong squadron was sent into those parts under the command of sir John Narborough, who arrived before Tripoly in the spring of the year, and found considerable preparations for defence. Being, according to the nature of his instructions, desirous to try negotiation rather than force, he thought proper to send Shovel, now a lieutenant, to demand satisfaction for what was past, and security for the time to come. Shovel went on shore, and delivered his message with great spirit; but the Dey, despising his youth, treated him with much disrespect, and sent him back with an indefinite answer. Shovel, on his return to the admiral, acquainted him with some remarks he had made on shore. Sir John sent him back with another message, and well furnished him with proper rules for conducting his inquiries and observations. The Dey’s behaviour was worse the second time, which Shovel made a pretence for delaying his departure that he might complete his observations. On his return he assured the admiral it was very practicable to burn the ships in the harbour, notwithstanding their lines and forts: accordingly, in the night of the 4th of March, Shovel, with all the boats in the fleet, filled with combustibles, went boldly into the harbour, and destroyed the vessels in it, after which he returned safe to the fleet, without the loss of a single man; and the Tripolines were so disconcerted at the boldness and success of the attack, as immediately to sue for peace. Of this affair sir John Narborough gave so honourable account in all his letters, that the next year Shovel had the command given him of the Sapphire, a fifth rate; whence he was not long after *e* moved into the James galley, a fourth rate, in which he continued till the death of Charles II. Although he was known to be unfriendly to the arbitrary measures of James II. yet that prince continued to employ him, and he was preferred to the Dover, in which situation he was when the Revolution took place, and heartily concurred in that event. In 1689, he was in the first battle, that of Bantry-bay, in the Edgar, a third-rate; and so distinguished himself by courage and conduct, that when king William came down to Portsmouth, he conferred on him the honour of knighthood. In 1690, he was employed in conveying king YVilr liam and his army into Ireland, who was so highly pleased with his diligence and dexterity, that he did him the honour to deliver him a commission of rear-admiral of the blue with his own hand. Just before the king set out for Holland, in 1692, he made him rear-admiral of the red, at the same time appointing him commander of the squadron that was to convoy him thither. On his return, Shovel joined admiral Russell with the grand fleet, and had a share in the glory of the victory at La Hogue. When it was thought proper that the fleet should be put under command of joint admirals in the succeeding year, he was one; and, as Campbell says, “if there had been nothing more than this joint commission, we might well enough account from thence for the misfortunes which happened in our affairs at sea, during the year 1693.” The joint admirals were of different parties; but as they were all good seamen, and probably meant well to their country, though they did not agree in the manner of serving it, it is most likely, “that, upon mature consideration of the posture things were then in, the order they had received from court, and the condition of the fleet, which was not either half manned or half victualled, the admirals might agree that a cautious execution of the instructions which they had received was a method as safe for the nation, and more so for themselves, than any other they could take.” On this occasion sir Cloudesley Shovel was at first an object of popular odium; but when the affair came to be strictly investigated in parliament, he gave so clear and satisfactory an account of the matter, that it satisfied the people that the commanders were not to blame; and that if there was treachery, it must have originated in persons in office at home. The character of sir Cloude&ley remaining unimpeached, we find him. again at sea, in 1694, under lord Berkley, in the expedition to Camaret-bay, in which he distinguished himself by his dextrous embarkation of the land forces, when they sailed on that unfortunate expedition; as also when, on their return to England, it was deemed necessary to send the fleet again upon the coast of France, to bombard Dieppe, and other places. In 1702 he was sent to bring the spoils of the Spanish and French fleets from Vigo, after the capture of that place by sir George Rooke. In 1703, he commanded the grand fleet up the Streights; where he protected our trade, and did all that was possible to be done for the relief of the protestants then in arms in the Cevenues; and countenanced such of the Italian powers as were inclined to favour the allies. In 1704 he was sent, with a powerful squadron, to join sir George liooke, who commanded a grand fleet in the Mediterranean, and had his share in the action off Malaga. Upon his return he was presented to the queen by prince George, as lord high admiral, and met with a very gracious reception; and was next year employed as commander in chief. In 1705, when k was thought necessary to send both a fleet and army to Spain, sir Cloudesley accepted the command of the fleet jointly with the earls of Peterborough and Monmouth, which sailed to Lisbon, thence to Catalonia, and arrived before Barcelona on the 12th of August and it was chiefly through his activity, in furnishing guns for the batteries, and men ta play them, and assisting with his advice, that the place was taken.

After the unsuccessful attempt upon Toulon, in which sir Cloudesley performed all in his power, he bore away for the Streights; and soon after resolved to return home. He left sir Thomas Dilkes at Gibraltar, with nine ships of the line, for the security of the coasts of Italy: and then proceeded with the remainder of the fleet, consisting of ten ships of the line, four fire-ships, a sloop, and a yacht, for England. Oct. 22, he came into the soundings, and had ninety fathom water. About noon he lay-by; but at six in the evening he made sail again, and stood away under his courses, believing, as it is supposed, that he saw the light on St. Agnes, one of the islands of Scilly. Soon after which, several ships of his fleet made the signal of distress, as he himself did; but the admiral’s, and some more, perished with all oil-board. How this accident happened has never been properly accounted for. Sir Cloudesiey Shovel’s body was thrown ashore the next day upon the island of Scilly, where some fishermen took him up; and, having stolen a valuable emerald ring from his finger, stripped and buried him. This coming to the ears of Mr, Paxton, who was purser of the Arundel, he found out the fellows, declared the ring to be sir Cloudesley Shovel’s, and obliged them to discover where they had buried the body; which he took up and carried on-board his own ship to Portsmouth. It was thence conveyed to London; and buried in Westminster-abbey with great solemnity, where a monument (a most tasteless one indeed) was afterwards erected to his memory by the queen’s direction.

Sir Cloudesley Shovel wasj at the time of his death rearadmiral of England, admiral of the white, commander in chief of her majesty’s fleets, and one of the council to prince George of Denmark, as lord high admiral of England. He married the widow of his patron sir John Narborough, by whom he left two daughters, co-heiresses, the eldest of whom married lord Romney, and the other sir Narborough D'Aeth, bart.

, an eminent and pious divine, was born at Exeter in May 1657, and educated in school learning at his native city, whence, at the age of fourteen he was placed at a dissenting academy at Taunton, and afterwards at another at Newington-green, London. Having gone through the usual course of studies in these seminaries, and having decided in favour of nonconformity, he was encouraged by the celebrated Dr. Manton, to preach as a candidate for the ministry before he was quite twenty years of age. Two years after, in 1679, he received ordination from some dissenting ministers, but in a very private way, and his first settlement appears to have been as assistant to Mr. Vincent Alsop, at the meeting Tothill-fields, Westminster. He was also one of those who established a lecture against popery, which was carried on with good success in a large room in Exchange-alley.

