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

, lord Fortescue of the kingdom of Ireland, a baron of the exchequer, and puisne judge of the king’s bench and common pleas in the reigns of George I. and II. was born March 7, 1670, being the second son of Edmund Fortescue, of London, esq. and Sarah, daughter of Henry Aland, of Waterford, esq. in honour of whom he added Aland to his name. He was descended from sir John Fortescue, lord chief justice and lord high chancellor of England under king Henry VI. He was educated probably at Oxford, as that university, in complimenting him with a doctor’s degree, by diploma, in 1733, alluded to his having^tudied there. On leaving the university he became a member of the Inner Temple, where he was chosen reader in 1716, 2 Geo. I. as appears by a subscription to his arms, and was called to the bar about the time of the Revolution. For his arguments as pleader in the courts of justice, the reader is referred to the following authorities; viz. the Reports of Mr. justice Fortescue Aland; Mr. serjeant Carthew; Mr. recorder Comberbach; lord chancellor (of Ireland) Freeman; lord chief baron Gilbert’s Cases; Mr. justice Levintz; Mr. justice Lutwyche; lord chief justice Raymond; Mr. Serjeant Salkeld; Mr. serjeant Skinner; and Mr. justice Ventris.

The juridical writings of sir John Fortescue Aland are: 1. “The Difference between an absolute and limited Monarchy, as it more particularly regards the English constitution; being a treatise written by sir John Fortescue, knight, lord chief justice, and lord high chancellor of England, under king Henry VI. faithfully transcribed from the ms copy in the Bodleian library, and collated with three other Mss. published with some remarks by John Fortescue Aland, of the Inner Temple, esq. F. R. S.” Lond. 1714: reprinted, 1719. 2. “Reports of Select Cases in all the courts of Westminster hall, tempore William the Third and queen Anne; also the opinion of all the judges of England relating to the grandest prerogative of the royal family, and some observations relating to the prerogatives of a queen-consort,” London, 1748, fol. This is a posthumous publication.

, successively bishop of Rochester, Worcester, and Ely, in the latter end of the fifteenth century, was born at Beverley in Yorkshire, and educated at the University of Cambridge, where he took the degree of doctor of laws. In 146 1, he was collated to the church of St. Margaret’s, New Fish-street, London, by Thomas Kemp, bishop of that diocese, and in the same year was advanced to the deanry of St. Stephen’s college, Westminster. In 1462 he was appointed master of the rolls. Six years after, he obtained two prebends; one in the church of Sarum, and the other in that of St. Paul’s, London. In 1470, he was made a privy counsellor, and one of the ambassadors to the king of Castille; and next year, he was, together with others, a commissioner to treat with the commissioners of the king of Scotland. About the same time, he was appointed by Edward IV. to be of the privy council to his son Edward, prince of Wales, He was also in 1471 promoted to the bishopric of Rocheser; and in 1472, constituted lord high chancellor of England, in which office he does not appear to have continued longer than ten months. In 1476,. he was translated to jhe see of Worcester, and appointed lord president of Wales. During his being bishop of Worcester, he very elegantly enlarged the church of Westbury. He was in disgrace with the Protector Richard duke of York, and was removed from his office of preceptor to Edward V. on account of his attachment to that young prince. Soon after the accession of Henry VII. he had again, for a short time, the custody of the great seal. At length, in 1486, he was raised to the bishopric of Ely, and according to A. Wood, he was made president of the council of king Edward IV. in the same year, which is a palpable mistake, as Henry VII. came to the crown in 1485. Bishop Alcock, in 1488, preached a sermon at St. Mary’s church at Cambridge, which lasted from one o'clock in the afternoon till past three.

It was not however thought proper to remove him from his high office on this account; but the duke of Ormond was prevailed upon to exhibit a charge against him, on account of his reflections on the earl of Castlehaven’s Memoirs. This produced a sharp contest betwixt these two peers; which ended in the earl of Anglesey’s losing his place of lord privy seal, though his enemies were forced to confess that he was hardly and unjustly treated. After this disgrace, he remained 'pretty much at his country seat at Blechhlgdon in Oxfordshire, where he devoted his time to his studies, and meddled very little with public affairs. However, he got into favour again in the reign of James II. and it is generally believed he would have been appointed lord chancellor of England, if not prevented by his death, which happened April 6, 1686, in the 73d year of his age. He was perfectly versed in the Greek and Roman history, and well acquainted with the spirit and policy of those nations. He had studied the laws of his country with such diligence, as to be esteemed a great lawyer. His writings which are extant, are proofs of his learning and abilities; but the largest and most

, archbishop of Canterbury in the reigns of Richard II. Henry IV. and Henry V. was the second son of Robert Fitz-Alan, earl of Arundel and Warren, and brother of Richard earl of Arundel, who was afterwards beheaded. He was but twenty-two years of age when, from being archdeacon of Taunton, he was promoted to the bishopric of Ely, by the pope’s provision, and consecrated April 9, 1374, at Otteford. He was a considerable benefactor to the church and palace of that see. He almost rebuilt the episcopal palace in Holborn, and, among other donations, he presented the cathedral with a very curious table of massy gold, enriched with precious stones which had been given to prince Edward by the king of Spain, and sold by the latter to bishop Arundel for three hundred marks. In the year 1386, the tenth of Richard II. he was made lord high chancellor of England but resigned it in 1389 was again appointed in 1391, and resigned it finally, upon his advancement to the see of Canterbury. After he had sat about fourteen years in the see of Ely, he was translated to the archbishopric of York, April 3, 1388, where he expended a very large sum of money in building a palace for the archbishops, and, besides other rich ornaments, gave to the church several pieces of silver-gilt plate. In 1393, being then chancellor, he removed the courts of justice from London to York and, as a precedent for this unpopular step, he alledged the example of archbishop Corbridge, eighty years before. The see of Canterbury being vacant by the death of Dr. William Courtney, archbishop Arundel was translated thither, January 1396. The crosier was delivered into his hands by Henry Chellenden, prior of Canterbury, in the presence of the king, and a great number of the nobility, and on the 19th of February 1397, he was enthroned with great pomp at Canterbury, the first instance of the translation of an archbishop of York to the see of Canterbury. Soon after he had a contest with the university of Oxford about the right of visitation, which was determined by King Richard, to whom the decision was referred, in favour of the archbishop. At his visitation in London, he revived an old constitution, first set on foot by Simon Niger, bishop of London, by which the inhabitants of the respective parishes were obliged to pay to their rector one halfpenny in the pound out of the rent of their houses. In the second year of his translation, a parliament was held at London, in which the commons, with the king’s leave, impeached the archbishop, together with his brother the earl of Arundel, and the duke of Gloucester, of high-treason, for compelling the king, in the tenth year of his reign, to grant them a commission to govern the kingdom. The archbishop was sentenced to be banished, and had forty days allowed him to prepare for his exile, within which time he was to depart the kingdom on pain of death. Upon this he retired first into France, and then to Rome, where pope Boniface IX. gave him a very friendly reception, and wrote a letter to king Richard, desiring him to receive the archbishop again into favour. But not meeting with success, his holiness resolved to interpose his authority in favour of Arundel. Accordingly he nominated him to the archbishopric of St. Andrews, and declared his intention of giving him several other preferments in England, by way of provision. The king, upon this, wrote an expostulatory letter to the pope, which induced him not only to withhold the intended favours from Arundel, but likewise, at the king’s request^ to promote Roger Walden dean of York and lord treasurer of England, to the see of Canterbury. That prelate, however, was soon obliged to quit his new dignity for, next year, Arundel returned into England with the duke of Lancaster, afterwards king Henry IV. upon whose accession to the throne, the pope revoked the bull granted to Walden, and restored Arundel and among the articles of mis government brought against king Richard, one was his usage and banishment of this prelate. The throne being vacant by Richard’s resignation, and the duke of Lancaster’s title being allowed in parliament, Arundel had the honour to crown the new king and, at the coronationdinner, sat at his right hand; the archbishop of York being placed at his left. In the first year of king Henry’s reign, Arundel summoned a synod, which sat at St. Paul’s. Harpsfield, and the councils from him, have mistaken this synod for one held during the vacancy of the see. He also by his courage and resolution, preserved several of the bishops, who were in king Henry’s army, from being plundered of their equipages and money. The next year, the commons having moved, that the revenues of the church might be applied to the service of the public, Arundel opposed the motion so vigorously, that the king and lords promised him, the church should never be plundered in their time. After this, he visited the university of Cambridge, where he made several statutes, suppressed several bad customs, and punished the students for their misbehaviour. And, when the visitation was ended, at the request of the university, he reserved all those matters and causes, which had been laid before him, to his own cognizance and jurisdiction. In the year 1408, Arundel began to exert himself with vigour against the Lollards or Wickliffites. To this end, he summoned the bishops and clergy at Oxford, to check the progress of this new sect, and prevent that university’s being farther tinctured with their opinions. But the doctrines of Wickliff still gaining ground, the archbishop resolved to visit the university, attended by the earl of Arundel, his nephew, and a splendid retinue. When he came near the town, he was met by the principal members of the university, who told him, that, if he came only to see the town, he was very welcome, but if he came in the character of a visitor, they refused to acknowledge his jurisdiction. The archbishop, resenting this treatment, left Oxford in a day or two, and wrote to the king on accpunt of his disappointment. After a warm contest between the university and the archbishop, both parties agreed to refer the dispute to the king’s decision who, governing himself by the example of his predecessors, gave sentence in favour of the archbishop. Soon after this controversy was ended, a convocation being held at St. Paul’s in London, the bishops and clergy complained of the growth of Wicklevitism at Oxford, and pressed the archbishop to visit that university. He accordingly wrote to the chancellor and others, giving them notice, that he intended to hold a visitation in St. Mary’s church. His delegates for this purpose were sent down soon after, and admitted by the university, who, to make some satisfaction for their backwardness in censuring Wickliff’s opinions, “wrote to the archbishop, and asked his pardon: after which they appointed a committee of twelve persons, to examine heretical books, particularly those of Wicklitf. These inquisitors into heretical pravity, having censured some conclusions extracted out o'f WicklitPs books, sent an account of their proceedings to the archbishop, who confirmed their censures, and sent an authority in writing to some eminent members of the university, empowering them to inquire into persons suspected of heterodoxy, and oblige them to declare their opinions. These rigorous proceedings made Arundel extremely hated by the Wickliffites, and certainly form the deepest stain on his character. However he went on with the prosecution, and not only solicited the pope to condemn the abovementioned conclusions, but desired likewise a bull for the digging up Wickliff’s bones. The pope granted the first of these requests, but refused the other, not thinking it any useful part of discipline to disturb the ashes of the dead. Arundel’s warm zeal for suppressing the Lollards, or Wickliffites, carried him to several unjustifiable severities against the heads of that sect, particularly against sir John Oldcastle, lord Cobham and induced him to procure a synodical constitution, which forbad the translation of the scriptures into the vulgar tongue. This prelate died at Canterbury, after having sat seventeen years, the 20th of February, 1413. The Lollardsofthose times asserted the immediate hand of heaven in the manner of his death. He died of an inflammation in his throat, and it is said that he was struck with this disease, as he was pronouncing sentence of excommunication and condemnation on the lord Cobham; and from that time, notwithstanding all the assistance of medicine, he could swallow neither meat nor drink, and was starved to death. The Lollards imputed this lamentable end to the just judgment of God upon him, both for his severity towards that sect, and forbidding the scriptures to be translated into English; and bishop Godwin seems to lean to the same opinion. He was buried in the cathedral of Canterbury, near the west end, under a monument erected by himself in his life-time. He was a considerable benefactor to that church, having built the Lanthorn Tower, and great part of the Nave and he gave a ring of five bells, called from him” Arundel’s Ring," several rich vestments, a mitre enchased with jewels, a silver gilt crosier, a golden chalice for the high altar, and another to be used only on St. Thomas Becket’s day. He bestowed also the church of Godmersham, out of the income of which, he ordered six shillings and eight pence to be given annually to every monk of the convent, on the aforesaid festival. Lastly, he gave several valuable books, particularly two Missals, and a collection in one volume of St. Gregory’s works, with anathema to any person who should remove it out of the church. He appears to have possessed a great natural capacity, and was a splendid benefactor to many of our ecclesiastical structures. As a politician, he took a very active share in the principal measures of very turbulent times, and it is perhaps now difficult to appreciate his character in any other particulars than what are most prominent, his zeal for the catholic religion, and his munificence in the various offices he held.