In 1685 he was prevailed upon by sir Samuel Barnardiston to accompany his nephew on his travels upon the continent. This gave him, what few of his brethren had enjoyed, an opportunity of visiting the most remarkable places in France, Swisserland, Italy, &c. and of returning with additional stores of useful knowledge. On his return through Holland, Mr. Shower parted with the companions of hfs tour, and resided in that country about two years. In 1686 he was again in London, and took his turn at the lecture in Exchange-alley, but disapproving of the vacillating measures of the court both towards the dissenters and the papists, he again went abroad, and took up his residence partly at Utrecht, and partly at Rotterdam, where far three years he officiated as lecturer to the English church. Here he remained until 1690, when he accepted a call to become assistant to the learned John Howe, at his meeting in Silver-street, London; whence, after other changes, he was finally settled at the new meeting-house in the Old Jewry, lately pulled down. Here he continued to preach with great popularity until his death, after lingering illnesses, June 28, 1715, in the fifty-ninth year of his age. He was buried at Highgate. His works are very numerous, but consist chiefly of sermons moulded, for the press, into the shape of treatises, of which the principal appear to be, J. “Serious Reflections on Time and Eternity,” 12mo. 2. “Practical Reflections on the late Earthquakes in Jamaica, Italy, &c. with a particular historical account of those and divers other earthquakes,” 1693, 12mo. 3. “Family Religion, in three letters to a friend,” 16L4, 12mo. 4. “The Life of Henry Gearing,” 1694, 12mo. 5. “The Mourner’s Companion, or Funeral Discourses on several texts,” 1699, 12mo. 6. “Sacramental Discourses, &c.” 7. “Winter Meditations,” &c. &c. &c.

, an eminent lawyer, was brother to the preceding, but few particulars of his early life are on record. We should suppose him of very different sentiments from his brother. By the appointment of James II. he became recorder of London during the time that the city was deprived of its charter, but when that monarch’s fears compelled him to restore it, sir Bartholomew and the new aldermen were obliged to give place to the old recorder Treby and the legal aldermen. As a pleader he distinguished himself both before the House of Commons and at the bar. He opposed vehemently the Kentish petitioners, and pleaded strenuously as counsel for sir John Fenwick, that his conviction might not be made a pretence for ruining innocence. He died Dec. 1701, and was buried on the 12th of that month at Harrowon-tue-Hill, near to which he had resided, at Pinner-hill.

Two editions of “Cases in parliament resolved and adjudged upon petitions and writs of error,” by sir Bartholomew, have been published, one in 1698, and another in 1740, with many references, and a table of principal matters. These cases are learnedly reported, and the arguments of the counsel, as well as of the judges, are recorded in a very able manner. This mode of reporting, however, though valuable in itself, and particularly desirable to the profession, was. thought an infringement upon the privileges of the House of Lords, and the bookseller was called to the bar, for the publication of it. Sir Bartholomew also published his “Reports of cases in Banco Regis from 30 Car. II. to 6 William III.” 1708, and 1720, 2 vols. folio; bnt the second volume is first in point of time. A second edition was published in 1794, in 2 vols. 8vo, by Thomas Leach, esq. with additional notes and references.

, a learned divine of the last century, was educated at Caius college, Cambridge, where he took his degree of B. A. in 1716, and that of M. A. in 1720. He afterwards became curate of Shelthon in Norfolk, prebendary of Canterbury, and lastly had the city living of All-hallows, Lombard-street. He died July 14, 1754. He published a few occasional sermons, but is principally known for his “History of the World, sacred and profane,” 3 vols. 8vo, intended to serve as an introduction to Prideaux’s “Connection,” but he did not live to carry it down to the year 747 B. C. where Prideaux begins. He wrote also a treatise on “The Creation and Fall of Man,” intended as a supplement to the preface to his history. His works are heavily written, but display a great deal of erudition, although not well applied, in the opinion of the late bishop Home, and his biographer Mr. Jones. They blame Shuckford for rendering the subject almost ridiculous, by illustrating the sacred history of the creation from Ovid, and Cicero, and even Pope’s “Essay on Man.”

, an eminent physician, naturalist, and antiquary, was a descendant of the Sibbalds of Balgonie, an ancient family in Fifeshire, Scotland. He received his education in philosophy and the languages at the university of Edinburgh, and afterwards studied medicine at Leyden, where, on taking his doctor’s degree in 1661, he published his inaugural dissertation “De variis tabis speciebus.” Soon after he returned home, and fixed his residence at Edinburgh; but for the benefit of study, often retired to a rural retreat in the neighbourhood, and cultivated, with much attention, many rare and exotic plants. His reputation obtained for him the appointment of natural historian, geographer, and physician, to Charles II. and he received the royal command to compose a general description of the whole kingdom, and a particular history of the different counties of Scotland. The “History of Fife,” however, is the only part of this plan which he executed. This was at first sold separately, but became very scarce; a new edition was published at Cupar-Fife in 1803, In 1681, when the royal college of physicians was incorporated, he was one of the original fellows. In 1684 he published his principal work, “Scotia Illustrata, sive Prodromus historian naturalis, &c.” folio, reprinted in 1696. In this volume, which, he tells us, was the work of twenty years, one part is appropriated to 'the indigenous plants of Scotland, and contains observations on the medicinal and (Economical uses. A few rare species make their first appearance in this book, particularly that which Linnreus named Sibbaldia, after the author. Having thrown out some strictures on the mathematical principles of physic, for which the learned Dr. Pitcairn was a strenuous advocate, the latter wrote a severe satire on this work, entitled “De legibus historian naturalis,” Edit). 1696; but it contains no-, thing solid, and was thought by some to have been the result of party dislike, as Dr. Sibbald had embraced the Roman catholic religion under James II. in 1686, and afterwards recanted, and Pitcairn was a zealous adherent of the exiled family, although he cared little about religion of any kind. Sir Robert Sibbald is supposed to have died about the year 1712.

We have hitherto considered sir Robert as a physician and naturalist, but his reputation is more securely founded on his having been the first who illustrated the antiquities of his native country, in various learned essays, the titles of which it is unnecessary to give, as the whole were printed in “A collection of several treatises in folio, concerning Scotland as it was of old, and also in later times. By sir Robert Sibbald, M. D.” Edin. 1739. They were, however, at that time sold separately, or bound together. Of all Mr. Gough gives a particular account, and also of his Mss* now in the Advocates’ library. Sir Robert likewise published a piece entitled “The liberty and independency of the kingdom and church of Scotland asserted, from ancient records in three parts,” 1701, 4to, now very rarely to be met with and “De Gestis Gul. Valise,” Edin. 1705, 8vo. A catalogue of his library was printed at Edinburgh, 1722, in 8vo.

, a learned puritan divine, whose works are still in reputation, was born at Sudbury in Suffolk, in 1577, and educated at St. John’s college, Cambridge, where he took his degrees with great applause, and obtained a fellowship. The foundation of that character for humility and piety which he enjoyed throughout life, appears to have been laid while at college. After taking orders he was chosen lecturer of Trinity church, Cambridge, and held the living of that church during the last two years of his life. The reputation he acquired here procured him an invitation from the learned society of Gray’s-inn, and in 1618 he became their preacher, and had for his audience not only the gentlemen of the robe, but many noblemen and persons of rank. In 1625, he was chosen master of Katherine-hall, Cambridge, which, although a puritan, he was permitted to retain till his death, with very little molestation. He found that society, says Granger, in a very declining state, but it soon began to flourish under his care, and he was a great benefactor to it. He died July 5, 1635, aged fifty-seven. His works, which are numerous, have lately been reprinted in a new edition, 3 vols. 8vo. They are chiefly sermons and pious treatises. One of the most popular, entitled “The bruised reed,” of which there have been many editions, was that to which Baxter tells us he in a great measure owed his conversion. This circumstance alone, says Granger, would have rendered Sibbs’s name memorable. As a commentator, his principal work is his “Commentary on the first chapter of the second epistle to the Corinthians,”" 1655, fol.

, an eminent botanist and traveller, was the youngest son of Dr. Humphrey Sibthorp, professor of botany at Oxford, a man not eminent For any contributions to that science. He was born at Oxford, Oct. 28, 1758. He was first educated at Magdalen and Lincoln schools, after which he entered of Lincoln college, where he took his master’s degree in June 1780; but upon obtaining the Radcliffe travelling fellowship, became a member of University college, and took his degree of B. M. in December 1783. Being intended for the medical profession, he studied for some time at Edinburgh, and there also cultivated his early taste for natural history, especially botany. He then visited France and Switzerland, and communicated to the Montpellier academy of sciences, an account of his numerous botanical discoveries in that neighbourhood. On his return, his father having resigned, he was appointed by the college of physicians to the botanical professorship in 1784, and then took his doctor’s degree.

He passed a portion of the same year, 1784, at Gottingen, where he projected his first tour to Greece, the botanical investigation of which country had for some time past become the leading object of his pursuits. He first, however, visited the principal seats of learning in Germany, and made a considerable stay at Vienna, where he procured an excellent draughtsman, Mr. Ferdinand Bauer, to be the companion of his expedition. On the 6th of March, 1786, they set out together from Vienna, and early in May sailed from Naples to Crete, where, in the month of June, as his biographer says, “they were welcomed by Flora in her gayest attire.” The ensuing winter they spent at Constantinople, in the course of which Dr. Sibthorp devoted himself to the study of the modern Greek. On the 14th of March, 1787, they sailed from Constantinople for Cyprus, taking the islands of Mytilene, Scio, Cos, and Rhodes, and touching at the coast of Asia minor in their way. A stay of five weeks at Cyprus enabled Dr. Sibthorp to draw up a “Fauna” and Flora“of that island. The former consists of eighteen mammalia, eighty-five birds, nineteen amphibia, and one hundred fishes; the latter comprehends six hundred and sixteen species of plants, These and his other catalogues were greatly augmented by subsequent observations, insomuch that the number of species, collected from an investigation of all Dr. Sibthorp’s manuscripts and specimens for the materials of the” Pro-. dromus Florae Graecai," amounts to about 3000. Without minutely tracing our traveller’s steps throiigh Greece, or the various islands of the Archipelago, we may notice that his health, which suffered from the confinement of a ship, and the heat of the weather, was restored at Athens, where he arrived June lyth, 1787. From thence he prosecuted his journeys in various directions, and with various successes. The ascent of mount Delphi*, or Delphi, in Negropont, one of his most laborious, if not perilous adventures, yielded him an abundant botanical harvest; and mount Athos, which he visited a week after, also greatly enriched Ifis collection of rare plants. From hence he proceeded to Thessalonica, Corinth, and Patras, at which last place he embarked with Mr. Bauer, on board an English vessel, for Bristol, on the 24th of September. After a tedious and stormy voyage, they arrived in England the first week in December.

The constitution of Dr. Sibthorp, never very robust, had suffered materially from the hardships and exertions of his journey. But his native air, and the learned leisure of the university, gradually recruited his strength. The duties of his professorship were rather a recreation than a toil. The superintendance of his exquisite draughtsman, now engaged in making finished drawings of the Greek animals^ as wel! as plants; and his occasional visits to the Linnsean and Banksian herbariums, for the removal of his difficulties; all together filled up his leisure hours. He was every where welcomed and admired for his ardour, his talents, and his acquisitions. His merits procured an augmentation of his stipend, with the rank of a regius professor (conferred in 1793); both which advantages were, at the same time, conferred on his brother professor at Cambridge. He became a fellow of the Royal Society in 1789, and was among the first members of the Linnsean Society, founded in 1788. In the spring of the year last mentioned, sir James Smith, with sir Joseph Banks and Mr. Dryander, passed a week at Oxford, which was devoted to a critical survey of the professor’s Grecian acquisitions; nor was the honey of mount Hymettus, or the wine of Cyprus, wanting at this truly attic entertainment. But the greater these acquisitions, the less was their^ possessor satisfied with them. No one knew, so well as himself, how much was wanting to the perfection of his undertaking, nor could any other person so well remedy these defects. Though he was placed, a few years after his return, in very affluent circumstances; and though his necessary attention to his landed property, and to agricultural pursuits, of which he was passionately fond, might well have turned him, in some measure, aside from his botanical labours; he steadily kept in view the great object of his life, to which he finally sacrificed life itself. No name has a fairer claim to botanical immortality, among the martyrs of the science, than that of Sibthorp.

On the 20th of March, 1794, Dr. Sibthorp set out from London, on his second tour to Greece. He travelled to Constantinople in the train or' Mr. Listen, ambassador to the Porte, and was attended by Francis Borone, as a botanical assistant. They reached Constantinople on the 19th of May, not without Dr. Sibthorp’s having suffered much from the fatigues of the journey, which had brought on a bilious fever. He^oon recovered his health at Constantinople, where he was joined by his friend Mr. Hawkins from Crete. Towards the end of August they made an excursion into Bithynia, and climbed to the summit of Olympus, from whence they brought a fresh botanical harvest. Dr. Sibthorp discovered at Fanar an aged Greek botanist, Dr. Dimitri Argyrami, who had known the Danish traveller Forskall, and who was possessed of some works of Linnæus.

Recovered health, and the accession of his friend’s company, caused Dr. Sibthorp to set out with alacrity on his voyage to Greece, on the 9th of September. Passing down the Hellespont, on the 13th, with a light but favourable breeze, they anchored at Koum Cale, in the Troad, spent two days in examining the plains of Troy, and then proceeded to the isles of 1mb ros and Lemnos. On the 25th they anchored at mount Athos, and passed ten days in examining some of the convents and hermitages, with the romantic scenery, and botanical rarities, of that singular spot, on all which Dr. Sibthorp descants at length, with great delight, in his journal. Their departure wafe, for some time, prevented, by a few Barbary pirates hovering on the coast, but they sailed on the 5th of October, and on the 7th landed at Skiatho. From hence, on the llth, they proceeded down the strait of Negropont, and on the 13th passed under the bridge of live arches, which connects that island with the main land of Greece. On the 15th, at noon, they entered the harbour of the Pyraeus, and proceeded to Athens, where the four succeeding weeks were employed in collecting information relative to the present state of the government, the manufactures, and the domestic economy of that celebrated spot. Here Dr. Sib thorp lost his assistant Borone, who perished by an accidental fall from a window, in his sleep, on or about the 20i h of October.

November 16th, Dr. Sibthorp and Mr. Hawkins left Athens by the ancient Eleusinian way, while the classical streams of the Cephisus, the heights of Helicon and Parnassus, lay before them. They proceeded to Patras and to Zante, where they arrived in the middle of December, enriched with a large collection of seeds, the only botanical tribute that could, at this season, be collected from those famous mountains. An apothecary at Zante furnished Dr. Sibthorp with an ample and splendid herbarium, of the plants of that island, with their modern Greek names; nor did the winter pass unprofitably or unpleasantly in this sequestered spot; where neither agreeable society, nor copious information relative to our learned travellers’ various objects, was wanting. The season was sufficiently favourable in the middle of February, 1795, to allow them to visit the Morea, of which peninsula they made the complete circuit in somewhat more than two months. The violet and primrose welcomed them in the plains of Arcadia; but in vain did our classical travellers look for the beauty of Arcadian shepherdesses, or listen for the pipe of the sylvan swain. Figures emaciated, and features furrowed, with poverty, labour, and care, were all that they met with.