, descended of an ancient and honourable family, of the county of Essex, was born in 1488. He was by nature endowed with great abilities, from his ancestors inherited an ample fortune, and was happy in a regular education, but whether at Oxford or Cambridge is not certain. At what time he was entered of the Inner-Temple, does not appear, but in 1526 he was autumn reader of that house, and is thought to have read on the statute of privileges, which he handled with so much learniag and eloquence, as to acquire great reputation. This, with the duke of Suffolk’s recommendation, to whom he was chancellor, brought him to the' knowledge of his sovereign, who at that time wanted men of learning and some pliability he was, accordingly, by the king’s influence, chosen speaker of that parliament, which sat first on the third of November, 1529, and is by some styled the Black Parliament, and by others, on account of its duration, the Long Parliament. Great complaints were made in the house of commons against the clergy, and the proceedings in ecclesiastical courts, and several bills were ordered to be brought in, which alarmed some of the prelates. Fisher, bishop of Rochester, inveighed boldly against these transactions, in the house of lords, with which the house of commons were so much offended, that they thought proper to complain of it, by their speaker, to the king, and Fisher had some difficulty in excusing himself. The best historians agree, that great care was taken by the king, or at least by his ministry, to have such persons chosen into this house of commons as would proceed therein readily and effectually, and with this view Audley was chosen to supply the place of sir Thomas More, now speaker of the lords’ house, and chancellor of England. The new house and its speaker justified his majesty’s expectations, by the whole tenor of their behaviour, but especially by the passing of a law, not nowfound among our statutes. The king, having borrowed very large sums of money of particular subjects, and entered into obligations for the repayment of the said sums, the house brought in, and passed a bill, in the preamble of which they declared, that inasmuch as those sums had been applied by his majesty to public uses, therefore they cancelled and discharged the said obligations, &c. and the king, finding the convenience of such a parliament, it sat again in the month of January, 1530-1. In this session also many extraordinary things were done amongst the rest, there was a law introduced in the house of lords, by which the clergy were exempted from the penalties they had incurred, by submitting to the legatine power of Wolsey. On this occasion the commons moved a clause in favour of the laity, many of themselves having also incurred the penalties of the statute. But the king insisted that acts of grace ought to flow spontaneously, and that this was not the method of obtaining what they wanted; and the house, notwithstanding the intercession of its speaker, and several of its members, who were the king’s servants, was obliged to pass the bill without the clause, and immediately the king granted them likewise a pardon, which reconciled all parties. In the recess, the king thought it necessary to have a letter written to the pope by the lords and commons, or rather by the three estates in parliament, which letter was drawn up and signed by cardinal Wolsey, the archbishop of Canterbury, four bishops, two dukes, two marquisses, thirteen earls, two viscounts, twenty-three barons, twenty-two abbots, and eleven members of the house of commons. Thepurport of this letter, dated July 13, above three weeks after the parliament rose, was to iMigage the pope to grant the king’s desire in the divorce business, for the sake of preventing a civil war, on account of the succession, and to threaten him if he did not, to take some other way. To gratify the speaker for the great pains he had already taken, and to encourage him to proceed in the same way, the king made him this year attorney for the duchy of Lancaster, advanced him in Michaelmas term to the state and degree of a serjeant at law, and on the 14th of November following, to that of his own serjeant. In January, 1531-2, the parliament had its third session, wherein the grievances occasioned by the excessive power of the ecclesiastics and their courts, were regularly digested into a book, which was presented by the speaker, Audley, to the king. The king’s answer was, He would take advice, hear the parties accused speak, and then proceed to reformation. Jn this session, a bill was brought into the house of lords, for the better securing the rights of his majesty, and other persons interested in the eare of wards, which rights, it was alleged, were injured by fraudulent wills and contracts. This bill, when it came into the house of commons, was violently opposed, and the members expressed a desire of being dissolved, which the king would not permit but after they had done some business, they had a recess to the month of April. When they next met, the king sent for the speaker, and delivered to him the answer which had been made to the roll of grievances, presented at their last sitting, which afforded very little satisfaction, and they seemed now less subset viciit. Towards the close of the month, one Mr. Themse moved, That the house would intercede with the king, to take back his queen again. The king, extremely alarmed at this, on the 30th of April, 1532, sent for the speaker, to whom he repeated the plea of conscience, which had induced him to repudiate the queen, and urged that the opinion of the learned doctors, &c. was on his side. On the 11th of May the king sent for the speaker again, and told him, that he had found that the clergy of his realm were but half his subjects, or scarcely so much, every bishop and abbot at the entering into his dignity, taking an oath to the pope, derogatory to that of their fidelity to the king, which contradiction he desired his parliament to take away. Upon this motion of the king’s, the two oaths he mentioned were read in the house of commons and they would probably have complied, if the plague bad not put an end to the session abruptly, on the 14th of May; and two days after, sir Thomas More, knt. then lord chancellor of England, went suddenly, without acquainting any body with his intention, to court, his majesty being then at York Place, and surrendered up the seals to the king. The king going out of town to EastGreenwich, carried the seals with him, and on Monday, May 20, delivered them to Thomas Audley, esq, with the title of lord keeper, and at the same time conferred on him the honour of knighthood. September 6, sir Thomas delivered the old seal, which was much worn, and received a new one in its stead, yet with no -higher title: but on January 26, 1533, he again delivered the seal to the king, who kept it a quarter of an hour, and then returned it with the title of lord chancellor. A little after, the king granted to him the site of the priory of Christ Church, Aldgate, together with all the church plate, and lands belonging to that house. When chancellor he complied with the king’s pleasure as effectually as when speaker of the house of commons. For in July 1535, he sat in judgment on sir Thomas More, his predecessor, (as he had before on bishop Fisher,) who was now indicted of high-treason upon which indictment the jury found him gnilty, and the lord chancellor, Audley, pronounced judgment of death upon him. This done, we are told, that sir Thomas More said, that he had for seven years bent his mind and study upon this cause, but as yet he found it no where writ by any approved doctor of the church, that a layman could be head of the ecclesiastical state. To this Audley returned, “Sir, will you be reckoned wiser, or of a better conscience, than all the bishops, the nobility, and the whole kingdom” Sir Thomas rejoined, “My lord chancellor, for one bishop that you have of your opinion, I have a hundred of mine, and that among those that have been saints and for your one council, which, what it is, God knows, I have on my side all the general councils for a thousand years past; and for one kingdom, I have France and all the ether kingdoms of the Christian world.” As our chancellor was very active in the business of the divorce, he was no less so in the business of abbies, and had particularly a large hand in the dissolution of such religions houses as had not two hundred pounds by the year. This was in the twenty-seventh of Henry VIII, and the bill being delayed long in the house of commons, his majesty sent for the members of that house to attend him in his gallery, where he passed through them with a stern countenance, without speaking a word the members not having received the king’s command to depart to their house, durst not return till they knew the king’s pleasure so they stood waiting in the gallery. In the mean time the king went a hunting, and his ministers, who seem to have had better manners than their master, went to confer with the members to some they spoke of the king’s steadiness and severity to others, of his magnificence and generosity. At last the king came back, and passing through them again, said, with an air of fierceness peculiar to himself, That if his bill did not pass, it should cost many of them their heads. Between the ministers’ persuasions and the king’s threats, the matter was brought to an issue the king’s bill, as he called it, passed and by it, he had not only the lands of the small monasteries given him, but also their jewels, plate, and rich moveables. This being accomplished, methods were used to prevail with the abbots of larger foundations to surrender. To this end, the chancellor sent a special agent to treat with the abbot of Athelny, to offer him an hundred marks per annum pension which he refused, insisting on a greater sum. The chancellor was more successful with the abbot of St. Osithes in Essex, with whom he dealt personally and, as he expresses it in a letter to Cromwell, the visitor-general, by great solicitation prevailed with him but then he insinuates, that his place of lord chancellor being very chargeable, he desired the king might be moved for addition of some more profitable offices unto him. In suing for the great abbey of Walden, in the same county, which he obtained, besides extenuating its worth, he alleged under his hand, that he had in this world sustained great damage and infamy in serving the king, which the grant of that should recompense. But if the year 1536 was agreeable to him in one respect, it was far from being so in another; since, notwithstanding the obligations he was under to queen Anne Bullen, he was obliged, by the king’s command, to be present at her apprehension and commitment to the Tower. He sat afterwards with Cranmer archbishop of Canterbury, when he gave sentence of divorce on the pre-contract between the queen and the lordPiercy and on the 15th of May, in the same year, he sat in judgment on the said queen, notwithstanding we are told by Lloyd, that with great address he avoided it. The lengths he had gone in serving the king, and his known dislike to popery, induced the northern, rebels in the same year, to name him as one of the evil counsellors, whom they desired to see removed from about the king’s person which charge, however, his majesty, as far as in him lay, wiped off, by his well- penned answer to the complaints of those rebels, wherein an excellent character is given of the chancellor. When the authors of this rebellion came to be tried, the chancellor declined sitting as lord high steward, which high office was executed by the marquis of Exeter, on whom shortly after, viz. in 1538, Audley sat as high-steward, and condemned him, his brother, and several t other persons, to suffer death as traitors. In the latter end of the same year, viz. on the 29th of November, 30 Hen. VIII. the chancellor was created a baron, by the style of lord Audley of Walden in the county of Essex, and was likewise installed knight of the garter. In the session of parliament in 1539, there were many severe acts made, and the prerogative carried to an excessive height, particularly by the six bloody articles, and the giving the king’s proclamation the force of a law. It does not very clearly appear who were the king’s principal counsellors in these matters but it is admitted by the best historians, that the rigorous execution of these laws, which the king first designed, was prevented by the interposition of the lord Audley, in conjunction with Cromwell, who was then prime minister, and the duke of Suffolk, the king’s favourite throughout his whole reign. In the beginning of 1540, the court was excessively embarrassed. What share Audley had in the fall of Cromwell afterwards is not clear, but immediately after a new question was stirred in parliament, viz. How far the king’s marriage with Anne of Cleves, was lawful This was referred to the judgment of a spiritual court and there are yet extant the depositions of Thomas lord Audley, lord chancellor, Thomas, archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas, duke of Norfolk, Charles, duke of Suffolk, and Cuthbert, lord bishop of Durham, wherein they jointly swear, that the papers produced to prove the retraction of the lady Anne’s contract with the duke of Lorrain, were inconclusive and unsatisfactory. Other lords and ladies deposed to other points, and the issue of the business was, that the marriage was declared void by this court, which sentence was supported by an act of parliament, affirming the same thing, and enacting, That it should be high-treason to judge or believe otherwise. This obstacle removed, the king married the lady Catherine Howard, niece to the duke of Norfolk, and cousin -german to Anne Bullen. Nothing is clearer from history, than that the chancellor was closely attached to the house of Norfolk and yet in the latter end of the year 1541, he was constrained to be an instrument in the ruin of the unfortunate queen information of her bad life before her marriage, being laid first before the archbishop of Canterbury, and by him communicated to the chancellor. The king then appointed lord Audley one of the commissioners to examine her, which they did, and there is yet extant a letter subscribed by him and the other lords, containing an exact detail of this affair, and of the evidence on which, in the next session of parliament, the queen and others were attainted. The whole of this business was managed in parliament by the chancellor, and there is reason to believe, that he had some hand in another business transacted in that session which was the opening a door for the dissolution of hospitals, the king having now wasted all that had accrued to him by the suppression of abbies. Some other things of the like nature were the last testimonies of the chancellor’s concern for his master’s interest but next year a more remarkable case occurred. Jn the 34th of Henry VIII. George Ferrers, esq. burgess for Plymouth, was arrested, and carried to the compter, by virtue of a writ from the court of king’s bench. The house, on notice thereof, sent their serjeant to demand their member in doing which, a fray ensued at the compter, his mace was broke, his servant knocked down, and himself obliged to make his escape as well as he could. The house, upon notice of this, resolved they would sit no longer without their member, and desired a conference with the lords where, after hearing the mutter, the lord chancellor Audley declared the contempt was most flagrant, and referred “the punishment thereof to the house of commons whereupon Thomas Moyle, esq. who was then speaker, issued his warrant, and the sheriff of London, and several other persons, were brought to the bar of the house, and committed, some to the Tower, and some to Newgate. This precedent was gained by the king’s want of an aid, who at that time expected the commons would offer him a subsidy the ministry, and the house of lords, knowing the king’s will gave the commons the complimerit of punishing those who had imprisoned one of their members. Dyer, mentioning this case, sap,” The sages of the law held the commitment of Ferrers legal, and though the privilege was allowed him, yet was it held unjust.“As the chancellor had led a very active life, he grew now infirm, though he was not much above fifty years old, and therefore began to think of settling his family and affairs. But, previous to this, he obtained from the king a licence to change the name of Buckingham college in Cambridge, into that of Magdalen, or Maudlin some will have it, because in the latter word his own name is included. To this college he was a great benefactor, bestowed on it his own arms, and is generally 'reputed its founder, or restorer. His capital seat was at Christ-Christ in town, and at Walden in Essex and to preserve some remembrance of himself and fortunes, he caused a magnificent tomb to be erected in his new chapel at Walden. About the beginning of April, 1544, he was attacked by his last illness, which induced him to resign the seals but he was too weak to do it in person, and therefore sent them to the king, who delivered them to sir Thomas Wriothesley, with the title of keeper, during the indisposition of the chancellor a circumstance not remarked by any of our historians. On the 19th of April, lord Audi ey made hU will, and, amongst other things, directed that his executors should, upon the next New-year’s day after his decease, deliver to the king a legacy of one hundred pounds, from whom, as he expresses it,” he had received all his reputations and benefits." He died on the last of April, 1544, when he had held the seals upwards of twelve years, and in the fifty-sixth of his life, as appears by the inscription on his tomb. He married Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas iGrey, marquis of Dorset, by whom he had two daughters, Margaret and Mary; Mary died unmarried, and Margaret became his sole heir. She married first lord Henry Dudley, a younger son of John duke of Northumberland, and he being slain at the battle of St. Quintin’s, in Picardy, in 1557, she married a second time, Thomas duke of Norfolk, to whom she was also a second wife, and had by him a son Thomas, who, by act of parliament, in the 27th of Elizabeth, was restored in blood; and in the 39th of the same reign, summoned to parliament by his grandfather’s title, as baron of Walden, In the 1st of James I. he was created earl of Suffolk, and being afterwards lord hightreasurer of England, he built on the ruins of the abbey of Walden, that nee noble palace, which, in honour of our chancellor, he called Audley-End.

In the mean time the chancellor continued to supreintend the king’s affairs in general, and particularly the concerns of the civil list. There are many of his letters extant, both to the king and to Buckingham, upon this subject, which demonstrate an independence of mind, and an intrepidity in the discharge of his duty, very remote from the servile temper of which his enemies have accused him. In the beginning of January 1618, he had the title given him of lord high chancellor of England and in July of the same year, he was created baron of Verulam in the county of Hertford. This new honour excited his lordship to new services, and it appears from his own writings, that he was very attentive to every thing that might conduce, either to the immediate benefit of the king, or to the general good of his subjects. Some of his particulartransactions are detailed in the history of the times, and in his life in the Biographia but it would swell this article beyond all useful bounds were we to enter upon these. With regard to his more personal history, it may, however, be necessary to subjoin that while high chancellor, he procured from the king the farm of the alienation-office, which was of considerable benefit, and proved a great part of his subsistence, after he lost his office. He likewise procured York-house for his residence, for which he seems to have had an affection, as being the place of his birth, and where his father had lived all the time he possessed the high office of lord keeper of the great seal.

In consequence of these proceedings, his lordship delivered up the great seal to his majesty, and the house of peers adjudged, that lord viscdunt St. Albans, lord chancellor of England, shall undergo fine and ransom of fortythousand pounds, that he shall be imprisoned in the Tower during the king’s pleasure, that he shall for ever be incapable of any office or employment in the state or commonwealth, and that he shall never sit in parliament, or come within the verge of the court. After a short confinement in the Tower, however, he was discharged, and in some measure regained his favour with the king, who, on the prorogation of parliament, was pleased to consult him, as to the proper methods of reforming the courts of justice, and taking away other grievances which that parliament had inquired into and his lordship accordingly drew up a memorial, which is extant in his works. Other marks of favour and indulgence were shewn him, which, amidst the anguish of a blasted character, so far appeased his troubled mind, that he resumed his studies with his accustomed vigour. In the spring of the succeeding year, 1622, he published his history of, Henry VII. which has not added so much to his reputation as his other works. When the new parliament was called, in which the house of commons shewed great zeal for his majesty’s service, he composed “Considerations of a war with Spain,” and likewise “Heads of a Speech” for his friend sir Edward Sackville, upon the same subject and these services were so well received, that upon an application to the king for a full pardon, he easily obtained it. In the warrant directed for this purpose to the attorney-general, his majesty took notice of his lordship’s having already satisfied justice by his sufferings, and. that himself being always inclined to temper justice with mercy, and likewise calling to remembrance his former good services, and how well and profitably he had spent his time since his troubles, he was graciously pleased to remove from him that blot of ignominy which yet remained upon him, of incapacity and disablement, and to remit to him all penalties whatsoever, inflicted by that sentence.