Proceeding to Argos, and thence to Pvlycena, the travellers were highly gratified by rinding, on the gate of the latter, those ancient lions, which Pausanias describes as the work of the Cyclops; and near it the reputed tomb of Agamemnon, a circular building, formed of immense masses of stone, placed with such geometrical precision, though without mortar, that not one had given way. That which forms the portal is described by Dr. Sibthorp as the largest stone he ever saw employed in any edifice. A number of fragments of vases, like those commonly called Etruscan, lay among the ruins of Mycena. From this place they returned by land to Argos, whence they proceeded to Corinth, Patras, and by way of Elis to Pyrgos. Here they obtained another escort, and safely reached Calamata, on the gulf of -Corone, where they were detained by the celebration of Easter, on the 12th of April, amid a profusion of sky-rockets and crackers. Proceeding in a boat along the barren and craggy shore, covered with bushy and prickly Euphorbia^ they reached Cardamoula. Here Panagiote, a popular character, nephew of the Cherife, came down, with a train of followers, to welcome the strangers, and conducted them to his tower-like castle, where a narrow entrance, and dark winding stair-case, led to a chamber, whose thick walls and narrow loop-holes seemed well prepared for defence. Taygetus, the highest mountain in the Morea, and almost rivalling Parnassus, was ascended by our adventurous travellers; but the quantity of snow, and the grea't distance, prevented their reaching the summit. Panagiote and fifty of his followers accompanied them, and he displayed his botanical knowledge by shewing Dr. Sibthorp darne^ still called aiga, among the corn, which he said occasioned dizziness; and a wonderful root, the top of which is used as an emetic, the bottom as a purge. This proved Euphorbia Apios, to which the very same properties are attributed by Dioscorides.

From Cardamoula the travellers were escorted by the dependants of this hospitable Grecian chief, along, a precipitous road, to Mistra, where they had the unexpected pleasure of meeting a party of their English friends, in the garb of Tartars, with whom they explored the scite of ancient Sparta. After returning to Culamata, and surveying from the summit of a neighbouring precipice the ruins of Messenia, with the rich plains watered by the Paniscus, and bounded by the hills of Laconia, Dr. Sibthorp and Mr. Hawkins hastened to Corone, where a Venetian vessel waited to convey them to Zante, which place they reached on the 29th of April. Here Dr. Sibthorp parted from the faithful companion of his tour, whom he was destined never to see again, but in whose friendship he safely confided in his last hours. Mr. Hawkins returned to Greece; while the subject of our memoir leaving Zante on the 1st of May, experienced a most tedious voyage of twenty-four days to Otranto, though five days are the most usual time for that passage. He touched at the island of Cephulonia, and next at Preversa, on the Grecian shore, where being detained by a contrary wind, he employed the 7th of May in visiting the ruins of Nicopolis. The weather was unfavourable, and Dr. Sibthorp here caught a severe cold, from which he never recovered. It seems to have proved the exciting cause of that disease, which had long beeii latent in the mesenteric and pulmonary glands, and which terminated in a consumption. Being obliged by the weather to put in at the little island of Fanno, May llth, the violent north-west wind “continued,” as he too expressively says in his journal, “to nurse his cough and fever.” He was confined to his bed, in a miserable hovel, to which, after frequent attempts to sail, he was driven back six times by the unfavourable wind. At length, the vessel was enabled to cast anchor in the port of Otranto on the 24th of May. Here he was obliged to submit to a quarantine of three weeks, part of which, indeed, was allowed to be spent in proceeding to Ancona. From thence he passed through Germany and Holland to England. Of the precise time of his arrival we find no mention. It was in the autumn of 1795, and his few succeeding months were chiefly marked by the progress of an unconquerable disease, for which the climates of Devonshire and Bath were, as usual, resorted to in vain. He died at Bath, February 8tb, 1796, in the thirty-eighth year of his age, and lies interred in the abbey church, where his executors have erected a neat monument to his memory.

We have now to record the posthumous benefits which Dr. Sibthorp has rendered to his beloved science, and which are sufficient to rank him amongst its most illustrious patrons. By his will, dated Ashburton, January 12, 1796, he gives a freehold estate in Oxfordshire to the university of Oxford, for the purpose of first publishing his “Flora Gfaeca,” in 10 folio volumes, with 100 coloured plates in each, and a “Prodromus” of the same work, in 8vo, without plates. His executors, the honourable Thomas Wenman, John Hawkins, and Thomas Platt, esqrs. were to appoint a sufficiently competent editor of these works, to whom the manuscripts, drawings, and specimens, were to be confided. Their judicious choice fell upon the learned president of the Linnsean Society, who has nearly completed the “Prodromus,” and the second volume of the “Flora.” The plan of the former, was drawn out by Dr. Sibthorp, but nothing of the latter, except the figures, was prepared, nor any botanical characters or descriptions whatever. The final determination of the species, the distinctions of such as were new, and all critical remarks, fell to the lot of the editor, who has also revised the references to Dioscorides. When these publications are finished, the fcnnlial sum of 200. is to be paid to a professor of rural oeconomy, who is, under certain limitations^ to be Sherar* dian professor of botany. The remainder of the rents of the estate above mentioned is destined to purchase books for the professor, and the whole of the testator’s collections* with his drawings, and books of natural history, botany, and agriculture, are given to the university. The only work which Dr. Sibthorp published in his life-time is a “Flora Oxoniensis,” 1794, in one vol. 8vo, which has the merit of being entirely formed on his own personal observation.

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

Lord Molesworth, who relates this in the preface to his spirited Account of Denmark, observes, that, “though M. Terlon understood not a word of Latin, he was told by others the meaning of the sentence; which he considered as a libel upon the French government, and upon such as was then setting up in Denmark by French assistance or example.”

As Sidney adhered to the notions he had conceived of a pure republic, he refused to act under Oliver Cromwell, or Richard Cromwell, and during this period lived in a retired manner, sometimes at the family seat at Penshurst, and it is supposed that he employed some part of his leisure in composing those “Discourses on Government,” which have formed the favourite code of the republican faction in all ages since. When, however, Richard had resigned his protectorship, and the long parliament was restored, and a government without king or lords, Sidney became one of the council of state, and was sent to Denmark, as we have just noticed.

At the restoration, Sidney would not personally accept of the oblivion and indemnity generally granted to the whole nation; but continued abroad till 1677, when his father died. He then returned to England, and obtained from the king a particular pardon, upon repeated promises of constant and quiet obedience for the future. Burnet observes, “that he came back when the parliament was pressing the king into the war, the court of France having obtained leave for him to return; and that, upon his doing all he could to divert the people from that war, some took him for a pensioner of France: while he in the mean time declared, to those to whom he durst speak freely, that he knew it was a juggle; that our court was in an entire confidence with France; and had no other design in this show of a war but to raise an army, and keep it beyond sea till it was trained and modelled.” In 1683, he was accused of being concerned in the Rye-house plot; and, after lord Eussel had been examined, was next brought before the king and council. He said, that he would make the best defence he could, if they had any proof against him, but xvould not fortify their evidence by any thing he should say; so that the examination was very short. He was arraigned for high treason before the chief justice Jeffreys, Nov. 1683; and found guilty. After his conviction he sent to the marquis of Halifax, who was his nephew by marriage, a paper to be laid before the king, containing the main points of his defence upon which he appealed to the king, and desired he would review the whole matter but this had no other effect, except only to respite his execution for three weeks. When the warrant for his execution was brought, he told the sheriff, that he would not expostulate any thing upon his own account; for, the world was nothing to him: but he desired it mig^ht be considered, how guilty they were of his blood, who had not returned a fair jury, but one packed, and as directed by the king’s solicitor. He was beheaded on Tower-hill, where he delivered a written paper to the Sheriff, Dec. 7, 1683: but his attainder was reversed in the first year of William and Mary. “The execution of Sidney,” says Hume, “is regarded as one of the greatest blemishes of the reign of Charles II. The evidence against him, it must be confessed, was not legal: and the jury, who condemned him, were, for that reason, very blameable. But that after sentence parsed by a court of judicature, the king should interpose and pardon a man, who, though otherwise possessed of merit, was undoubtedly guilty, who had ever been a most indexible and most inveterate enemy to the royal family, and who lately had even abused the king’s clemency, might be an act of heroic generosity, but can never be regarded as a necessary and indispensable duty.” Burnet, who knew Sidney personally, gives the following character of him: “He was a man of most extraordinary courage; a steady man, even to obstinacy; sincere, but of a rough and boisterous temper, that could not bear contradiction. He seemed to be a Christian, but in a particular form of his own he thought it was to be like a divine philosophy in tue mind but he was against all public worship, and every thing that looked like a church. He was stiff to all republican principles; and such an enemy to every thing that looked like monarchy, that he set himself in a high opposition against Cromwell when he was made protector. He had studied the history of government in all its branches, beyond anv man I ever knew.”

He left behind him “Discourses upon Government;” the first edition of which was in 1698, the second in 1704, folio. To the second is added the paper he delivered to the sheriffs immediately before his death; with an alphabetical table. They also formed one of the publications of Mr. Thomas Hollis, in favour of republicanism in 1763, 4to, with a life, in which the writer or writers declare that they “cannot wish a greater or more extensive blessing to the world, than that it (the volume) may be every where read, and its principles universally received and propagated.”

, a very accomplished English gentleman, and one of the greatest ornaments of the court of queen Elizabeth, was born Nov. 29, 1554, at Penshurst in Kent. He was the grandson of sir William Sidney, knight banneret, and chamberlain and steward of the household to Henry VIII. His father, Henry Sidney, was from his infancy the companion and bosom friend of Edward VI., who conferred upon him the honour of knighthood, constituted him ambassador to France, and afterwards promoted him to several appointments near his person. He was at this time universally beloved and admired, as the most ac^ complished gentleman in the court of the youthful monarch, who expired in his arms. Sir Henry, after this melancholy event, retired to his seat at Penshurst. He afterwards enjoye'd the favour of queen Mary, and gave his son the name of Philip, in compliment to her husband the king of Spain. In Elizabeth’s reign his abilities were more immediately called forth, and proved him a brave soldier, a consummate general, an able counsellor, and a wise legislator, while in private life he was no less estimable as a husband, father, and a friend; firmly attached to the church of England, and adorning his Christian profession by his temperance and exemplary piety. He was lord president of Wales, and for the space of eleven years discharged the administration of lord deputy of Ireland, with extraordinary justice and probity, and left to provincial governors an example of integrity, moderation, and wisdom, which was never surpassed. The mother of Philip Sidney, was Mary, the eldest daughter of the unfortunate duke of Northumberland, a lady no less illustrious and amiable than her husband.

Mr. Sidney was placed at a school at Shrewsbury, where, at the age of twelve, he addressed two letters, one in Latin, and the other in French, to his father, which produced in answer a valuable compendium of instruction, the original of which was found among the Mss. at Penshurst, and is inserted by Dr. Zouch in the life of Sir Philip. From this school Mr. Sidney was removed to Christ church, Oxford, in 1569, where his tutors were Dr. Thomas Thornton and Mr. Robert Dorsett. During his residence here, he performed a scholastic exercise, by holding a public disputation with Carew, the author of the Survey of Cornwall, then a gentleman commoner of Christ-church. Sidney was at this time only fourteen years old, and yet of three years standing, and his disputation took place in the presence of several of the* nobility, and particularly of his two uncles, the earls of Warwick and Leicester, which last was at this time chancellor of the university. He also appears to have pursued his studies for some time at Cambridge, probably at Trinity college, where he had an opportunity of cultivating and improving that friendship, which he had already contracted with Mr. Fulke Greville his relation, and his companion at school. During these years his proficiency was very uncommon: he cultivated the whole circle of arts and sciences, his comprehensive mind aspiring to preeminence in every part of knowledge attainable by human genius or industry. He acquired, in particular, a complete knowledge of the Greek and Latin languages, and nothing could equal the diligence with which he explored the stores of ancient literature, which had been recently imported into E.urope; and hen.ce at a more advanced season of his life, he was highly esteemed by the universities at home and abroad,

Having inured himself to habits of regularity, he put off his gown, and left the university with an intention to travel, in order to obtain a knowledge of the affairs, manners, laws, and learning of other nations, that he might become the more serviceable to his own. Having, in May 1572, obtained from the queen a license for travelling, for two years, he set out for Paris; and on his arrival there, the French king, Charles IX. appeared to be highly gratified with his ingenuous manners and conversation, and gave him an early proof of his royal favour, by advancing him to the office of gentleman ordinary of his chamber; but this promotion has been generally considered, not so much an indication of real regard, as an unworthy and insidious artifice to conceal the design which was then formed, of destroying the protestants. Accordingly he had not held this above a fortnight, when he became a spectator of that hideous and savage massacre of the Huguenots, which filled all Europe with indignation, amazement, and terror.

During this massacre, Mr. Sidney preserved his life, by taking refuge with several of his countrymen, in the house of sir Francis Walsingham, the English ambassador; and when the danger was over, proceeded on his travels, tinder the tutorage of Dr. John Watson, then dean, and afterwards bishop of Winchester, to whom sir Francis Walsingham recommended him. Having left Paris, he pursued his journey through Lorraine, by Strasburgh and Heidelberg, to Franc fort. At the latter place, he lodged at the house of Andrew Wechel, the celebrated printer, and here was honoured with the friendship of Hubert Languet (See Languet), who was then a resident from the elector of Saxony; and to him he was principally indebted for his extensive knowledge of the customs and usages of nations, their interests, governments, and laws, and nothing could be more honourable to a youth of the age of nineteen, than the choice of such a companion and guide. Sidney has gratefully commemorated Languet in some lines in the third book of his “Arcadia.” When they were separated, Languet renewed in his letters the strongest assurances of his regard, intermixed with the most useful and most endearing lessons of advice.

At Vienna, where Mr. Sidney appears to have arrived in 1573, he learned horsemanship, the use of arms, and all those manly and martial exercises which were suitable to his youth and nobleness of birth. He excelled at tilt or tournament, in managing all sorts of weapons, in playing at tennis, in diversions of trial and skill, in music, in all the exercises that suited a noble cavalier, while his person, his aspect, his discourse, his every gesture were embellished with dignity and grace. In 1574, he was at Venice, where his sacred adherence to the precepts of youth guarded him against its dissipations. His biographer thinks it probable that he was not unknown to the celebrated Paul Sarpi. In June 1574, Sidney left Venice and came to Padua, where he applied hiinself with his accustomed diligence to geometry and astronomy, and here he met with the illustrious 7 asso, which his biographer conceives was one of his motives for visiting Padua. On his return to Venice in 1574-, Mr. Sidney derived great pleasure and instruction from a free and undisguised conversation on topics of learning with persons who professed the religion of the church of Rome. This circumstance gave rise to a suspicion among his friends in England, that he was inclined to become a member of that church; but against this he appears to have been sufficiently guarded by his friend Languet, and it was by his persuasion that he desisted from visiting Rome.

In the mean time, Sidney went on with his studies, and by Languet’s direction read Cicero’s Epistles, Plutarch, &c. All Languet’s advices appear to have been as salutary as they -vere affectionate. On one occasion only, he suggested to his pupil to afFe^t more attachment than he felt to Cecil, the great favourite of Elizabeth; but it does not appear that Sidney was inclined to observe this lesson of perverted wisdom, which was in itself contrary to the whole tenour of Languet’s instructions. After three years travel, Sidney returned to England in May 1575.