, lord keeper of the great seal in the reign of queen Elizabeth, descended from an ancient and honourable family in Suffolk. His rather was Robert Bacon of Drinkstxm in that county, esq. and his mother was Isabel, the daughter of John Gage of Pakenhain in the said county, esq. Nicholas, their second son, was born in 1510, at Chislehurst in Kent. After having received the first rudiments of learning, probably at home, or in the neighbourhood, he was sent when very young to Corpus Christi college in Cambridge, where having improved in all branches of useful knowledge, he went to France, in order to give the last polish to his education. On his return he settled in Gray VInn, and applied himself with such assiduity to the study of the law, that on the dissolution of the monastery of St. Edmund’s-Bury in Suffolk, he had a grant from king Henry VIII. in the thirty-­sixth year of his reign, of the manors of Redgrave, Botesdale, and Gillingham, with the park of Redgrave, and six acres of land in Worthanf, as also the tithes of Redgrave to hold in capite by knight’s service, a proof of the estimation in which he was held by his majesty. In the thirtyeighth of the same king, he was promoted to the office of attorney in the court of wards, a place both of honour and profit, and his patent was renewed in the first year of Edward VI. and in 1552, which was the last year of his reign, Mr. Bacon was elected treasurer of Gray’s-Inn. His great moderation and consummate prudence, preserved him through the dangerous reign of queen Mary. In the very dawn of that of Elizabeth he was knighted, and the great seal of England being taken from Nicholas Heath, archbishop of York, was delivered to sir Nicholas Bacon, on the 22d of December 1558, with the title of lord keeper. He was also of the privy council to her majesty, who had much regard to his advice. The parliament met Jan. 23, but was prorogued on account of the queen’s indisposition to the 25th, when the lord keeper opened the session with a most eloquent and solid speech. Some of the queen’s counsellors thought it necessary that the attainder of the queen’s mother should be taken off; but the lord keeper thought the crown purged all defects, and in compliance with his advice, two laws were made, one for recognizing the queen’s title, the other for restoring her in blood as heir to her mother. The principal business of this session was the settlement of religion, in which no man had a greater share than the keeper, and he acted with such prudence as never to incur the hatred of any party. On this account he was, together with the archbishop of York, appointed moderator in a dispute between eight Protestant divines, and eight Popish bishops and the latter behaving very unfairly in the opinion of both the moderators, and desiring, to avoid a fair disputation, to go away, the lord keeper put that question to each of them, and when all except one insisted on going, his lordship dismissed them with this memorandum, “For that ye would not that we should hear you, perhaps you may shortly hear of us” and accordingly for this contempt, the bishops of Winchester and Lincoln were committed to the tower, and the rest were bound to appear before the council, and not to quit the cities of London and Westminster without leave. The whole business of the session, than which there was none of greater importance during that reign, was chiefly managed by his lordship, according to his wise maxim, “Let us stay a little, that we may have done the sooner.” From this time he stood as high in the favour of the queen as any of her ministers, and maintained a cordial interest with other great men, particularly with those eminent persons, who had married into the same family with himself, viz. Cecil, Hobby, Rowlet, and Killigrew. By their assistance he preserved his credit at court, though he sometimes differed in opinion from the mighty favourite Leicester, who yet once bad fair his ruin, when certain intrigues were carried on respecting the succession. Some statesmen, and particularly the earl of Leicester, pretended to favour the title of the queen of Scots, but others were more inclined to the house of Suffolk. The queen sometimes affected a neutrality, and sometimes shewed a tenderness for the title of the Scottish queen. In 1564, when these disputes were at the height, Mr. John Hales, clerk of the Hanaper, published a treatise which seems to have been written a considerable time before, in favour of the Suffolk line, and against the title of the queen of Scots. This book was complained of by the bishop of Ross, ambassador from the queen of Scots, and Ross being warmly supported by the earl of Leicester, Hales was committed to prison, and so strict an inquiry made after all who had expressed any favour for this piece, that at last the lord-keeper came to be suspected, which drew upon him the queen’s displeasure, and he was forbidden the court, removed from his seat at council, and prohibited from meddling with any affairs but those of the chancery nay, Camden says he was confined . At last, however, Cecil, who is suspected to have had some share in the above treatise, with much difficulty restored him to the queen’s good opinion, as appears by her setting him at the head of that commission, granted in the year 1568, for hearing the difference between the queen of Scots, and her rebellious subjects; and in 1571, we find him again acting in the like capacity, though very little was done before the commissioners at either time, which was what queen Elizabeth chiefly desired, and the covering her inclination with a decent appearance of justice, was perhaps not a little owing to the address of the lord-keeper. Afterwards he continued at the head of her majesty’s councils, and had a great hand in preventing, by his moderation, some violent measures afterwards proposed. The share, however, that he had in the business of the duke of Norfolk, and his great care for promoting the Protestant religion, created him many bitter enemies among the Papists both at home and abroad, who though they were able to do him no great hurt, yet published some libels, particularly “A Detection of certain practices, &c.” printed in Scotland, about 1570, and “A treatise of Treason,” both which gave him considerable uneasiness, although the queen expressed her opinion, by a proclamation, ordering them to be burnt. As a statesman, he was remarkable for a clear head, and acute understanding; and while it was thought of some other great men that they seemed wiser than they were, yet the common voice of the nation pronounced, that sir Nicholas Bacon was wiser than he seemed. His great skill lay in balancing factions, and it is thought he taught the queen that secret, the more necessary to her because the last of her family, and consequently without many of the usual supports of princes. In the chancery he distinguished himself by a very moderate use of power, and the respect he shewed to the common law. At his own request, an act of parliament was made, to settle and establish the power of a lord -keeper, though he might probably have taken away all need of this, by procuring the title of lord chancellor: but according to his motto, which was Mediocra firma, he he was content to be safe, and did not desire to be great*. In that court, and in the star-chamber, he made use, on proper occasions, of set speeches, in which he was peculiarly happy, and gained the reputation of a witty and a weighty speaker. His great parts and great preferment were far from raising him in his own opinion, as appears from the modest answer he gave* queen Elizabeth, when she told him his house at Redgrave was too little for him, “Not so, madam,” returned he, “but your majesty has made me too great for my house.” Yet to shew his respect for her majesty’s judgment, he afterwards added wings to this house. His modesty in this respect was so much the greater, since he had a great passion for building, and a very fine taste, as appeared by his house and gardens at Gorhambury near St. Alban’s, now the seat of lord viscount Grimston. Towards the latter end of his life, he became very corpulent, which made queen Elizabeth say merrily, that “sir Nicholas’s soul lodged well. To himself, however, his bulk was very inconvenient after walking from Westminster-hall to the star-chamber, which was but a very little way, he was usually so much out of breath, that the lawyers forbore speaking at the bar till he recocovered himself, and gave them notice by knocking” with his staff. After having held the great seal more than twenty years, this able statesman and faithful counsellor was suddenly removed from this life, as Mallett informs us, by the following accident “He was under the hands of his barber, and the weather being sultry, had ordered a window before him to be thrown open. As he was become very corpulent, he presently fell asleep, in the cur­* After he had been some monthsact of parliament, which declares, in office, as keeper of the great seal,” That the common law always was, he began to doubt to what degree his that the keeper of the great seal always authority extended, which seems to had, as of right belonging to his office, have been owing to the general terms the same authority, jurisdiction, excused upon the delivery of the great cution of laws, and all other customs, Heal, of which we have various in- as the lord chancellor of England lawstances in Rymer’s Foedera. Upon fully used.“What the true reason this, he first applied himself to the was that made his lordship so uneasy, queen, from whom he procured a pa- is not perhaps known to posterity. tent, bearing date at Westminster, the But sir Henry Spelman has observed, 14th of April, in the first year of her that for the benefit of that wise counreign, whereby she declares him te seller sir Nicholas Bacon, the authobare as full powers as if he were rity of the keeper of the great seal hancellor of England, and ratifies all was by this law declared to be in all that he had already done. This, how- respects the same with that of th ever, did not fully satisfy him but chancellor, four years afterwards he procured an rent of fresh air that was blowing in upon him, and awaked after some time distempered all over. c Why,‘ said he to the servant, < did you suffer me to sleep thus exposed’ The fellow replied, ‘ That he durst not presume to disturb him.’ * Then,‘ said the lord keeper, * by your civility I lose my life,’ and so removed into his bed-chamber, where he died a few days after.” But this story seems doubtful, for all writers agree, that sir Nicholas Bacon died Feb. 20, 1579, when the weather could not be very sultry. On the 9th of March following he was buried with great solemnity, under a sumptuous monument erected by himself in St. Paul’s church, with an inscription written by the celebrated Buchanan. Camden’s character of him is just and plain “Vir praepinguis, ingenio acerrimo, singulari prudentia, summa eloquentia, tenaci memoria, et sacris conciliis alterum columen” i. e. A man of a gross body, but most quick wit, singular prudence, supreme eloquence, happy memory, and for judgment the other pillar of the state. His son’s pharacter of him is more striking. He was “a plain man, direct and constant, without all finesse and doubleness and one that was of a mind that a man, in his private proceedings and estate, and in the proceedings of state, should rest upon the soundness and strength of his own courses, and not upon practice to circumvent others, according to the sentence of Solomon, * Vir prudens advertit ad gressus suos stultus autem divertit ad dolos’ insomuch that the bishop of Ross, a subtle and observing man, said of him, that he could fasten no words upon him, and that it was impossible to come within him, because he offered no play; and the queen mother of France, a very politic princess, said of him, that he should have been of the council of Spain, because he despised the occurrents, and rested upon the first plot.” Nor is Puttenham’s short account to be overlooked “I have come to the lord keeper, and found him sitting in his gallery alone, with the works of Quintilian before him. Indeed he was a most eloquent man, of rare wisdom and learning, as ever I knew England to breed, and one that joyed as much in learned men and 0'.;d wits, from whose lippes Ihave seen to proceed more i;rave and natural eloquence than from all the orators of Oxford and Cambridge.”

, bishop of London in the reigns of Edward I. and II. was educated at Merton college in Oxford, became archdeacon of Middlesex, and, in 1294, dean of St. Paul’s. The see of London being vacant by the death of Richard de Gravesend, Baldock was unanimously chosen, Sept. 20, 1304. But, his election being controverted, he was obliged to repair to Rome and, having obtained the pope’s confirmation, was consecrated at Lyons by Peter Hispanus, cardinal of Alba, Jan. 30, 1306. Being returned into England, he made profession of canonical obedience to the archbishop in the church of Canterbury, March 22, 1306. The same year he was appointed by the pope one of the commissioners for the examination of the articles alleged against the knights templars, and in that year also he was made lord high chancellor of England but Edward I. dying soon after, he held that post little more than a year. Dec. 2, 1308, this prelate, with the approbation of the chapter, settled a stipend on the chancellor of St. Paul’s for reading lectures in divinity in that church, according to a constitution of his predecessor, Richard de Gravesend. He contributed 200 marks towards building the chapel of St. Mary, on the east side of St. Paul’s. He founded also a chantry of two priests in the said church, near the altar of St. Erkenwald. He was a person of a very amiable character, both for morals and learning, and deserved well of his country by his writings, which were, 1. “Historia Anglica, or a history of the British affairs down to his own time.” It is not now extant, though Leland says he saw it at London. 2. “A collection of the statutes and constitutions of the church of St. Paul’s,” extant in the library of that cathedral in 1559. Bishop Balclock died at Stepney, July 24, 1313, having sat from his consecration a little more than seven years, and was buried under a marble monument in the chapel of St. Mary.

In 1772, he was advanced to the dignity of earl Bathurst. He lived to see his eldest surviving son, the second earl Bathurst (who died in 1794) several years chancellor of England, and promoted to the peerage by the title of baron Apsley. He died, after a few days illness, at his seat near Cirencester, Sept. 16, 1775, in his ninety-first year.

, bishop of Winchester, and cardinal priest of the church of Rome, was the son of John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster, by his third wife, Catherine S win ford. He studied for some years both at Cambridge and at Oxford, in the latter in Queen’s college, and was afterwards a benefactor to University and Lincoln colleges, but he received the principal part of his education at Aix la Chapelle, where he was instructed in civil and common law. Being of royal extraction, he was very young when advanced to the prelacy, and was made bishop of Lincoln in 1397, by an arbitrary act of Boniface IX. John Beckingham, bishop of that see, being, contrary to his wishes, translated to Lichfield, to make room for Beaufort, but Beckingham, with becoming spirit, refused the proffered diocese, and chose to become a private monk of Canterbury. In 1399 Beaufort was chancellor of the university of Oxford, and at the same time dean of Wells. He was lord high chancellor of England in 1404, and in some years afterwards. The following year, upon the death of the celebrated Wykeham, he was, at the recommendation of the king, translated to the see of Winchester. In 1414, the second of his nephew Henry V. he went to France, as one of the royal ambassadors, to demand in marriage Catherine, daughter of Charles VI. In 1417 he lent the king twenty thousand pounds (a prodigious sum in those days), towards carrying on his expedition against France, but had the crown in pawn as a security for the money. This year also he took a journey to the Holy Land and in his way, being arrived at Constance, where a general council was held, he exhorted the prelates to union and agreement in the election of a pope; and his remonstrances contributed not a little to hasten the preparations for the conclave, in which Martin III. was elected. We have no farther account of what happened to our prelate in this expedition. In 1421, he had the honour to be godfather, jointly with John duke of Bedford, and Jacqueline, countess of Holland, to prince Henry, eldest son of his nephew Henry V. and Catherine of France, afterwards Henry VI. M. Aubery pretends, that James, king of Scots, who had been several years a prisoner in England, owed his deliverance to the bishop of Winchester, who prevailed with the government to set him free, on condition of his marrying his niece, the granddaughter of Thomas Beaufort, earl of Somerset. This prelate was one of king Henry Vlth’s guardians during his minority; and in 1424, the third of the young king’s reign, he was a fourth time lord-chancellor of England. There were perpetual jealousies and quarrels, the cause of which is not very clearly explained, between the bishop of Winchester, and the protector, Humphrey duke of Gloucester, which ended in the ruin and death of the latter. Their dissensions began to appear publicly in 1425, and to such a height, that Beaufort thought it necessary to write a letter to his nephew the duke of Bedford, regent of France, which is extant in Holinshed, desiring his presence in England, to accommodate matters between them. The regent accordingly arriving in England the 20th of December, was met by the bishop of Winchester with a numerous train, and soon after convoked an assembly of the nobility at St. Alban’s, to hear and determine the affair. But the animosity on this occasion was so great on both sides, that it was thought proper to refer the decision to the parliament, which was to be held at Leicester, March 25, following. The parliament being met, the duke of Gloucester produced six articles of accusation against the bishop, who answered them severally, and a committee appointed for the purpose, having examined the allegations, he was acquitted. The duke of Bedford, however, to give some satisfaction to the protector, took away the great seal from his uncle. Two years after, the duke of Bedford, returning into France, was accompanied to Calais by the bishop of Winchester, who, on the 25th of March, received there with great solemnity, in the church of Our Lady, the cardinal’s hat, with the title of St. Eusebius, sent him by pope Martin V. In September 1428, the new cardinal returned into England, with the character of the pope’s legate lately conferred on him; and in his way to London, he was met by the lord-mayor, aldermen, and the principal citizens on horseback, who conducted him with great honour and respect to his lodgings in Southwark; but he was forced, for the present, to wave his legatine power, being forbidden the exercise of it by a proclamation published in the king’s name. Cardinal Beaufort was appointed, by the pope’s bull, bearing date March 25, 1427-8, his holiness’s legate in Germany, and general of the crusade against the Hussites, or Heretics of Bohemia. Having communicated the pope’s intentions to the parliament, he obtained a grant of money, and a considerable body of forces, under certain restrictions; but just as he was preparing to embark, the duke of Bedford having sent to demand a supply of men for the French war, it was resolved in council, that cardinal Beaufort should serve under the regent, with the troops of the crusade, to the end of the month of December, on condition that they should not be employed in any siege. The cardinal complied, though not without reluctance, and accordingly joined the duke of Bedford at Paris. After a stay of forty-five days in France, he marched into Bohemia, where he conducted the crusade till he was recalled by the pope, and cardinal Julian sent in his place with a larger army. The next year, 1430, the cardinal accompanied king Henry into France, being invested with the title of the king’s principal counsellor, and bad the honour to perform the ceremony of crowning the young monarch irt the church of Notre Dame at Paris; where he had some dispute with James du Chastellier, the archbishop, who claimed the right of officiating on that occasion. During his stay in France he was present at the congress of Arras for concluding a peace between the kings of England and France, and had a conference for that purpose with the dutchess of Burgundy, between Calais and Gravelines, which had no effect, and was remarkable only for the cardinal’s magnificence, who came thither with a most splendid train. In the mean time the duke of Gloucester took advantage in England of the cardinal’s absence to give him fresh mortification. For, first, having represented to the council, that the bishop of Winchester intended to leave the king, and come back into England to resume his seat in council, in order to excite new troubles in the kingdom, and that his intentions were the more criminal, as he made use of the pope’s authority to free himself from the obligations of assisting the king in France; he procured an order of council forbidding all the king’s subjects, of what condition soever, to accompany the cardinal, if he should leave the king, without express permission. The next step the protector took against him, was an attempt to deprive him of his bishopric, as inconsistent with the dignity of cardinal; but the affair having been a long time debated in council, it was resolved that the cardinal should be heard, and the judges consulted, before any decision. Being returned into England, he thought it necessary to take some precaution against these repeated attacks, and prevailed with the king, through the' intercession of the commons, to grant him letters of pardon for all offences by him committed contrary to the statute of provisors, and other acts of prsemunire. This pardon is dated at Westminster, July 19, 1432. Five years after, he procured another pardon under the great-seal for all sorts of crimes whatever, from the creation of the world to the 26th of July 1437. Notwithstanding these precautions, the duke of Gloucester, in 1442, drew up articles of impeachment against the cardinal, and presented them with his own hands to the king, but the council appointed to examine them deferred their report so long that rhe protector discontinued the prosecution. The cardinal died June 14, 1447, having survived the duke of Gloucester not above a mouth, of whose murder he was suspected to have been one of the contrivers, and it is said that he expressed great uneasiness at the approach of death, and died in despair; but for this there does not appear much foundation, and we suspect the commonlyreceived character of Beaufort is mostly credited by those who have considered Shakspeare as an authentic historian. We rather agree with the historian of Winchester, that there is no solid ground for representing him as that ambitious, covetous, and reprobate character which Shakspeare has represented, and who has robbed his memory, in order to enrich that of his adversary, popularly termed the “good duke Humphrey” of Gloucester. Being involved in the vortex of worldly politics, it is true, that he gave too much scope to the passions of the great, and did not allow himself sufficient leisure to attend to the spiritual concerns of his diocese. He possessed, however, that munificent spirit, which has cast a lustre on the characters of many persons of past times, whom it would be difficult otherwise to present as objects of admiration. It he was rich, it must be admitted that he did not squander away his money upon unworthy pursuits, but chiefly employed it in the public service, to the great relief of the subjects, with whom, and with the commons’ house of parliament, he was popular. He employed his wealth also in finishing the magnificent cathedral of Winchester, which was left incomplete by his predecessor, in repairing Hyde-abbey, relieving prisoners, and other works of charity. But what, Dr. Milner says, has chiefly redeemed the injured character of cardinal Beaufort, in Winchester and its neighbourhood, is the new foundation which he made of the celebrated hospital of St. Cross. Far the greater part of the present building was raised by him, and he added to the establishment of his predecessor, Henry de Blois, funds for the support of thirty-five more brethren, two chaplains, and three women, who appear to have been hospital nuns. It appears also, says the same writer, that he prepared himself with resignation and contrition for his last end; and the collected, judicious, and pious dispositions made in his testament, the codicil of which was signed but two days before his dissolution, may justly bring into discredit the opinion that he died in despair. He was buried at Winchester in the most eleg-ant and finished chantry in the kingdom.