To his attainments in Greek and Latin, he had now added a fenowledm.' of the French, Spanish, and Italian languages. On his return he became the delight and admiration of the English court, by his dignified and majestical address, the urbanity of his manners, and the sweet complacency of his whole deportment. The queen treated him with peculiar kindness, calling him “her Philip,” in opposition, it; is said, to Philip of Spain, her sister’s husband. When she war, on a visit at Wanstead, Sidney composed a masque to amuse her majesty, called “The Lady of May,” which was performed before her. In this dramatic composition he betrayed some proficiency in the school of courtly adulation, by the frequent allusions he has made to Elizabeth’s beaut).

He had not been long at home before what may be termed his political life comnrienr.edj by his being appointed in 1576, ambassador to the couit of Vienna, to condole with the emperor Rodnlph, on the death of his father Maximilian II. The queen’s own penetration and discernment had promoted him to this appointment, but it was not intended to be confined to the mere ceremonial mentioned above. It had in view the union of all the protestant states in defence of their common cause against the ruin that menaced them from the popish powers, from the superstition of Rome, and the tyranny of Spain. Sidney succeeded in this attempt: and they were induced to conclude a religious league with England, with that country which was then justly acknowledged to be the firm support and the invincible bulwark of the reformation. He was directed at the same time to visit the court of John Casimir, count palatine of the Rhine, to whom he was earnestly and affectionately recommended by his uncle lord Leicester. His other transactions belong to history, but he managed them all with so much of the sagacity and discretion <of an able and experienced statesman, that it was justly said, that “from a child he started into a man, without ever being a youth.” When entrusted with these negociations of so much importance, he had scarcely reached his twenty^ fifth year.

Among other eminent persons with whom he formed an intimacy during this last embassy, were Don John of Austria, and the great William prince of Orange, with the latter of whom he afterwards carried on a correspondence. Notwithstanding his services on this occasion, he passed some years at home, admired indeed, but unrewarded by any higher promotion than that of cup-bearer to the queen. On some emergencies he betrayed a spirit too warmly indignant, but not uncommon in those days; and a letter of his is extant to Mr. Molineux, his father’s secretary, whom he suspected of divulging his father’s letters, in which he threatens him with his dagger, in language which his biographer allows is extremely indecorous, and admits no excuse.

His spirit and sense were afterwards displayed in a manner which reflects high honour upon his character. When in 1579, queen Elizabeth seemed inclined to accede to the proposal of a marriage with the duke of Anjou, which might have endangered the prosperity, religion, and liberty of the nation, Mr. Sidney addressed a letter to her against such a connection, written with unusual elegance of expression as well as force of reasoning, and with uncommon freedom. The delicacy of the subject, and the difficulty of discussing it without offending the queen, he was perfectly aware of, yet his zeal for the welfare of his country, and particularly the protestant religion, would not permit him to be silent; and it is supposed that by this letter he had the honour of averting the mischiefs that would have attended the maiv riage. Nor did he lose her majesty’s favour, although others who interfered, were treated with the utmost rigour, particularly Stubbs, a gentleman of Lincoln’s Inn, and Page a printer, whose right hands were cut, the one for writing, and the other for-printing a pamphlet against the match. Camden, the historian, was present at the execution of this savage sentence, one of the greatest blemishes in the reign of Elizabeth.

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

In 1581 we find Mr. Sidney one of the knights in parliament for the county of Kent, and one of the committee for enacting “such laws as would secure the kingdom against the pope and his adherents.” Still, however, addicted to a studious life, he produced his “Defence of Poesy,” which has been pronounced the first piece of criticism in the English language worthy of our attention. It shews at once the erudition, judgment, and taste of the author, and describes the laws of the drama with singular precision and exactness.

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

About this time sir Philip formed, along with sir Fulke Greville, a design of accompanying sir Francis Drake in a voyage of discovery to America; and this he projected with the greatest secrecy, and with more of a romantic turn than his friends could have wished. The secret, however, transpired, and the queen issued peremptory orders to restrain him from his purpose, which in all probability would have ended in disappointment, or, if successful, would have left a stain on his hitherto spotless character. In 1585 a very remarkable honour seemed to be within his reach. He was named among the competitors for the elective kingdom of Poland, vacant by the death of Stephen Bathori, prince of Transylvania. Queen Elizabeth, however, was averse from the measure, “refusing,” says sir Robert Naunton, “to further his advancement, not only out of emulation, but out of fear to lose the jewel of her times.” According to Fuller he declined the dignity, preferring rather to be “a subject to queen Elizabeth than a sovereign beyond the seas.”

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

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

The works of sir Philip Sidney, which we shall but briefly notice, are, 1. The “Arcadia” already mentioned. 2. “Astrophel and Stella,” with sonnets of various noblemen and gentlemen, 1591, 4to. 3. “The Defence of Poesy,” 1595, 4to, afterwards usually printed with the “Arcadia*” In 1787 Dr. Joseph Warton printed an edition, with “Observations on Poetry and Eloquence from Ben Jonson’s Discoveries,” 8vo. 4. “Sonets,” several of which appeared in Constable’s “Diana,” 1594, but were afterwards annexed to the “Arcadia,” with “Astrophel and Stella.” 5. “A remedie for Love.” 6. “The Lady of May, a masque,” both generally printed with the “Arcadia.” 7. “Valour anatomized in a fancie,” 1581, printed at. the end of “Cottoni Posthuma,” 1672. 8. Various songs and sonnets in “England’s Helicon,” and other collections. 9. “English Version of the Psalms of David,” a ms. 10. A translation of Du Plessis 7 true use of the Christian religion, begun by sir Philip, and finished at his request by Arthur Goiding, 1587 and 1592, 1604 and 1617. Dr 4 Zouch is of opinion that the greatest part of it was by sir Philip. It is pleasing to reflect, adds this biographer, that the most accomplished gentleman and the most complete scholar of his -age, was deeply impressed with a sense of religion, that he delighted in contemplating the doctrines of revelation, the existence of one supreme being, the creation of the world by him, and his providential government of it, the immortality of the soul of man, the prospect of future blessedness, the redemption of mankind by the Messiah, who was promised to the Jews for the salvation of the whole world.

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

She survived her husband twenty years, and having lived to an advanced age, died at her house in Aldersgate-street, London, Sept. 25, 1601. She was interred with the Pembroke family, in the chancel of the cathedral at Salisbury, without any monument. The following lines, designed as an inscription for her tomb, were written by the celebrated Ben Jonson:

Fair, and learn'd, and good as she,

, a learned ecclesiastic of the fifth century, was descended of an illustrious family, his father and grandfather having been pretorian prefects in Gaul, and was born at Lyons about 430. He was educated with care, performed his studies under the best masters of that time, and became very skilful in all parts of literature, especially in poetry. He married Papianilla, the daughter of Avitus, who, from the office of pretorian prefect in Gaul, was raised to the imperial throne, after the death of Maximus. But Majorianus, whom Leo had taken into a partnership of the empire, forced Avitus to lay down his crown, and came to besiege the city of Lyons, where Sidonius had shut himself up. The city being taken, he fell into the hands of the enemy but the reputation of his great learning softened the barbarity of his enemies, and in return for their lenient treatment of him, he wrote a poem in honour of Majorianus, who was so highly gratified with it as to erect a statue to Sidonius in the city of Rome. The emperor Anthemius was equally pleased with a panegyric which Sidonius wrote in praise of him, and made him governor of Rome, and a patrician; but he soon quitted his secular employment, and obtained preferment in the church, being in 472 chosen, against his will, as reported, bishop of Clermont. He appears however to have been worthy of the station by learning and charity. His liberality indeed was highly conspicuous, and even before he was bishop, he frequently converted his silver plate to the use of the poor. When Clermont was besieged by the Goths, he encouraged the people to stand upon their defence, and would never consent to the surrender of the city; so that, when it was delivered up, he was forced to fly, but was soon restored. Some time after, he was opposed by two factious priests, who deprived him of the government of his church; but he was again re-instated with honour at the end of a year. He died in peace in 487, after he had been bishop fifteen years.

He was a man learned above the age he lived in, skilled in all parts of literature and science, of a subtle and penetrating wit, and considering that he lived in the decline of Roman literature, not an inelegant writer. Of his works, nine books of epistles, with about four and twenty poems interspersed, are still extant. There are few things in his letters which relate to religion or the church, so that his opinions cannot be ascertained, but they contain many particulars relative to the learning and history of the times. They were published with notes by father Sirmond, at Paris, 1614, in 8vo;and, after his death, reprinted in 1652, with some additions, in 4to.

, a Florentine artist, born at Corfcona in 1439, was the scholar of Piero della Francesca. He was an artist of spirit and expression, and one of the first in Tuscany, who designed the naked with anatomical intelligence, though still with some dry ness of manner, and too much adherence to the model: the chief evidence of this is in the Duomo of Orvieto, where in the mixed imagery of final dissolution and infernal punishment, he has scattered original ideas of conception, character, and attitude, in copious variety, though not without remnants of gothic alloy. The angels, who announce the impending doom or scatter plagues, exhibit, with awful simplicity, bold fore-shortenings; whilst the St. Michael presents only the tame heraldic figure of a knight all cased in armour. In the expression of the condemned groups and daemons, he chiefly dwells on the supposed perpetual renewal of the pangs attending on the last struggles of life with death, contrasted with the inexorable scowl or malignant grin of fiends methodizing torture; a horrid feature, reserved by Dante for the last pit of his Inferno. It has been first said by Vasari, who exulted in his relation to Luca, that Michael Angelo, in certain parts of his Last Judgment, adopted something of the conduct and the ideas of his predecessor. This is true, because Michael Angelo could not divest himself of every impression from a work he had so often seen: his originality consisted in giving consequence to the materials of Luca, not in changing them; both drew from the same sources, with the same predilections and prejudices, and differed less in the mode than the extent of their conception.

Luca Signorelli worked at Urbino, Volterra, Arezzo, Florence, and other cities of Italy; and though by far the greater part of his performances be defective in form and union of colour, Wfe meet in some others, especially in the Communion of the Apostles at the Gesu of Cortona, forms and tints of modern grace; and he distinguished himself among the artists who concurred to decorate the pannels of the Sistina, by superior composition.

Of this artist, who died in 1521, aged eighty- two, a story is told as a proof of what an absolute command he had over his passions, or rather, it might have been said, over natural affection. He had a son extremely handsome, and a youth of great hopes, who was unfortunately killed at. Cortona. When this son, greatly beloved by him, was brought home, he ordered his corpse to be carried into his painting-room and, having stripped him, immediately drew his picture, without shedding a tear.

, a learned Italian, was of an ancient family of Modena, and born there in 1524. His father designed him for a physician, and sent him to Bologna with that view; but he soon abandoned this pursuit, and studied the Greek and Latin classics, which was more agreeable to his taste. He taught Greek first at Venice, then at Padua, and lastly at Bologna. He had some literary disputes with Robortellius and Gruchius upon Roman antiquities, in which he was exceedingly well versed. Of his numerous works, the most esteemed are, “De Republica Hebrseorum” “De Republica Atheniensium;” “Historia de Occidentali Imperio;” and “De regno Italize.” Lipsius, Casaubon, Turnebus, and all the learned, speak of him in terms of the profoundest respect; and he was unquestionably one of the first classical antiquaries of his time, and a man of great judgment as well as learning, very correct and deep in researches, and of most unwearied diligence. He died in 1585, aged sixty. His works were all collected and printed at Milan in 1733 and 1734: they make six volumes in folio. His “Fasti Consulares” were printed with the Oxford Livy in 1800.

, a French writer, whose taste for English literature entitles him to a place here, was born at Limoges in 1709, and appears to have been brought up to civil or political life, although he always cultivated a taste for literature. He purchased the office of master of requests, and after having managed the affairs of the duke of Orleans, became comptroller-general and minister of state in 1759. This was a critical time for France, which was carrying on a ruinous war, and the finances were in a very low condition. Silhouette wished to remedy this last evil by retrenchment and ceconomy, but finding that such a plan was only a topic for ridicule, he quitted his post in about nine months, and retired to his estate of Brie-sur-Marne,and devoted his time to study, and his wealth to benevolence. He died in 1767. His works were: 1. “Idee generate du Government Chinois,” 1729, 4to, 1731, 12mo. 2. “Reflexion politique,” from the Spanish of Balthazar Gracian, 1730, 4to. 3. A translation of Pope’s “Essay on Man,” which the French speak of as faithful, but not elegant. 4. A translation of Bolingbroke’s “Dissertation on Parties.” This is said to have been printed at London in 1739, where, perhaps about this time Silhouette was on a visit. 5 “Lettre sur les transactions pubiiques du Regrie d'Elizabeth,” with some remarks on Rapin’s account of that reign, Amst. 1736, 12mo. 6. A translation of Pope’s “Miscellanies,” 1741, 2 vols. 12mo. 7. “Traite* mathematique sur le bonheur,” 1741, 12mo. 8. A translation of Warburton’s “Alliance,” 1742, 2 vols. 1.2 mo. With Warburton he appears to have corresponded, for in one of Warburton’s letters, printed by Mr. Nichols, we find that celebrated author desiring that a copy of his “Divine Legation” may be sent to M. Silhouette in Franoe. In the “History of the Works of the Learned” also, we find “Observations on the Abbe* Pluche’s History of the Heavens,” translated from the French of Silhouette, who professes that he was chiefly indebted for them to the second volume of the “Divine Legation,” and to some particular remarks communicated to him hy Mr. Warburton. 9. “Epitres morales, Lettres phiiosophiques, et Traits mathematiques,” printed at the Bowyer press, in 1741. 10. “Memoirs des commissaires du roi et de ceux de sa majeste Britamuque stir les possessions et les droits respectifs des deux couronnes en Amerique,” Paris, 1755, 4to. In this he was assisted by M. de la Gahssonniere. 1 1> “Voyage de France, d‘Espagne, de Portugal, et d’ltalie,” a posthumous work, Paris, 1770.

, a Roman poet, and author of a poetical history of the second Punic war, which decided the empire of the world in favour of the Romans, was born in the reign of Tiberius, about A. D. 15, and is supposed to have derived the name of Italicus from the place of his birth; but whether he was born at Italica in Spain, or atCorsinium in Italy, which, according to Strabo, had the name of Italica given it during the social war, is a point which cannot be known: though, if his birth had happened at either of these places, the grammarians tell us, that he should have been called Italicensis, and not Italicus. When he came to Rome, he applied himself to the bar; and, by a close imitation of Cicero, succeeded so well, that he became a celebrated advocate and most accomplished orator. His merit and character recommended him to the highest offices in the republic, even to the consulship, of which he was possessed when Nero difed. He is said to have been aiding in the accusation of persons of high rank and fortune, whom that tyrant had devoted to destruction: but he retrieved his character afterwards by a long and uniform course of virtuous behaviour, and held a principal office under the emperor Vitellius, which he executed so well as to preserve his credit with the public. Vespasian sent him as proconsul into Asia, where he behaved with integrity and unblemished reputation. After having thus spent the best part of his life in the service of his country, he bade adieu to public affairs, resolving to consecrate the remainder of his days to retirement and the Muses. He had several fine villas in the country one at Tusculum, celebrated for having been Cicero’s and a farm near Naples, said to have been Virgil’s, and at which was his tomb, which Silius often visited. Martial compliments him on both these accounts. In his retirement he applied himself to poetry, not so much from the impulse of genius, which would have appeared earlier, but from his enthusiastic regard for Virgil, to whose memory he paid the highest veneration, and whose birth-day he is said to have celebrated annually with more solemnity than his own. He has endeavoured to imitate him in his poem; and, though he falls greatly short, yet there are some splendid passages and strains of imagination which enliven a historical detail that otherwise may be read with more pleasure in Livy’s prose. After spending a considerable time in this retirement, and reaching his seventy- fifth year, he was seized with an incurable ulcer, which afflicted him with unsupportable pains, and drove him to put an end to his life by refraining from sustenance. The best and almost the only account we have of Silius Italicus is in one of Pliny’s letters, from which most of the above particulars are taken.