Having related the more personal and private circumstances of Dr. Birch’s history, we proceed to his various publications. The first great work he engaged in, was “The General Dictionary, historical and critical” wherein a new translation of that of the celebrated Mr. Bayle was included and which was interspersed with several thousand lives never before published. It was on the 29th of April, 1734, that Dr. Birch, in conjunction with the rev. Mr. John Peter Bernard, and Mr. John Lockman, agreed with the booksellers to carry on this important undertaking; and Mr. George Sale was employed to draw up the articles relating to oriental history. The whole design was completed in ten volumes, folio; the first of which appeared in 1734, and the last in 1741. It is universally allowed, that this work contains a very extensive and useful body of biographical knowledge. We are not told what were the particular articles written by Dr. Birch but there is no doubt of his having executed a great part of the dictionary neither is it, we suppose, any disparagement to his coadjutors, to say, that he was superior to them in abilities and reputation, with the exception of Mr. George Sale, who was, without controversy, eminently qualified for the department he had undertaken. The next great design in which Dr. Birch engaged, was the publication of “Thurloe’s State Papers.” This collection, which comprised seven volumes in folio, came out in 1742. It is dedicated to the late lord chancellor Hardwicke, and there is prefixed to it a life of Thurloe but whether it was written or not by our author, does not appear. The same life had been separately published not long before. The letters and papers in this collection throw the greatest light on the pe'riod to which they relate, and are accompanied with proper references, and a complete index to each volume, yet was a work by which the proprietors were great losers. In 1744, Dr. Birch published, in octavo, a “Life of the honourable Robert Boyle, esq” which hath since been prefixed to the quarto edition of the works of that philosopher. In the same year, our author began his assistance to Houbraken and Vertue, in their design of publishing, in folio, the “Heads of illustrious persons of Great Britain,” engraved by those two artists, but chiefly by Mr. Houbraken. To each head was annexed, by Dr, Birch, the life and character of the person represented. The first volume of this work, which came out in numbers, was completed in 1747, and the second in 1752. Our author’s concern in this undertaking did not hinder his prosecuting, at the same time, other historical disquisitions: for, in 1747, appeared, in octavo,“His inquiry into the share which king Charles the First had in the transactions of the earl of Glamorgan.” A second edition ef the Inquiry was published in 1756, and it was a work that excited no small degree of attention. In 1751, Dr. Birch was editor of the “Miscellaneous works of sir Walter Raleigh” to which was prefixed the life of that unfortunate and injured man. Previously to this, Dr. Birch published “An historical view of the negociations between the courts of England, France, and Brussels, from 1592 to 1617; extracted chiefly from the ms State Papers of sir Thomas Edmondes, knight, embassador in France, and at Brussels, and treasurer of the household to the kings James I. and Charles I. and of Anthony Bacon, esq. brother to the lord chancellor Bacon. To which is added, a relation of the state of France, with the character of Henry IV. and the principal persons of that court, drawn up by sir George Carew, upon his return from his embassy there in 1609, and addressed to king James I. never before printed.” This work, which consists of one volume, in octavo, appeared in 1749; and, in an introductory discourse to the honourable Philip Yorke, esq. (the late earl of Hardwicke), Dr. Birch makes some reflections on the utility of deducing history from its only true and unerring sources, the original letters and papers of those eminent men, who were the principal actors in the administration of affairs; after which he gives some account of the lives of sir Thomas Edmondes, sir George Carew, and Mr. Anthorry Bacon. The “Historical View” is undoubtedly a valuable performance, and hath brought to light a variety of particulars relative to the subjects and the period treated of, which before were either not at all, or not so fully known. In 17.51, was published by our author, an edition, in two volumes, 8vo, of the “Theological, moral, dramatic, and poetical works of Mrs. Catherine Cockburn” with an account of her life. In the next year came out his “Life of the most reverend Dr. John Tillotson, lord archbishop of Canterbury. Compiled chiefly from his original papers and letters.” A second edition, corrected and enlarged, appeared in 1753. This work, which was dedicated to archbishop Herring, is one of the most pleasing and popular of Dr. Birch’s performances; and he has done great justice to Dr. Tillotsou’s memory, character, and virtues. Our biographer hath likewise intermixed with his narrative of the good prelate’s transactions, short accounts of the persons occasionally mentioned; a method which he has pursued in some of his other publications. In 1753, he revised. the quarto edition, in two volumes, of Milton’s prose works, and added a new life of that great poet and writer. Dr. Birch gave to the world', in the following year, his “Memoirs of the reign of queen Elizabeth, from the year 1581, till her death. In which the secret intrigues of her court, and the conduct of her favourite, Robert earl of Essex, both at home and abroad, are particularly illustrated. From the original papers of his intimate friend, Anthony Bacon, esq. and other manuscripts never before published.” These memoirs, which are inscribed to the earl of Hardwicke, give a minute account of the letters and materials from which they are taken and the whole work undoubtedly forms a very valuable collection in which our author has shewn himself (as in his other writings) to be a faithfnl and accurate compiler and in which, besides a full display of the temper and actions of the earl of Essex, much light is thrown on the characters of the Cecils, Bacons, and many eminent persons of that period. The book is now becoming scarce, and, as it may not speedily be republished, is rising in its value. This is the case, likewise, with regard to the edition of sir Walter Raleigh’s miscellaneous works. Dr. Birch’s next publication was “The history of the Royal Society of London, for improving of natural knowledge, from its first rise. In which the most considerable of those papers, communicated to the society, which have hitherto not been published, are inserted in their proper order, as a supplement to the Philosophical Transactions.” The twq first volumes of this performance, which was dedicated to his late majesty, appeared in 1756, and the two other volumes in 1757. The history is carried on to the end of the year 1687 and if the work had been continued, and had been conducted with the same extent and minuteness, it would have been a very voluminous undertaking. But, though it may, perhaps, be justly blamed in this respect, it certainly contains many curious and entertaining anecdotes concerning the manner of the society’s proceedings at their first establishment. It is enriched, likewise, with a number of personal circumstances relative to the members, and with biographical accounts of such of the more considerable of them as died in the course of each year. In 1760, came out, in one volume, 8vo, our author’s “Life of Henry prince of Wales, eldest son of king James I. Compiled chiefly from his own papers, and other manuscripts, never before published.” It is dedicated to his present majesty, then prince of Wales. Some have objected to this work, that it abounds too much with trifling details, and that Dr. Birch has not given sufficient scope to such reflections and disquisitions as arose from his subject. It must, nevertheless, be acknowledged, that it affords a more exact and copious account than had hitherto appeared of a prince whose memory has always been remarkably popular; and that various facts, respecting several other eminent characters, are occasionally introduced. Another of his publications was, “Letters, speeches, charges, advices, &c. of Francis Bacon, lord viscount St. AJban, lord chancellor of England.” This collection, which is comprised in one volume, 8vo, and is dedicated to the honourable Charles Yorke, esq. appeared in 1763. It is taken from some papers which had been originally in the possession of Dr. Rawley, lord Bacon’s chaplain, whose executor, Mr. John Rawley, having put them into the hands of Dr. Tenison, they were, at length, deposited in the manuscript library at Lambeth. Dr. Birch, speaking of these papers of lord Bacon, says, that it can scarcely be imagined, but that the bringing to light, from obscurity and oblivion, the remains of so eminent a person, will be thought an acquisition not inferior to the discovery (if the ruins of Herculaneum should afford such a treasure) of a new set of the epistles of Cicero, whom our immortal countryman most remarkably resembled as an orator, a philosopher, a writer, a lawyer, and a statesman. Though this, perhaps, is speaking too highly of a collection, which contains many things in it seemingly not very material, it must, at the same time, be allowed, that nothing can be totally uninteresting which relates to so illustrious a man, or tends, in any degree, to give a farther insight into his character. To this catalogue we have still to add “Professor Greaves’s miscellaneous works,” 1737, in two vols. 8vo. Dr. Cud worth’s “Intellectual System,” (improved from the Latin edition of Mosheim) his discourse on the true notion of the Lord’s Supper, and two sermons, with an account of his life and writings, 1743, in two vols. 4to. An edition of Spenser’s “Fairy Queen,” 1751, in three Vols. 4to, with prints from designs by Kent. “Letters between col. Robert Hammond, governor of the Isle of Wight, and the committee of lords and commons at Derbyhouse, general Fairfax, lieut.-general Cromwell, commissary general Ireton, &c. relating to king Charles I. while he was confined in Carisbrooke-castle in that island. Now first published. To which is prefixed a letter from John Ashburnham, esq. to a friend, concerning his deportment towards the king, in his attendance on his majesty at Hampton-court, and in the Isle of Wight,” 1764, 8vo. Dr. Birch’s last essay, “The life of Dr. Ward,” which was finished but a week before his death, was published by Dr. Maty, in 1766.

, called in Latin Blondus, or Blundus, a very eminent divine in the thirteenth century, was educated in the university of Oxford, and went afterwards for his improvement to Paris, where he quickly distinguished himself, among many of his learned contemporaries, by the vivacity of his wit. On his return into England, he again settled himself at Oxford, and read divinity lectures there with universal applause. Wood says he was the first that lectured on Aristotle both in Paris and Oxford. The reputation of his learning obtained him also several other preferments, particularly those of prebendary andhancellor in the church of York. In 1232, the archiepiscopal see of Canterbuiy being vacant by the death of Richard Wethershed, and the rejection of two of his successors, Ralph Nevil, bishop of Chichester and chancellor of England, and John, sub-prior of Canterbury, by the pope, Dr. Blount was, by the chapter of Canterbury, elected archbishop. He did not, however, enjoy that dignity; for the pope immediately objected to him, and after a summary inquiry into the validity of his election, declared it void, for several reasons, of which our historians take notice, though very probably Bale has hit upon the true, although not the ostensible cause, namely, that his abilities rendered him obnoxious to the court of Rome, or, as Bale expresses it, that he was more learned than that court wished an archbishop to be.

, archbishop of Canterbury in the successi^eio-ns of Henry VI. Edward IV. Edward V. Richard III. tf Henry VII. was son of William Bourchier earl of Ewe in Normandy, and the countess of Stafford, and brother of Henry earl of Essex, and, consequently, related to the preceding lord Berners. He had his education in Neville’s-inn at Oxford, and was chancellor of that university three ears viz. from 1433 to 1437. His first dignity in the church was that of dean of the collegiate church of St. Martin’s in London; from which, in 1433, he was advanced, by pope Eugenius IV. to the see of Worcester but his consecration was deferred to May 15, 1436, by reason (as is supposed) of a defect in age. He had not sat a full year, before he was elected by the monks of Ely bishop of that see, and confirmed by the pope: but, the king refusing his consent, Bourchier did not dare to comply with the election,' for fear of incurriig the censure of the laws, which forbad, under very sevtfe penalties, the receiving the pope’s bull without the khg’s leave. Nevertheless, seven or eight years after, the see of Ely still continuing vacant, and the king consenting, he was translated thither, the 20th of December 1443. The author of the “Historia Eliensis” speaks very disadvantageously of him, as an oppressor, and neglectfi of his duty during his residence on that see, which was ten years twenty-three weeks and five days. At last he was elected archbishop of Canterbury, in the room of John Kemp, the 23d of April 1454. This election was the irre remarkable, as the monks were left entirely to trir liberty of choice, without any interposition either frc the crown or the papal chair. On the contrary, pof Nicolas Vth’s concurrence being readily obtained, t> archbishop was installed with great solemnity. In the m^th of December following, he received the red hat from vome, being created cardinal-priest of St. Cyriacus in Ttemis, but Bentham thinks this was not till 1464, The next ear, he was made lord high chancellor of England, but‘esigned that office in October the year following. So’ after his advancement to the see of Canterbury, he be^aia visitation in Kent, and made several regulations fothe government of his diocese. He likewise publish* 3 - constitution for restraining the excessive abuse of papa'rovisions, but deserved most highly of the learned world, r being the principal instrument in introducing the no 2 art of printing into England. Wood’s account^ althou not quite correct, is worth transcribing. Bourchier being informed that the inventor, Tossan^ alias John -ithenberg, had set up a press at Harlem, was extremely desirous that the English might be made masters of s^ 6116 ^ ^ an art. To this purpose he persuaded fcino Henry VI. to dispatch one Robert Tournour, belong to the wardrobe, privately to Harlem. This man, f ur ed with a thousand marks, of which the archbishop suried three hundred, embarked for Holland, and, to disise the matter, went in company with one Caxton, a, nnhant of London, pretending himself to be of the same profession. Thus concealing his name and his business, he went first to Amsterdam, then to Leyden, and at last settled at Harlem where having spent a -great deal of time and money, he sent to the king for a fresh supply, giving his Highness to understand, that he had almost compassed the enterprize. In short, he persuaded Frederic Corselli, one of the compositors, to carry off a set of letters, and embark with him in the night for London. When they arrived, the archbishop, thinking Oxford a more convenient place for printing than London, sent Corselli down thither. And, lest he should slip away before he had discovered the whole secret, a guard was set upon the press. And thus the mystery of printing appeared ten years sooner in the university of Oxford than at any other place in Europe, Harlem and Mentz excepted. Not long after, there were presses set up at Westminster, St. Alhan’s, Worcester, and other monasteries of note. After this manner printing was introduced into England, by the care of archbishop Bourchier, in the year of Christ 1464, and the third of king Edward IV."

, brother to Richard, hereafter mentioned, and second son of Thomas Carew, esq. and Elizabeth his wife, was probably born at his father’s seat at East Anthony, but in what particular year we are not able to ascertain. He was educated in the university of Oxford, after which he studied law in the inns of court, and then set out on his travels. On his return to his native country he was called to the bar, and after some time was appointed secretary to sir Christopher Hatton, lord chancellor of England, by the especial recommendation of queen Elizabeth, who gave him a pro thonotary ship in the chancery, and conferred upon him the honour of knighthood. In 1597, being then a master in chancery, he was sent ambassador to the king of Poland. In the next rei.gn, he was one of the commissioners for treating with the Scotch concerning an union between the two kingdoms; after which he was appointed ambassador to the court of France, where he continued from the latter end of the year 1605 till 1609. During his residence in that country, he was regarded by the French ministers as being too partial to the Spanish interest, but probably ttoeir disgust to him might arise from his not being very tractable in some points of his negotiation, and particularly in the demand of the debts due to the king his master. Whatever might be, his political principles, it is certain, that he sought the conversation of men of letters; and formed an intimacy with Thuanus, to whom he communicated an account of the transactions in Poland, whilst he was employed there, which was of great service to that admirable author in drawing up the 12lst book of his History. After sir George Caret’s return from France, he was advanced to the post of master of the court of wards, which honourable situation he did not long live to enjoy; for it appears from a letter written by Thuanus to Camden, in the spring of the year 1613, that he was then lately deceased. In this letter, Thuanus laments his death as a great misfortune to himself; for he considered sir George’s friendship not only as a personal honour, but as very useful in his work, and especially in removing the calumnies and misrepresentations which might be raised of him in the court of England. Sir George Carew married Thomasine, daughter of sir Francis Godolphin, great grandfather of the lord treasurer Godolphin, and had by her two sons and three daughters. Francis, the elder son, was created knight of the bath at the coronation of king Charles the First, and Attended the earl of Denbigh in the expedition for the relief of ilochelle, where he acquired great reputation by his courage and conduct; but, being seized with a fit of sickness in his voyage homeward, he died in the Isle of Wight, on the 4th of June, 1628, at the age of twenty-seven.

Upon the king’s coming over he was sworn of his majesty’s most honourable privy-council. He was also one of the commissioners for the trial of the regicides; and though the Oxford historian is very severe on him on this occasion, yet his advocates are very desirous of proving that he was not any way concerned in betraying or shedding the blood of his sovereign. By letters patent, dated April 20, 1661, he was created barou Ashley of Winborne St. Giles; soon after made chancellor and nnder-treasurer of the exchequer, and then one of the lords commissioners for executing the office of high-treasurer. He was afterwards made lord lieutenant of the county of Dorset; and, April 23, 1672, created baron Cooper of Pawlet in the county of Somerset, and earl of Shaftesbury. November 4 following, he was raised to the post of lord high chancellor of England. He shone particularly in his speeches in parliament; and, if we judge only from those which he made upon swearing in the treasurer Clifford, his successor sir Thomas Osborne, and baron Thurland, we must conclude him to have been a very accomplished orator. The short time he was at the helm was a season of storms and tempests; and it is but doing him justice to say that they could not either affright or distract him. November 9, 1673, he resigned the great seal under very singular circumstances. Soon after the breaking up of the parliament, as Echard relates, the earl was sent for on Sunday morning to court; as was also sir Heneage Finch, attorney-general, to whom the seals were promised. As soon as the earl came he retired with the king into the closet, while the prevailing party waited in triumph to see him return without the purse. His lordship being alone with the king, said, “Sir, I know you intend to give the seals to the attorney-general, but 1 am sure your majesty never intended to dismiss me with contempt.” The king, who could not do an ill-natured thing, replied, “Gods fish, my lord, I will not do it with any circumstance that may look like an affront.” “Then, sir,” said the earl, “I desire your majesty will permit me to carry the seals before you to chapel, and send for them afterwards from my house.” To this his majesty readily consented; and the earl entertained the king with news and diverting stories till the very minute he was to go to chapel, purposely to amuse the courtiers and his successor, who he believed was upon the rack for fear he should prevail upon the king to change his mind. The king and the earl came out of the closet talking together and smiling, and went together to chapel, which greatly surprised, them all: and some ran immediately to tell the duke of York, that all his measures were broken. After sermon the earl went home with the seals, and that evening the king gave them to the attorneygeneral.

For the loss which was occasioned by Mr. Locke’s timidity or prudence, he was solicitous to make some degree of reparation. Accordingly, he formed an intention of writing, at large, the history of his noble friend; and if he had accomplished his intention, his work would undoubtedly have been a very valuable present to the public. But there was another biographer, who wrote a life of the earl, soon after his decease. This was Thomas Stringer, esq. of Ivy church, near Salisbury, a gentleman of great integrity and excellent character; who had held, we believe, under his lordship, when high-chancellor of England, the office of clerk of the presentations; and who was much esteemed by some of the principal persons of the age. With Mr. Locke in particular, he maintained an intimate friendship to the time of his death, which happened in 1702. Mr. Stringer’s account has been the ground-work on which the narrative intended for the public eye, by the noble family, has been built. It contained a valuable history of the earl’s life; but was probably much inferior in composition to what Mr. Locke’s would have been; and indeed, in its original form, it was too imperfect for publication. Sometime about the year 1732, this manuscript, together with the rest of the Shaftesbury papers, was put into the hands of Mr. Benjamin Marty n, a gentleman who was then known in the literary world, in consequence of having written a tragedy, entitled “Timoleoh,” which had been acted with success at the theatre royal in Drury-lane. Mr. Martyn made Mr. Stringer’s manuscript the basis of his own work, which he enriched with such speeches of the earl as are yet remaining, and with several particulars drawn from some loose papers left by his lordship. He availed himself, likewise, of other means of information, which more recent publications had afforded; and prefixed to the whole an introduction of considerable length, wherein he passed very high encomiums on our great statesman, and strengthened them by the testimonies of Mr. Locke and Mons. Le Clerc. He added, also, strictures on L' Estrange, sir William Temple, bishop Burnet, and others, who had written to his lordship’s disadvantage. One anecdote, which we well remember, it cannot but be agreeable to the public and to the noble family to see related. It is well known with what severity the earl of Shaftesbury’s character is treated by Dryden, in his Absalom and Achitophel. Nevertheless, soon after that fine satire appeared, his lordship having the nomination of a scholar, as governor of the Charter-house, gave it to one of the poet’s sons, without any solicitation on the part of the father, or of any other person. This act of generosity had such an effect upon IXryden, that, to testify his gratitude, he added, in the second edition of the poem, the four following lines, in celebration of the earl’s conduct as lord chancellor.

, earl of Shaftesbury, the celebrated author of the Characteristics, was born Feb. 26, 1671, at Exeter-house in London. His father was Anthony earl of Shaftesbury; his mother lady Dorothy Manners, daughter of John earl of Rutland. He was born in the house of his grandfather Anthony first earl of Shaftesbury, and chancellor of England, of whom we have spoken in the preceding article; who was fond of him from his birth, and undertook the care of his education. He pursued almost the same method in teaching him the learned languages, as Montaigne’s father did in teaching his son Latin: that is, he placed a person about him, who was so thoroughly versed in the Greek and Latin tongues, as to speak either of them with the greatest fluency. This person was a female, a Mrs. Birch, the daughter of a schoolmaster in Oxfordshire or Berkshire; and a woman who could execute so extraordinary a task, deserves to have her name recorded with honour among the learned ladies of England. By this means lord Shaftesbury made so great a progress, that he could read both these languages with ease when but eleven years old. At that age he was sent by his grandfather to a private school; and in 1683 was removed to Winchester school, but such was the influence of party-spirit at the time, that he was insulted for his grandfather’s sake, by his companions, which made his situation so disagreeable, that he begged his father to consent to his going abroad. Accordingly he began his travels in 1686, and spent a considerable time in Italy, where he acquired great knowledge in the polite arts. This knowledge is very visible through all his writings; that of the art of painting is more particularly so, from the treatise he composed upon “The Judgement of Hercules.” He made it his endeavour, while he was abroad, to improve himself as much as possible in every accomplishment; for which reason he did not greatly affect the company of other English gentlemen upon their travels; and he was remarkable for speaking French so readily, and with so good an accent, that in France he was often taken for a native.

, archbishop of Canterbury in the reign of king Richard II. was the fourth son of Hugh Courtney, earl of Devonshire, by Margaret, daughter of Humphrey Bohun, earl of Hereford and Essex, by his wife Elizabeth, daughter of king Edward I. and was born in the year 1341. He had his education at Oxford, where he applied himself to the study of the civil and canon law. Afterwards, entering into holy orders, he obtained three prebends in three cathedral churches, viz. those of Bath, Exeter, and York. The nobility of his birth, and his eminent learning, recommending him to public notice, in the reign of Edward III. he was promoted in 1369 to the see of Hereford, and thence translated to the see of London, September 12, 1375, being then in the 34th year of his age. In a synod, held at London in 1376, bishop Courtney distinguished himself by his opposition to the king’s demand of a subsidy; and presently after he fell under the displeasure of the high court of chancery, for publishing a bull of pope Gregory II. without the king’s consent, which he was compelled to recall. The next year, in obedience to the pope’s mandate, he cited Wickliff to appear befofe his tribunal in St. Paul’s church: but that reformer being accompanied by John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster, and other nobles, who favoured his opinions, and appeared openly in the bishop’s court for him, and treated the bishop with very little ceremony, the populace took his part, went to the duke of Lancaster’s house in the Savoy, plundered it, and would have burnt it to the ground, had not the bishop hastened to the place, and drawn them off by his persuasions. The consequences of this difference with so powerful a nobleman as John of Gaunt, were probably dreaded even by Courtney; for, with respect to Wickliff, he at this time proceeded no farther than to enjoin him and his followers silence. In 1378, it is said by Godwin, but without proper authority, that Courtney was made a cardinal. In 1381, he was appointed lord high chancellor of England. The same year, he was translated to the see of Canterbury, in the room of Simon Sudbury; and on the 6th of May, 1382, he received the pall from the hands of the bishop of London in the archiepiscopal palace at Croydon. This year also he performed the ceremony of crowning queen Anne, consort of king Richard II. at Westminster. Soon after his inauguration, he restrained, by ecclesiastical censures, the bailiffs, and other officers, of the see of Canterbury, from taking cognizance of adultery and the like crimes, which then belonged to the ecclesiastical court. About the same time, he held a synod at London, in which several of Wickliff’s tenets were condemned as heretical and erroneous. In 1383, he held a synod at Oxford, in which a subsidy was granted to the king, some of WicklifT's followers obliged to recant, and the students of the university to swear renunciation of his tenets. The same year, in pursuance of the pope’s bull directed to him for that purpose, he issued his mandate to the bishop of London for celebrating the festival of St. Anne, mother of the blessed virgin. In 1386, the king, by the advice of his parliament, put the administration of the government into the hands of eleven commissioners, of whom archbishop Courtney was the first; but this lasted only one year. In 1387, he held a synod at London, in which a tenth was granted to the king. The same year, it being moved in a parliament held at London on occasion of the dissension between the king and his nobles, to inflict capital punishment on some of the ringleaders, and it being prohibited by the canons for bishops to be present and vote in cases of blood, the archbishop and his suffragans withdrew from the house of lords, having first entered a protest in relation to their peerage and privilege to sit upon all other matters. In 1399, he held a synod in St. Mary’s church in Cambridge, in which a tenth was granted to the king, on condition that he should pass over into France with an army before the 1st of October following. This year, archbishop Courtney set out upon his metropolitical visitation, in which he was at first strongly opposed by the bishops of Exeter and Salisbury; but those prelates being at last reduced to terms of submission, he proceeded in his visitation without farther opposition: only, at the intercession of the abbot of St. Alban’s, he refrained from visiting certain monasteries at Oxford. The same year, the king directed his royal mandate to the archbishop, not to countenance or contribute any thing towards a subsidy for the pope. In a parliament held at Winchester in 1392, archbishop Courtney, being probably suspected of abetting the papal encroachments upon the church and state, delivered in an answer to certain articles exhibited by the commons in relation to those encroachments, which is thought to have led the way to the statute of pr&munire. The same year, he visited the diocese of Lincoln, in which he endeavoured to check the growth of Wickliff’s doctrines. In 1395, he obtained from the pope a grant of four-pence in the pound on all ecclesiastical benefices; in which he was opposed by the bishop of Lincoln, who would not suffer it to be collected in his diocese, and appealed to the pope. But before the matter could be decided, archbishop Courtney died, July 31, 1396, at Maidstone in Kent, where he was buried, but has a monument in the cathedral church of Canterbury, on the south side, near the tomb of Thomas Becket, and at the feet of the Black Prince. His remains at Maidstone, only a few bones, were seen some years ago. This prelate founded a college of secular priests at Maidstone. He left a thousand marks for the repair of the cathedral church of Canterbury also to the same church a silver- gilt image of the Trinity, with six apostles standing round it weighing 160 pounds some books, and some ecclesiastical vestments. He obtained from king Richard a grant of four fairs to be kept at Canterbury yearly within the site of the priory. The character of archbishop Courtney, weighed in the balance of modern opinions, is that of a persecuting adherent to the church of Rome, to which, however, he was not so much attached as to forget what was due to his king and country. He appears to have exhibited in critical emergencies, a bold and resolute spirit, and occasionally a happy presence of mind. One circumstance, which displays the strength and firmness of Courtney’s mind in the exercise of his religious bigotry, deserves to be noticed. When the archbishop, on a certain day, with a number of bishops and divines, had assembled to condemn the tenets of Wickliff, just as they were going to enter upon business, a violent earthquake shook the monastery. Upon this, the terrified bishops threw down their papers, and crying out, that the business was displeasing to God, came to a hasty resolution to proceed no farther. “The archbishop alone,” says Mr. Gil pin in his Life of Wickliff, “remained unmoved. With equal spirit and address he chid their superstitious fears, and told them, that if the earthquake portended any thing, it portended the downfall of heresy; that as noxious vapours are lodged in the bowels of the earth, and are expelled by these violent concussions, so by their strenuous endeavours, the kingdom should be purified from the pestilential taint of heresy, which had infected it in every part. This speech, together with the news that the earthquake was general through the city, &s it was afterwards indeed found to have been through the island, dispelled their fears Wickliff would often merrily speak of this accident; and would call this assembly the council of the herydene; herydene being the old English word for earthquake.”

In the Parliamentary History, some notice is taken of the speech which, as chancellor of England, Courtney made at the opening of the parliament in 1382. The words which he took for his theme were rex convenire fecit cojisitium, and it is said that he made a notable oration upon it in English. He applied his text to the good and virtuous government of the kingdom during his reign. No reign, the archbishop affirmed, could long endure, if vice ruled in it, to remedy which evil the parliament was called, the laws then in being not having been found effectual to that purpose.

Not long after his return to England, he obtained the patronage of sir Thomas Egerton, lord Ellesmere, lord chancellor of England, and the friend and predecessor of the illustrious Bacon. This nobleman appears to have been struck with his accomplishments, now heightened by the polish of foreign travel, and appointed him to be his chief secretary, as an introduction to some more important employment in the state, for which he is said to have pronounced him very fit. The conversation of Donne, at this period, was probably enriched by observation, and enlivened by that wit which sparkles so frequently in his works. The chancellor, it is certain, conceived so highly of him, as to make him an inmate in his house, and a constant guest at his table, where he had an opportunity of mixing with the most eminent characters of the age, and of obtaining that notice, which, if not abused, generally leads to preferment.

His wife died Dec. 18, 1681, aged seventy-five, after they had been married fifty-nine years. He had several children by her, sons and daughters. One of his daughters was married to Elias Ashmole, esq. All his sons died young, except John, who was created M. A. at Oxford, in 1661, and was at that time chief gentleman of the chamber to Edward earl of Clarendon, lord chancellor of England. In Oct. 1675, he was appointed Windsor-herald, upon the resignation of his brother-in-law, Elias Ashmole, esq and Norroy king of arms in March 1686, about which time he was also knighted by James II. He published “A Catalogue of the Nobility of England, &c.” printed at London, a large broadside, in 1685, and again, with additions, in 1690. This sir John Dugdale died in 1700, leaving two sons, William and John, who both died single, the latter in 1749; and four daughters, the third of whom, Jane, married Richard Geast, esq. by whom she had a son named Richard, who took the name and arms of Dugdale only. This gentleman died in 1806, leaving a son, Dugdale Stratford Dugdale, esq. the present member of parliament for the county of Warwick.