The first edition of his poem was published by Sweynheym and Pannartz, at Rome jn 1471, and five other editions were printed in the same century. Of modern editions the best are, that of Drakenborch, 1717, 4to, of Viltebrun, Paris, 1781, 8vo, of Ernesti, Leipsic, 1791, 2 vols. 8vo, of Heber, 1792, 2 vols. 12mo, elegantly printed at the Buhner press, and of Rupert, Gottingen, 1795 8, 2 vols. 8vo.

, a man of great talents and influence in the tenth century, was born in Aquitaine, of mean parentage, and was educated in a neighbouring convent. His original name was Gerbert. From his convent he passed into the family of a count of Barcelona, in which he prosecuted his studies under the care of a Spanish bishop, whom he accompanied from Spain to Rome. Here he was introduced to Otho the great, attached himself to Adalbaron, the archbishop of Rheims, whom he attended to his see, and returned with him about the year 972 into Italy. His progress in learning, which comprized geometry, astronomy, the mathematics, mechanics, and every branch of subordinate science, is said to have been prodigious; and his residence in Spain, during which he visited Cordova and Seville, had enabled him to profit by the instruction of the Arabian doctors. With such acquirements, he was promoted by Otho to be abbot of the monastery of Bobbio in Lombardy, but, finding no satisfaction in this place, he again joined his friend the archbishop of Rheims. Here he had leisure to prosecute his favourite studies, while, as his letters shew, his abilities were usefully engaged in different political transactions: in addition to the superintendance of the public schools, he was intrusted with the education of Robert, son and successor of Hugh Capet. He also employed himself in collecting books from every quarter, in studying them, and in introducing a taste for them among his countrymen. It is said that the effects of this enlightened zeal were soon visible in Germany, Gaul, and Italy; and by his writings, as well as by his example and his exhortations, many were animated to emulate their master’s fame, and caught by the love of science, to abandon the barbarous prejudices of the age. In his epistles, Gerbert cites the names of various classical authors, whose works he possessed, though often incomplete: and it is plain, from the style of these epistles, that he expended his wealth in employing copyists, and exploring the repositories of ancient learning.

Though, if we may believe his encomiasts, the genius of Gerbert embraced all the branches of learning, its peculiar bent was to mathematical inquiries. In these, when the barbarism of the age is considered, he may be said to have advanced no inconsiderable way. What was the extent of his astronomical science, does not appear: but what chiefly deserves notice, is the facility with which he aided his own progress, and rendered discovery more palpable, by combining mechanism with theory. He constructed spheres, the arrangements of which he describes observed the stars through tubes invented a clock, which with some accuracy marked the hours, and was esteemed an able musician. He is said to have been as well skilled in the construction of musical instruments as in the use of them, particularly the hydraulic organ. William of Malmsbury speaks with wonder of the perfection to which he had brought this instrument, by means of blowing it with warm water. Dr. Burney thinks that the application of warm water may have been the invention of Gerbert, though, in all probability, he had followed the principles of Vitruvius in constructing the instrument.

In the Rawlinson collection of Mss. at Oxford, there is a didactic poem, entitled “Ars Mu^ica,” which, though anonymous, contains internal evidence of having been written by Gerbert. It is composed in Latin monkish rhyme, except where such technical terms occurred, as could not possibly be reduced to metre. The last chapter of this work is a separate treatise, of a very few pages, under the title of “Rhythmomachia,” or the battle of numbers and figures, which is universally allowed to have been written by Gerbert. It was composed as a kind of game, soon after the arrival of the Arabian figures or ciphers in Europe, for which the author gives rules resembling those for chess. Hence some of his biographers say, that it is to Gerbert we are indebted for the Arabic numerals. Certainly such attainments were indications ofno common mind, and induced the vulgar to suspect that he was addicted to magic an absurd notion, which Platina had adopted, for he says that he obtained the papacy by ill arts, and that he left his monastery to follow the devil. He allows him, indeed, the merit of a sincere repentance; but mentions some prodigies at his death, which will claim little regard on the testimony of such a writer.

On his rise to the papacy we shall be brief. In 991, Hugh Capet promoted him to the archbishopric of Rheiins; but this elevation was a source of disquiet to him, and after much contention, he was obliged to resign the see to Arnulf, the natural son of Lothaire, king of France, who had been formerly deposed from it. This was in 997, and at the same time Otho III. conferred upon him the archbishopric of Ravenna; and on the death of pope Gregory V, in 999, he was elected to the papal dignity, when he assumed the name of Silvester. The acts of his pontificate were but few, and not at all important. In 1000 he is said to have conferred on Stephen I., king of Hungary, the royal title, with the famous crown, the palladium of that kingdom, and to have constituted him perpetual legate of the holy see, with power to dispose of all ecclesiastical benefices. It was also in this century that the plan of the holy war was formed; and towards the conclusion of it, the signal was given by our learned pontiff, in the first year of his pontificate, in aa epistle, written in the name of the church of Jerusalem, to the church universal throughout the world, in which the European powers are solemnly exhorted to succour and deliver the Christians in Palestine. The pontiff’s exhortations, however, were only regarded by the inhabitants of Pisa.

Silvester died in 1003. His “Epistles,” of which 161 are still extant, contain many curious particulars respecting natural philosophy. They were published at Paris in 1611, 4to, and are also in the “Bibl. Patrum,” Duchesne’s collection, and the collection of the councils.

, a celebrated French engraver, was born August 15, 1621, at Nanci, of a good family, originally Scotch. After his father’s decease, he went to Paris, where Israel Henriet, his mother’s brother, a skilful engraver, gladly received him, and educated him as his own son. He drew ajl the views of Paris and its environs, engraved them with great success, and went twice afterwards to Rome, whence he brought the great number of fine Italian views which he has left us. Louis XIV. being at length informed of this artist’s great genius, employed him to engrave all the royal palaces, conquered places, &c, and appointed him drawing master to the dauphin, allowing him a considerable pension besides, with apartments in the Louvre. Silvestre married Henrietta Selincart, a lady celebrated both for her wit and beauty, who dying in September 1680, he erected a superb monument to her memory in the church of St. Germain l'Auxerrois. He died October 11, 1691, aged seventy.

His works, which are very numerous, consisting of upwards of 700 prints, are executed with a fine point, and in a neat, clear style. The distant parts of his landscapes, in particular, are very finely expressed. They are very slight, yet no part of them is confused; but the effect is exceediagly agreeable to the eye. There are several volumes of his prints to be purchased in France, the value of which varies according to the goodness of the impressions. Hence those published near his time are in most request, and for the same reason the large collection published in 4 vols. oblong fol. in 1750, sells at a very inferior price. 2