The integrity and abilities of the lord keeper so conciliated the favour and confidence of the queen, that she. employed him in her most weighty emergencies. In 1598^ tye was in corpmission for treating with the Putch, and, jointly with the lord Buckhurst, Cecil, and others, signed a new treaty with their ambassadors in London, hy which the queen was eased of an annual charge of 120,000l. In 1600, he was again in commission with the lord treasurer Buckhurst and the earl of Jlsscx, for negotiating affairs with the senate of Denmark. His conduct in regard to the unfortunate earl of Essex, whose name will for ever distinguish yet disgrace the annals of Elizabeth, exhibits his character both as a wise and loyal subject, and a siacere and honest friend. These illustrious men filled two of ttie highest and most important offices of state at the same time, and with the most perfect harmony, although their characters were very different. Sensible, however, of Essex’s great merit as a soldier, and of his constitutional infirmity as a man, the lord keeper took every opportunity tq soften the violence and asperity of his disposition, and to reclaim him to the -dictates of reason and duty. An instance of his friendly interference, in the year 1598, is given by Mr. Camden by which the high and fesentful spirit of Essex, which disdained to brook an insult from a queen, who, our readers will remember, struck him, was at length softened into a due submission to his royal benefactress; in consequence of which he was pardoned, and again received into her favour. (See Devereux). From this unfortunate affair, however, his friends took an omen of his future ruin, under the conviction that princes, once offended, are seldom thoroughly reconciled. When on his hasty and unexpected return from the Irish expedition, he was summoned before the privy council, suspended from his offices, and committed to the custody of the lord keeper, the latter rendered him every kind and friendly office and, in all his future condu?t to this unfortunate man, tempered justice with compassion preserving a proper medium between the duty of the magistrate, and the generosity of the friend. By the most popular and well-timed measures, he appeased the minds of a, prejudiced people, who then became tumultuous from, the injuries and indignities 'which they supposed were done to the person of their favourite general; asserting the queen’s authority, and justifying the conduct of the public counsels, without heightening or exaggerating the misconduct of the unfortunate earl. Still as the minds of the people remained dissatisfied, under a persuasion of his innocence, to remove the grounds of these suspicions, the queen resolved that his cause should have an open hearing, not in the star-chamber, but in the lord keeper Egerton’s house, before the council, four earls, two barons, and four judges, in order that a censure might be formally passed upon him, but without charge of perfidy. On this occasion, when he began to excuse and justify his conduct, the lord keeper interrupted him in the most friendly manner, and advised him to throw himself upon the mercy and goodness of the queen, and not, by an attempt to alleviate his offences, to extenuate her clemency. The issue of this trial it is unnecessary here to relate, as it may be found in our account of this unfortunate nobleman. As far as the subject of the present article is concerned, it may be sufficient to add, that after the execution of Essex, with Cuffe, Jvlerrick, Danvers, and Blunt, principal confederates, the lord keeper was in a special commission, with others of the first dignity, to summon all their accomplices, in order to treat and compound with them for the redemption of their estates; and, on security being given for the payment of the fines assessed, their pardon and redemption were obtained. The next year, 1602, he was again commissioned with others of the privy council, to reprieve all such persons/convicted of felony as they should think convenient, and to send them, for a certain time, to some of the queen’s galleys. And again, in the forty-fifth year of Elizabeth, for putting the laws in execution against the Jesuits and seminary priests, ordained according to the rites of the church of Rome. In March 1603, after the queen, oppressed with the infirmities of age, had retired from Westminster to Richmond, the lord keeper and the lord admiral, accompanied by the secretary, were deputed by the rest of the privy council to wait upon her there, in order to remind her majesty of her intentions, in regard to her successor to the crown, whom she appointed to be her nearest kinsman, James of Scotland. After the queen’s death, the care and administration of the kingdom devolved upon the lord keeper and the other ministers of state, till the arrival of king James, her successor, from Scotland, who, by his sign manual, dated at Holy-rood house, Sth of April, 1603, signified to the privy council, that it was his royal pleasure that sir Thomas Egerton should exercise the office of lord keeper till farther orders. On the 3d of May he waited upon the king at Broxbourne in Hertfordshire, and resigned the great seal to his majesty, who delivered it back again, confirming his office, and commanding him to use it as he had done before. On the 19th of July, king James caused the great seal to be broken, and put a new one into his hands, accompanied with a paper of his own writing, by which he created him “Baron, of Kllesmere for his good and faithful services, not only in. the administration of justice, but also in council, both to the late queen and himself;” the patent for which title he caused to be dispatched the 2 1st of the same month. On the 24th, the day before his coronation, he constituted him lord high chancellor of England, which high and important office of state he supported for more than twelve years, with equal dignity, learning, and impartiality. On the 25th and 26th of November, Henry lord Cobham, and Thomas lord Grey de Wilton, were tried by their peers, the lord chancellor sitting as lord high steward. In 1604, he was, with certain other commissioners, authorized by act of parliament, to bring about an union between England and Scotland, it being the king’s desire, that, as the two crowns were united in one person, an union of the nations might be effected by naturalization. But, differences arising between the house of lords and house of commons upon this point of the naturalization of the Scotch, he was one of the lords appointed of the committee of conference between the two houses. The whole of this transaction, and the causes of its failure, are stated at large in the fifth volume of the Parliamentary History. In 1605, he was appointed high steward of the city of Oxford, and in 1609, he was in commission to compound with all those, who, holding lands by knight’s service, &c. were to pay the aid for making the king’s son a knight.

His lordship left four manuscripts of choice collections. 1. “The Prerogative Royal. 2. The Privileges of Parliament. 3. Proceedings in Chancery. 4. The Power of the Star-Chamber;” and, when he was lying upon his death-bed, to testify his affection to his chaplain Williams, he desired him to chuse what most acceptable legacy he should leave him; when Williams requested only these four books, and having been the principal instruments of his future fortunes, he so highly valued as to deem them a present fit to be offered to king James, to whom he gave them. In lord chancellor Egctrton’s life-time was printed in quarto, in sixteen sheets, Lond. 1609, his “Speech in the Exchequer-chamber,” in Robert C'alvine’s cause, son and heir-apparent of James lord Calvine, of Colcross, in the realm of Scotland, commonly called the case of the postnati. In 1641 was printed at London “The Previleges and Prerogatives of the high court of Chancery, written by the right honourable Thomas lord Ellesmere, late lord chancellor of England.” In 1651 there was published at London a small octavo book, entitled “Certaine Observations concerning the office of Lord Chancellor,” composed by the right honourable and most learned Thomas lord Ellesmere, late lord chancellor of England, small octavo, extracted chiefly from records. And Mr. George Paul published some papers found amongst the manuscripts of Mr. Laughton, of Cambridge, which were said to have been written with the lord chancellor Egerton’s own hand. These were entitled “The lord chancellor Egerton’s Observations on the lord Coke’s Reports, particularly in the debate of causes relating to the Right of the Church, the Power of the king’s Prerogative, the Jurisdiction of Courts, or the Interest of the Subject;” but it is not generally agreed that these papers are truly ascribed to lord chancellor Egerton. There is, however, in Mr. Hargrave’s collection of law manuscripts, a piece entitled “Abridgment of the lord Coke’s Reports under the lord Egerton’s own hand.” It contains a short account of each case in the eleven volumes of Reports published by lord Coke himself; and, probably, was a labour undergone by lord chancellor Egerton, as a preliminary to his observations on lord Coke’s Reports. There is also in Mr. Hargrave’s collection a piece with tbis title, “Observations upon lord Coke’s Reports, made by the lord chancellor Egerton, taken by me out of his own papers, written with his own hand.” These observations are not the same as those in print, but seem to be additional. Who the transcriber was does not appear.

His health had been declining for many years, and though he was neither so old nor so infirm as to look upon death as a release, he lived as it he hourly expected it. He died at his house in Grosvenor-square, London, on the 18th of January, 1787, and by his own express desire was privately interred in St. James’s church, under the communion-table, near his father. By his wife, lady Sophia, he had a daughter (the lady of sir Abraham Hume, bart.) and two sons, John-William, who on the death of Francis, third duke of Bridgwater, succeeded to the earldom, and is now seventh earl of Bridgewater; and the hon. and rev. Francis Egerton, prebendary of Durham, and rector of Whitchurch, in Shropshire, to whom the last and present articles are much indebted for his work entitled “A compilation of various authentic evidences and historical authorities, tending to illustrate the life and character of Thomas Egerton, lord Ellesmere, viscount Brackley, lord chancellor of England, Jfcc. and the nature of the times in wjiich he was lord keeper and lord chancellor; also a sketch of the lives of John Egerton, bishop of Durham, and of Francis Egerton, third duke of Bridgewater,” fol.

, first earl of Nottingham, and lord high chancellor of England, the son of sir Heneage Finch, knt. recorder of London, was born Dec. 21 or 23, 1621, in the county of Kent. He was educated at Westminsterschool, and became a gentleman commoner of Christ church in Oxford, 1635. After he had prosecuted his studies there for two or three years, he removed to the Inner Temple, where, by diligence and good parts, he became remarkable for his knowledge of the municipal laws, was successively barrister, bencher, treasurer, reader, &c. Charles II. on his restoration, made him solicitor general, and advanced him to the dignity of a baronet. He was reader of the Inner Temple the next year, and chose for his subject the statute of 39 Eliz. concerning the payment and recovery of the debts of the crown, at that time very seasonable and necessary, and which he treated with great strength of reason, and depth of law. Uncommon honours were paid to him on this occasion, the reading and entertainment lasting from the 4th to the 17th of August. At the first day’s entertainment were several of the nobility of the kingdom, and privy counsellors, with divers others of his friends at the second, were the lord mayor, aldermen, and principal citizens of London at the third, which was two days after the former, was the whole college of physicians, who all came in their caps and gowns; at the fourth, all the judges, advocates, doctors of the civil law, and all the society of Doctors’ Commons at the fifth, the archbishops, bishops, and chief of the clergy and at the last, which was on August 15, his majesty king Charles II. did him the honour (never before granted by any of his royal progenitors) to accept of an invitation to dine with him in the great hall of the Inner Temple.

As solicitor-general, he took an active part in the trials of the regicides, and in April 1661, by the strong recommendation of lord Clarendon, he was chosen a member of parliament for the university of Oxford; but, says Wood, “he he did us no good, when we wanted his assistance for taking off the tribute belonging to hearths.” In 1665, after the parliament then sitting at Oxford had been prorogued, he was in full convocation created doctor of civil law; and, the creation being over, the vice-chancellor, in t^ie presence of several parliament-men, stood up and spoke to the public orator to do his office, who said, among other things, “That the university wished they had more colleges to entertain the parliament men, and more chambers, but by no means more chimnies;” at which sir Heneage was observed to change countenance, and draw a little back. When the disgrace of lord Clarendon drew on, in 1667, and he was impeached in parliament for some supposed high crimes, sir Heneage, not forgetting his old friend, appeared vigorously in his defence. In 1670, the king appointed him attorney general; and, about three years after, lord keeper. Soon after he was advanced to the degree of a baron, by the title of Lord Finch of Daventry, in the county of Northampton, and upon the surrender of the great seal to his majesty, Dec. 19, 1675, he received it immediately back again, with the title of Lord High Chancellor of England.

When king William and queen Mary therefore were advanced to the throne, he was offered the post of lord high chancellor of England, which he excused himself from accepting, alledging his unfitness for an employment that required a constant application; but was appointed one of the principal secretaries of state. In 1690, he attended his majesty to the famous congress at the Hague; and Jdng James II. took such umbrage at his services, that in his declaration upon his intended descent in 1692, his lordship was excepted out of his general pardon. In March 1693-4, he resigned his place of principal secretary. of state; and the year following had a public testimony given to the integrity of his conduct in a very remarkable instance; for, upon an examination in parliament into the bribery and corruption of some of their own members, in order to obtain a new charter for the East-India Company, it appeared by the deposition of sir Basil Firebrace, that his lurdship had absolutely refused to take five thousand guineas for his interest in promoting that charter, and five thousand pounds on passing the act for that purpose.

, an eminent English lawyer in the reign of Henry VI. was descended from an ancient family in Devonshire: but we cannot learn either the place or time of his birth. It is also uncertain in which ^university he studied, or whether he studied in any. Prince, in his -Worthies of Devonshire, supposes him to havebeen educated at Oxford, and bishop Tanner fixes him to Exeter, college: and the great learning every where shewn in his writings makes these conjectures probable. When he turned his thoughts to the municipal laws of the land, he settled at Lincoln’s Inn, where he quickly distinguished himself by his knowledge of civil as well as common law. The first date that occurs, with respect to his preferments, is the fourth year of Henry VI.; when, as Dugdale informs us, he was made one of the governors of Lincoln’s Inn, and honoured with the same employment three years after. In 1430 he was made a serjeant at law; and, as himself tells us, kept his feast on that occasion with very great splendour, In 1441 he was made a king’s serjeant at law; and, the year after, chief justice of the king’s bench. He is highly commended by our most eminent writers, for the wisdom, gravity, and uprightness, with which he presided in that court for many years. He remained in great favour with the king, of which he received a signal proof, by an unnsual augmentation of his salary. He held his office through the reign of Henry VI. to whom he steadily adhered, and served him faithfully in all his troubles; for which, in the first parliament of Edward IV. which began at Westminster, Nov. 1461, he was attainted of high treason, in the same act by which Henry VI. queen Margaret, Edward their son, and many persons of the first distinction, were likewise attainted. After this, Henry fled into Scotland, and it is generally believed, that he then made Fortescne chancellor of England. His name, indeed, upon this occasion, is not found recorded in the patent rolls; because, as Selden says, “being with Henry VI. driven into Scotland by the fortune of the wars wijth the house of York, he was made chancellor of England while he was there.” Several writers have styled him chancellor of England; and, in his book “De laudibus legum Anglia;,” he calls himself “Cancellarius Angliae.”

In April 1463, he embarked with queen Margaret, prince Edward, and many persons of distinction, who followed the fortunes of the house of Lancaster, at Hamburg, and landed at Sluys in Flanders; whence they were conducted to Bruges, thence to Lisle, and thence into Lorrain. lu this exile he remained for many years, retiring from place to place, as the necessities of the royal family required: for though, during that space, the queen and prince were often in motion, and great efforts were made to restore. Henry, yet, considering the age of Fortescue, it is not probable that he was suffered to expose himself to such hazards; especially as he might do them better service by soliciting their interest at different courts. It is certain, that he was not idle; but, observing the excellent understanding of prince Edward, who applied himself wholly to military exercises, and seemed to think of nothing but qualifying himself for an expert commander, he thought it high time to give him other impressions, and to infuse into his mind just notions of the constitution of his country, as well as due respect to its laws; so that, if Providence should favour his designs, he might govern as a king, and not as a tyrant, or a conqueror. With this view 1 as we learn from his introduction, he drew up his famous work, entitled “De Laudibus Legtirn Anglise;” which, though it failed of its primary intention, that hopeful prince being not long after cruelly murdered, will yet remain an everlasting monument of this great and good man’s respect and affection for his country. This very curious and concise vindication of our laws was received with great esteem when it was communicated to the learned of that profession; yet it was not published till the reign of Henry VIII. when it was printed hy Edward Whitchurch, in 16mo, but without a date. In 1516 it was translated by Robert Mulcaster, and printed by R. Tottel, and again in 1567, 1573, and 1575; also by Thomas White in 1598, 1599, and 1609. Fortescue, with HenghamVs “Summa magna et parva,” was likewise printed in 1616 and 1660, 12mo, and again, with Selden’s notes, 1672, 12mo. In 1737 Fortescue was printed in folio; and lastly, in 1775, an English translation with the original Latin, was published in 8vo, with Selden’s notes, and a great variety of remarks relative to the history, antiquities, and laws of England, with a large historical preface by F. Gregor, esq. In 1663, E. Waterhouse, esq. published “Fortescue illustratuV” a commentary on the “De Laudibus,” which, although prolix and defective in style, Mr. Hargrave thinks may be resorted to with great advantage, and may very much facilitate the labours of more judicious and able inquirers. When lord chancellor, sir John is said to have drawn up the statute 2$ Henry VI. “of resumption of certain grants of the crown,” which, though much relied upon by the writers on that subject, is not extant in any present edition of the statutes. The house of Lancaster having afterwards a prospect of retrieving their fortunes, the queen and the prince went over to England, Fortescue with many others accompanying them. They did not succeed, so that this chancellor was forced to reconcile himself as well as he could to the victorious Edward IV.; for which purpose he wrote a kind of apology for his own conduct. Tlws treatise, though it has never been published, Selden had seen; as he tells us in his preface to Fortescue' s book, “L)e Laudibus, <kc.” After all these extraordinary changes of masters and fortunes, he preserved his old principles in regard to the English constitution; as appears from another valuable and learned work, written by him in English, and published in the reign of queen Anne, with this title: “The difference between an absolute and limited monarchy, as it more particularly regards the English constitution: being a treatise written by sir John Fortescue, knight, lord chief justice, and lord high chancellor of England, under king 'Henry VI. Faithfully transcribed from the manuscript copy in the Bodleian library, and collated with three other manuscripts (which were afterwards printed). Published with some remarks by John Fortescue Aland, of the Inner Temple, esq. F. R. S. 1714,” 8vo. There is a manuscript of this work in the Cotton library, in the title of which it is said to be addressed to Henry VI. but many passages in it shew it to have been plainly written in favour of, and for the service of, Edward IV. A second edition, with amendments, was published in 1719, 8vo. As for this author’s other writings, which were pretty numerous, as they were never printed, we know nothing more of them than we learn from the titles, and the commendations bestowed upon them by those who had perused them. They have, however, been carefully preserved in libraries, some of them being still extant under the following titles “Opusculum de natura Legis Naturae, et de ejus censura in successione regnorum supremorum;” “Defensio juris Domus Lancastriae” “Genealogy of the House of Lancaster” “Of the title of the House of York” “Genealogise Ilegum Scotios” “A Dialogue between Understanding and Faith” "A Prayer Book which savours touch of the times we live in,' 1 &c. It would certainly be a gratification, if not a benefit, to the learned world, if his manuscripts were printed; for he was a man of general knowledge, great observation, and his writings would probably throw much light upon the dark parts of our history and antiquities.

, bishop of Winchester, and chancellor of England, was the illegitimate son of Dr. Lionel Woodvill or Wydville, dean of Exeter, and bishop of Salisbury, brother to Elizabeth, queen consort to Edward IV. He was born in 1483, at Bury St. Edmonds, in Suffolk, and took his name from his reputed father , whom his mother married, though in a menial situation, to conceal the incontinence of the bishop. After a proper education at school, he was sent to Trinity-hall, in Cambridge; where pursuing his studies with diligence, he soon obtained reputation by the quickness of his parts, and was particularly distinguished for his elegance in writing and speaking Latin, as well as for his uncommon skill in the Greek language . In the former he made Cicero his pattern, and became so absolute a master of his style, as to be charged with affectation in that respect. With these attainments in classical learning, he applied himself to the civil and canon law; and took his doctor’s degree in the first of these, in 1520; in the latter, the following year; and it is said, was the same year elected master of his college.

In the course of the proceedings, Gardiner always behaved himself contemptuously toward the judges, and particularly called them sacramentarians and heretics; on which account he was ordered to be removed to a meaner lodging in the Tower; to be attended by one servant only, of the lieutenant’s appointment to have his books and papers taken from him to be denied pen, ink, or paper; and nobody suffered to visit him. However, as he continued a close prisoner here during the rest of Edward’s reign, the severity of this order was afterwards mitigated; as appears from various pieces written by him in this confinement. He is said to have kept up his spirits and resolution, and it is not improbable, that he foresaw the great alteration in affairs which was speedily to take place. The first dawning of this began to appear on the demise of king Edward, when Mary was publicly proclaimed queen July 19, 1553. On Aug. 3 she made her solemn entry into the Tower, when Gardiner, in the name of himself and his fellow-prisoners, the duke of Norfolk, duchess of Somerset, lord Courtney, and others of high rank, made a congratulatory speech to her majesty, who gave them all their liberty. The spokesman took his seat in council the same day, and on the 8th performed the obsequies for the late king in the queen’s presence. On the 9th he went to Winchester-house in Southwark, after a confinement of somewhat more than five years; and was declared chancellor of England on the 23d. He had the honour of crowning the queen Oct. I, and on the 5th opened the lirst parliament in her reign. By these hasty steps Gardiner rose to the prime ministry; and was possessed at this time of more power, civil and ecclesiastical, than any English minister ever enjoyed, except his old master cardinal Wolsey. He was also re-chosen chancellor of Cambridge, and restored to the mastership of Trinity-hall there, of which, among his other preferments, he had been deprived in the former reign.

In 1540 he was appointed by the convocation to be one of the revisers of the translation of the New Testament, and St. John’s gospel was allotted to his share. He was also named one of the commissioners for reforming the ecclesiastical laws, both by Henry VIII. and Edward VI. as well as by the university of Cambridge; and had a hand in compiling the “Common Prayer Book” of the church of England, 1548 and likewise “The Institution of a Christian Man,” which was called the Bishops’ Book, as being composed by archbishop Cranmer, and the bishops Stokesly, Gardiner, Sampson, Repps, Goodrich, Latimer, Shaxton, Fox, Barlow, &c. Besides this, he was of the privy council to king Henry VIII. and Edward VI. and employed by them in several embassies, and other business of the state. In 1551, he was made lord chancellor of England, in the room of lord Rich, which office he discharged with singular reputation of integrity, though in matters of religion he was suspected by some, of too much disposition to temporize in favour of popery, upon the accession of queen Mary; and Dodd, though somewhat faintly, claims him as a popish bishop. It is certain he was suffered to retain his bishopric to his death, although the seals were taken from him. He was esteemed a patron of learned men; and expended large sums in building and embellishing his palaces, particularly at Ely, where the long gallery carries tokens of his munificence. He died at Somersham May 10, 1554; and was buried in the middle of the presbytery of his cathedral church, under a marble, with his effigies in brass, mitred, in his pontifical habit, and the great seal, as lord chancellor, in one of his hands, and an inscription round it.

, earl of Clarendon, and chancellor of England, was descended from an ancient family in Cheshire, and born at Dinton in Wiltshire, Feb. 16, 1608. In 1622, he was entered of Magdalen-hall in Oxford, and ir 1625, took the degree of bachelor in arts but failing of a fellowship in Exeter college, for which he stood, he removed to the Middle Temple, where he studied the law for several years with diligence and success. When tha lawyers resolved to give a public testimony of their dissent from the new doctrine advanced in Prynne’s “Histriomastix,” in which was shewn an utter disregard of all manner of decency and respect to the crown, Hyde and Whitelocke were appointed the managers of the masque presented on that occasion to their majesties at Whitehall on Candlemas-day, 1633-4. At the same time he testified, upon all occasions, his utter dislike to that excess of power, which was then exercised by the court, and supported by the judges in Westminster-hall. He condemned the oppressive proceedings of the high-commission court, the star-chamber, the council-board, the earl-marshal’s court, or court of honour, and the court of York. This just way of thinking is said to have been formed in him by a domestic accident, which Burnet relates in the following manner: “When he first began,” says that historian, “to grow eminent in his profession of the law, he went down to visit his father in Wiltshire; who one day, as they were walking in the fields together, observed to him, that ‘ men of his profession were apt to stretch the prerogative too far, and injure liberty: but charged him, if ever he came to any eminence in his profession, never to sacrifice the laws and liberty of his country to his own interest, or the will of his prince.’ He repeated this twice, and immediately fell into a fit of apoplexy, of which he died in afew hours; and this advice had so lasting an influence upou the son, that he ever after observed and pursued it”

In May 1648, sir Edward received a letter from the queen to call him to Paris; where, after the king’s death, he was continued both in his seat at the privy council, and in his office of the exchequer, by Charles II. In Nov. 1649, he was sent by the king with lord Cottington ambassador extraordinary into Spain, to apply for assistance in the recovery of his crown; but returned without success in July 1651. Soon after his arrival, the king gave him an account of his escape after the battle of Worcester, in that unfortunate expedition to Scotland, which had been undertaken during sir Edward’s absence,- and much against his judgment. He now resided for some time at Antwerp, but left no means unattempted, by letters and messages to England, for compassing the Restoration; in which, however, he solely relied upon the episcopal party. In 1653, he was accused of holding a correspondence with Cromwell; but being declared innocent by the king, was afterwards made secretary of state. More attempts were made to ruin him with the king, but in vain; for in 1657 he was made chancellor of England. Upon the Restoration, as he had been one of the greatest sharers in his master’s sufferings, so he had a proportionable share in his glory.

, chancellor of England, and famous for his ecclesiastical learning, as well as his knowledge in the law, was born in 1669 at Exeter, Devonshire, where his father, an eminent grocer and salter in that city, though a man of considerable substance, and descended from a good family, determined to bring up his son to his own trade. With this view, he took him into his business and kept him at his shop for some years however, the son’s inclination being strongly bent to learning, he took all opportunities of gratifying his passion, laying out all the money he could spare in books, and devoting every moment of his leisure hours to study; so that he became a scholar of very great accomplishments, which were hid under the appearance of an attention to the business of the shop. This, however, was discovered by the celebrated Locke, who was his uncle by his mother’s side, and who, after some discourse, being greatly surprised and pleased with the prodigious advances his nephew had made in literature, advised him to commence a regular course of study at Leyden: and it is said to have been by his advice, that Mr. King afterwards entered himself a student at the Inner-Temple, and applied himself to the law; in which profession his talents and industry soon rendered him celebrated.

In 1670, and the year following, our author began to form the plan of his celebrated “Essay on Human Understanding,” at the earnest request of Mr. Tyrrell, Dr. Thomas, and some other friends, who met frequently in his chamber to converse together on philosophical subjects; but his employments and avocations prevented him from finishing it then. In 1668 he had been elected a fellow of the royal society, and appears to have been now looked up to as a man of superior talents, and an authority in those pursuits to which he more particularly addicted himself. In 1672, his patron Lord Ashley, being created earl of Shaftesburj', and lord high chancellor of England, appointed Mr. Locke secretary of the presentations to benefices; which place he held until 1673, when his lordship resigned the great seal. As he had been the confidant of this statesman in his most secret affairs, he now assisted his lordship in publishing some treatises, which were designed to excite the people to watch the Roman catholics, and to oppose the arbitrary measures of the court.

, the illustrious founder of Merton college, Oxford, which became the model of all other societies of that description, was bishop of Rochester and chancellor of England in the thirteenth century. Of his personal history very little is known. From a pedigree of him, written about ten years after his death, we learn, that he was the son of William de Merton, archdeacon of Berks in 1224, 1231, and 1236, by Christina, daughter of Walter Fitz-Oliver, of Basingstoke. They were both buried in the church of St. Michael, Basingstoke, where the scite of their tomb has lately been discovered. Their son was born at Merton, in Surrey, and educated at the convent there. So early as 1239 he was in possession of a family estate, as well as of one acquired. From his mother he received the manor of St. John, with which he commenced a public benefactor, by founding, in 1261, the hospital of St. John, for poor and infirm clergy; and after the foundation of Merton college, it was appointed in the statutes, that the incurably sick fellows or scholars of that college should be sent thither; and the office of master was very early annexed to that of warden of Merton. Not many years ago, part of the chapel roof of this hospital remained, pannelled with the arms of Merton college in the intersections, and one of the gothic windows stopped up; but all this gave way to a new brick building in 1778.

According to Mr. Denne (Custumale Roffense, p. 193), he occurs prebendary of Kentish town, and afterwards had the stall of Finsbury, both of them in the church of St. Paul’s, London. He held in 1259 a prebend in Exeter cathedral; and, according to Browne Willis, was vicar of Potton in Bedfordshire at the time of his promotion to the see of Rochester. Other accounts say, that he was first canon of Salisbury, and afterwards rector of Stratton. He became eminent in the court of Chancery, first as king’s clerk, then as prothonotary, and lastly rose to be chancellor of England in 1258. Of this office he was deprived in the same year by the barons, but restored in 1261, with a yearly salary of four hundred marks; and held it again in 1274, in which year he was consecrated bishop of Rochester. He appears to have been of high credit in affairs of state, and consulted on all matters of importance, as a divine, a lawyer, and a financier. His death was occasioned by a fall from his horse, in fording a river in his diocese; soon after which accident he died, Oct. 27th, 1277. Notwithstanding his liberality, at his death he was possessed of goods valued by inventory at 5110l. of which he left legacies to the amount of 2126l. His debts amounted to 746l., and he had owing to him about 622l. He was interred on the north side of St. William’s chapel, at the north end of the cross aile in Rochester cathedral, with a marble monument, which had probably been injured or decayed, as in 1598, the present beautiful alabaster monument was erected by the society of Merton college, at the suggestion of the celebrated sir Henry Savile, then warden of the college.

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

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

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

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

Several other works of his were printed after his death, or left in manuscript. I. “God made man, A Tract proving the nativity of our Saviour to be on the 25th of December,” Lond. 1661, 8vo, with his portrait. This was answered in the first postscript to a treatise entitled tc A brief (but true) account of the certain Year, Month, Day, and Minute of the birth of Jesus Christ,“Lond. 1671, 8vo, by John Butler, B. D. chaplain to James duke of Ormonde, and rector of Litchborow, in the diocese of Peterboroup-h. 2.” Discourse of the office of Lord Chancellor of England,“London, 1671, in fol. printed with Dugdale’s catalogue of lord chancellors and lord keepers of England from the Norman conquest. 3, Several treatises, viz.” England’s Epinomis;“already mentioned, published 1683, in fol. by Redman Westcot, alias Littleton, with the English translation of Selden’s” Jani Anglorum Facies altera.“4.” Ta. ble talk: being the discourses or his sense of various maU ters of weight and high consequence, relating especially to Religion and State,“London, 1689, 4to, published by Richard Mil ward, amanuensis to our author. Dr. Wilkins observes, that there are many things in this book inconsistent with Seiden’s great learning, principles, aud character. It has, however, acquired popularity, and still continues to be printed, as an amusing and edifying manual. 5.” Letters to learned men;“among which several to archbishop Usher are printed in the collection of letters at the end of Parr’s life of that prelate; and two letters of his to Mr. Thomas Greaves were first published from the originals by Thomas Birch, M. A. and F. R. 8. in the life prefixed to Birch’s edition of the” Miscellaneous works of Mr. John Greaves,“Lond. 1737, in two volumes, 8vo. 6.” Speeches, Arguments, Debates, &c. in Par! lament.“7. He had a considerable hand in, and gave directions and advice towards, the edition of” Plutarch’s Lives,“printed in 1657, with an addition of the year of the world, and the year of our Lord, together with many chronological notes and explications. His works were collected by Dr. David Wiljvins, and printed at London in three volumes fol. 1726. The two first volumes contain his Latin works, and the third his English. The editor has prefixed a long life of the author, and added several pieces never published before, particularly letters, poems, &c. In 1675 there was printed at London in 4to,” Joannis Seldeni Angli Liber de Nummis, &c. Huic accedit Bibliotheca Nummaria.“But this superficial tract was not written by our author, but by Alexander Sardo of Ferrara, and written before Selden was born, being published at Mentz, 1575, in 4to. The” Bibliotheca Nummaria" subjoined to it was written by father Labbe the Jesuit.

On the accession of king William, Mr. Somers was rewarded for his exertions, by being, on May 9, 1689, made solicitor-general, elected recorder of Gloucester in 1690, appointed attorney-general, on May 2, 1692, and lordkeeper in 1693. We may judge of his popularity, his activity, and political skill, by the following expression of lord Sunderland, in a letter to king William, written about this period: “Lord Somers,” says he, “is the life, the soul, the spirit of his party; and can answer for it” A character of such influence was not to be neglected by a yet unestablished monarch, and accordingly king William, who had conferred the honour of knighthood on Mr. Somers when solicitor-general, now created him baron of Evesham, and lord chancellor of England. For the support of these dignities and honours, his majesty made him a grant of the manors of Ryegate and Howlegh, in Surrey, and another grant of 2, 100l. per annum out of the fee-farm rents of the crown. Lord Orford, in a note on his very flippant character of lord Somers, thinks these grants formed an alloy, but has not told us how lord Somers’s rank was to be kept up without them. “One might as well,” observes lord Hardwicke, “lay a heavy charge on his father’s (sir Robert Walpole) memory, for the grants of lucrative offices obtained for his family, and taking a pension when he resigned. Lord Somers raised no more from his offices and grants than a fortune which enabled him to live with decency and elegance.”

Before the king’s departure for Holland, in the summer of the year 1697, his majesty communicated to lord Somers a proposition made by count Tallard, to prevent a war about the succession to the crown of Spain, upon the death of the then monarch of that kingdom; and the chancellor afterwards received a letter from his majesty, then in Holland, informing him, that fresh offers had been made to the same purpose; and requiring him to dispatch full powers, under the great seal, with the names in blank, to empower his majesty to treat with the before mentioned Count. This order he accordingly complied with; and the negociations being immediately entered upon, a treaty was concluded. This was the first Partition-treaty; and in the next session of parliament, which began Nov. 16, 1699, great complaints were made in the House of Commons against the chancellor; and the House being resolved, on Dec. 6, to push the resumption of the grants of the Irish forfeited estates, by tacking it to the land-tax-bill, an address was concerted on April 10, 1700, praying, that “John lord Somers, lord chancellor of England, should be removed for ever from his majesty’s presence and councils;” but the majority of the House voted against any such address. However, the parliament being prorogued the next day, his majesty sent for the lord chancellor, and desired him to surrender the seals voluntarily; but this his lordship declined, thinking that it would imply a consciousness of guilt, He told the king, however, that whensoever his majesty should send a warrant under his hand, commanding him to deliver them up, he would immediately obey it. Accordingly an order was brought to him for this purpose by lord Jersey, upon which the seals were sent to the king. Thus was lord Somers removed from the post of chancellor, the duties of which he had discharged with great integrity and ability; and although this was contrary to the king’s inclinations to make such a sacrifice, “was not sufficient to appease the tory party, who now formed a design to impeach him. This his lordship in some measure anticipated, by sending, os> April 14, 1701, a message to the House of Commons, in which,” having heard tiiat the House was in a debate concerning him, he desired that he might be admitted and heard.“This was granted, and a chair being set by the Serjeant, a little wittiin the bar on the left hand, he had directions to acquaint lord Somers r that he might come in; and on his entrance the Speaker informed him, that he might repose himself in the chair provided for him. His lordship then defended himself with respect to his share in concluding the partition-treaty, which was the principal charge against him in that House, and, according to Burnet,” spoke so fully aud clearly, that, upon his withdrawing, it was believed, if the question had been quickly put, the whole matter had b*>en soon at an end, aud that the prosecution would have been let fall. But his enemies drew out the debate to such a length, that the impression, which his speech had made, was much worn out; and the House sitting till it was past midnight, they at last carried it by a majority of seven or eight to impeach him."

He seems to have proceeded as he had begun; that is, he pushed himself on by an extraordinary zeal for the powers that were; and he did not succeed amiss. On Aug. 10, 1660, he was chosen public orator of the university , and at the same time “tugged bird,” says Wood, “such was the high conceit of his worth, to be canon of Christcburch, as belonging to that office; but was kept back by the endeavours of the dean. This was a great discontent to him; and not being able to conceal it, he clamoured at it, and shewed much passion in his sermons till he could get preferment, which made them therefore frequented by the generality, though shunned by some. This person, though he was a junior master, and h;id never suffered for the royal cause, yet so great was his conceit, or so blinded he was with ambition, that he thought he could never be enough loaded with preferment; while others, who had suffered much, and had been reduced to a bit of bread for his majesty’s cause, could get nothing.” South’s talents, however, might be of use, and were not to be neglected; and these, together with his ardent zeal, which he was ever ready to exert on all occasions, recommended him effectually to notice and preferment. In 1661 he became domestic chaplain to lord Clarendon, chancellor of England, and of the university of Oxford; and, in March 1663, was installed prebendary of Westminster. On October the 1st following, he was admitted to the degree of D. D.; but this, as Wood relates, not without some commotion in the university. “Letters were sent by lord Clarendon, in behalf of his chaplain South, who was therein recommended to the doctorate: but some were so offended, on account of certain prejudices against South, whom they looked upon as a mere time-server, that they stiffly denied the passing of these letters in convocation.” A tumult arose, and they proceeded to a scrutiny; after which the senior proctor, Nathaniel Crew, fellow of Lincoln-college, and afterwards bishop of Durham, did “according to his usual perfidy, which,” says Wood, “he frequently exercised in his office; for he was born and bred a presbyterian”) pronounce him passed by the major part of the house; in consequence of which, by the double presentation of Dr. John Wallis, Savilian professor of geometry, he was first admitted bachelor, then doctor of divinity.

, a very voluminous writer, was born in 1703, but where we are not told. He was of Jesus college, Cambridge, according to Mr. Cole, but we do not find his name among the graduates of that university. In 1730 he became vicar of Ronde, in Wiltshire; in 1746 rector of St. Michael Queenhithe, London, and in 1758 rector of Barnes, in Surrey. He also styles himself chaplain to the lord chancellor, and LL. D.; the latter title probably obtained from some northern university. He died Oct. 3, 1768, aged sixty-five. Dr. Warner was a laborious man, and having deservedly attained the character of a judicious and useful writer, as well as a popular preacher, he was frequently engaged in compilations for the booksellers, which, however, he executed in a very superior manner, and gave many proofs of diligent research and judgment, both in his reflections and in the use he made of his materials. The following we believe to be a complete, or nearly complete list of his publications 1. “A Sermon preached before the Lord Mayor, January 30, 1748.” 2. “A Sermon preached before the Lord Mayor, on September 2,” 1749. 3. “A system of Divinity and Morality, containing a series of discourses on the principal and most important points of natural and revealed Religion; compiled from the works of the most eminent divines of the Church of England,” 1750, 5 vols. J2mo. This was reprinted in 1756, 4 vols. 8vo. 4. “A scheme for a Fund for the better Maintenance of the Widows and Children of the clergy,” 1753, 8vo. For this scheme, when carried into execution, he received the thanks of the London clergy, assembled in Sion college, May 21, 1765, and published another pamphlet, hereafter to be mentioned. 5. “An illustration of the Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments, and other rites and ceremonies of the Church of England,” &c. 1754, folio. In this year he took the degree of LL. D. probably, as we have already suggested, at some northern university. 6. “Bolingbroke, or a dialogue on the origin and authority of Revelation,” 1755, 8vo. 7. “A free and necessary enquiry whether the Church of England in her Liturgy, and many of her learned divines in their writings, have not, by some unwary expressions relating to Transubstantiation and the real presence, given so great an advantage to papists and deists as may prove fatal to true religion, unless some remedy be speedily supplied; with remarks on the power of priestly absolution,” 1755, 8vo. 8. In 1756 he published the first volume of his “Ecclesiastical History to the Eighteenth Century,” folio; the second volume in 1757. This is the most valuable of all his works, and has frequently been quoted with approbation. 9. “Memoirs of the Life of sir Thomas More, lord high chancellor of England in the reign of Henry VIII. 1758,” 8vo. This is dedicated to sir Rcbert Henley, afterwards lord chancellor Northington, who is complimented for the favours he had conferred on him on his receiving the seals; probably for the rectory of Barnes, with which he held Queenhithe and Trinity the Less. 10. “Remarks on the History of Fingal and other poems of Ossian, translated by Mr. Macpherson, in a letter to the right hon. the lord L (Lyttelton),” 1762,

, earl of Rosslyn, and lord high chancellor of England, the descendant of an ancient Scotch family, was the eldest son of Peter Wedderburn, of Chesterhail, esq. one of the senators of the college of justice, in Scotland. He was born Feb. 13, 1733, and bred to the law, in which profession some of his ancestors had made a very distinguished figure. He is said to have been called to the bar when scarcely twenty years of age, and was making some progress in practice when an insult, or what he conceived to be such, from the bench, determined him to give up the farther pursuit of the profession in that country, and remove to England. Accordingly he came to London, and enrolled himself as a member of the Inner Temple in May 1753, and after the necessary preparatory studies, was called to the bar in November 1757. One of his main objects during his studies here, was to divest himself as much as possible of his national accent, and to acquire the English pronunciation and manner, in both which he was eminently successful under the instructions of Messrs. Sheridan and Macklin.

Immediately after this commotion he was appointed chief justice of the common pleas, and called to the house of peers by the name, style, and title of lord Loughborough, baron of Loughborough, in the county of Leicester. In 1783 his lordship was appointed first commissioner for keeping the great seal; but as soon as the memorable coalition between loVd North and Mr. Fox look place, his lordship joined his old friend lord North, and remained in opposition to the administration of Mr. Pitt. It has been said that it was by his advice that Mr. Fox was led to act the unpopular part which lost him so many friends during his majesty’s indisposition in 1788-9. In 1793, when many members both of the house of lords and commons, formerly in opposition, thought it their duty to rally round the throne, endangered by the example of Fiance, lord Loughborough joined Mr. Pitt, and on Jan. 27th of that year, was appointed lord high chancellor of England, which ' office he held until 1801, when he was succeeded by thfe present lord Eldon. In Oct. 1795 his lordship obtained a new patent of a barony, by the title of lord Loughborough, of Loughborough in the county of Surrey, with remainder severally aud successively to his nephews, sir James Sinclair Erskine, bart. and John Erskine, esq. and by patent, April 21, 1801, was created earl of Rosslyn, in the county of Mid Lothian, with the same remainders.

But, as unconnected as Wood represents himself with all human things and persons, it is certain that he had his prejudices and attachments, and strong ones too, for certain notions and systems; and these prejudices and attachments will always be attended with partialities for or against those who shall be found to favour or oppose such notions or systems. They had their influence upon Wood, who, though he always spoke to the best of his judgment, and often with great truth and exactness, yet sometimes gave way to prejudice and prepossession. Among other, freedoms, he took some with the earl of Clarendon, their late chancellor, which exposed him to the censure of the university. He had observed in the life of judge Glynne, that “after the restoration of Charles II. he was made his eldest serjeant at law, by the corrupt dealing of the then chancellor,” who was the earl of Clarendon: for which expression, chiefty, the succeeding earl preferred an action in the vice-chancellor’s court against him for defamation of his deceased father. The issue of the process was a hard judgement given against the defendant; which, to be made the more public, was put into the Gazette in these words: “Oxford, July 31, 1693. On the-29th instant, Anthony Wood was condemned in the vice-chancellor’s court of the university of Oxford, for having written and published, in the second volume of his book, entitled `Athense Oxonienses,' divers infamous libels against the right honourable Edward late earl of Clarendon, lord high chancellor of England, and chancellor of the said university; and was therefore banished the said university, until such time as he shall subscribe such a public recantation as the judge of the court shall approve of, and give security not to offend in the like nature for the future: and his said book was therefore also decreed to be burnt before the public theatre; and on this day it was burnt accordingly, and public programmas of his expulsion are already affixed in the three usual places.” An historian who has recorded this censure says, that it was the more grievous to the blunt author, because it seemed to come from a party of men whom he had the least disobliged. His bitterness had been against the Dissenters; but of all the zealous Churchmen he had given characters with a singular turn of esteem and affection. Nay, of the Jacobites, and even of Papists themselves, he had always t spoken the most favourable things; and therefore it was really the greater mortification to him, to feel the storm coming from a quarter where he thought he least deserved, and might least expect it. For the same reason, adds the historian, this correction was some pleasure to the Presbyterians, who believed there was a rebuke due to him, which they themselves were not able to pay. Wood was animadverted upon likewise by Burnet, in his “Letter to the bishop of Litchfield and Coventry, concerning a book of Anthony Harmer (alias Henry Wharton), called `A Specimen of some Errors and Defects in the History of the Reformation,' &c.” upon which, in 1693, he published a vindication of himself, which is reprinted before the second edition of his “Athenæ Oxonienses.”

, eldest son of the preceding, was born Aug. 20, 1629, at Peter- house, Cambridge, ut which time his father was master of that college. His first education was in that university, heing admitted of St. Peter’s-college in 1642, whence he removed to Oxford, where he was a student, not in a college or hall, but in a private house, as he could not conform to the principles or practises of the persons who then had the government of the university. At the restoration' he was elected burgess of St. Michael in Cornwall, in the parliament which began May8, 1661, and was appointed secretary to the earl of Clarendon, lord high chancellor of England, who visiting the university of Oxford, of which he was chancellor, in Sept. 1661, Mr. Wren was there created master of arts. He was one of the first members of the Royal Society, when they began their weekly meetings at London, in 166O. After the fall of his patron, the earl of Clarendon, he became secretary to James duke of York, in whose service he continued till his death, June 11, 1672, in the fortythird year of his age. He was interred in the same vault with his father, in the chapel of Pembroke- hall, Cambridge. He wrote, 1. “Considerations on Mr. Harrington’s Commonwealth of Oceana, restrained to the first part of the preliminaries, London, 1657,” in 8vo. To this book is prefixed a long letter of our author to Dr. John Wilkins, warden of Wadham-college in Oxford, who had desired him to give his judgment concerning Mr. Harrington’s “Oceana.” Harrington answered this work in the first book of his “Prerogative of popular government,” 1658, 4to, in which he reflects on Mr. Wren as one of those virtuosi, who then met at Dr. Wilkins’ a lodgings at Wad ham- college, the seminary of the Royal Society, and describes them as an assembly of men who “had an excellent fcculty of mag^ nifying a louse, and diminishing a commonwealth.” Mr. Wren replied in 2, “Monarchy asserted; or, the State of Monarchical and Popular Government, in vindication of the considerations on Mr. Harrington’s * Oceana,' London, 1659,” in 8vo. Harrington’s rejoinder was an indecent piece of buffoonery, entitled “Politicaster i or, a Comical Discourse in^answer to Mr. Wren’s book, entitled ‘ Monarchy asserted, &c.’” 1659, 4to. Sir Edward Hyde, after^ wards earl of Clarendon, in a letter to Dr. John Barwick, dated at Brussels the 25th of July, 1659, and printed in the appendix to the doctor’s “Life,” was very solicitous, that Mr. Wren should undertake a confutation of Hobbes’s “Leviathan:” “I hope,” says he, “it is only modesty in Mr. Wren, that makes hirn pause upon undertaking the work you have recommended to him; for I dare swear, by what I have seen of him, he is very equal to answer every part of it: I mean, every part that requires an answer. Nor is there need of a professed divine to vindicate the Creator from making man a verier beast than any of those of the field, or to vindicate scripture from his licentious interpretation. I dare say, he will find somewhat in Mr. Hobbes himself, I mean, in his former books, that contradicts what he sets forth in this, in that part in which he takes himself to be most exact, his beloved philosophy. And sure there is somewhat due to Aristotle and Tuily, and to our universities, to free them from his reproaches; and it is high time, if what I hear be true, that some tutors read his Leviathan, instead of the others, to their pupils. Mr. Hobbes is my old friend, yet I cannot absolve him from the mischiefs he hath done to the king, the church, the laws, and the nation; and surely there should be enough to be said to the politics of that man, who, having resolved all religion, wisdom, and honesty, into an implicit obedience to the laws established, writes a book of policy, which, I may be bold to say, must be, by the established laws of any kingdom or province in Europe, condemned for impious and seditious: and therefore it will be very hard if the fundamentals of it be not overthrown. But I must ask both yours and Mr. Wren’s pardon for enlarging so much, and antedating those animadversions he will make upon it.”

His advancement to the bishopric was followed by his being appointed chancellor of England. In his speeches to parliament, it has been observed that he innovated on the practice of his clerical predecessors whose oratory savoured more of the pulpit than the bench, by introducing a style and manner wholly* political. In 1371, when the parliament, become jealous of churchmen, requested that secular men only should be appointed to offices of state, Wykeham resigned the seal, but without any loss of favour on the part of the king, the commons, or the public at large. The king was obliged to comply wiih the request to dismiss churchmen from the high offices of state, but soon found it necessary to have recourse to the only persons of that age whose education and talents seemed to fit them for such preferments. Soon after his being settled in the bishopric of Winchester, he began to employ his architectural skill in the repairs of the cathedral, the whole expense of which was defrayed by himself, but his more enlarged designs for this edifice were delayed to a more distant period. The care he bestowed on other parts of his episcopal duty, in reforming abuses, and establishing discipline, was not less exemplary, and in the case of his visitation of the Hospital of St. Cross, involved him in a long and troublesome dispute, which ended greatly to the benefit of that institution, and clearly to the honour of his firmness, judgment, and integrity. His mind appears now to have been deeply impressed by sentiments of enlarged liberality, and wholly influenced by those motives which determined him to become a benefactor to his country upon a most munificent scale.