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

His works are: 1. “Sermons sur divers textes de l'Ecriture,” Leyderi, 1680. 2. “Panegyrique de M. l'Electeur de Brandenbourg,” Rotterdam, 1684, 4to. Gregorio Led translated this into Italian, and inserted it in his History of Brandenburgh. 3. “Traite de la Verite de la Religion Chretienne.” This treatise on the truth of the Christian Religion has passed through many editions, and has been translated into English, 2 vols. 8vo, and Dutch, and has long been esteemed an able confutation of infidel principles. The abbe Houteville, a steady Catholic, gives it the following character: “The most shining of these treatises in defence of the Christian religion, which were published by the Protestants, is that written by Mr. Abbadie. The favourable reception it obtained, the almost unexampled praise it received on the publication, the universal approbation it still preserves, render it unnecessary for me to join my commendations, which would add so little to the merit of so great an author. He has united in this book all our controversies with the infidels. In the first part, he combats the Atheists; the Deists in the second; and the Socinians in the third. Philosophy and theology enter happily into his manner of composing, which is in the true method, lively, pure, and elegant, especially in the first books.” 4. “Reflexions sur la Presence reelle du Corps de Jesus Christ dans l'Eucharistie,” Hague, 1685, 12mo, and Rotterdam, 1713, but both editions so erroneous as to induce the author to disown them. 5. “Traite de la Divinitie de notre Seigneur Jesus Christ,” Rotterdam, 1689, 8vo. A translation of this was published about the year 1777, by the Rev. Abraham Booth, a dissenting clergyman in London. 6. “L'art de se Connoitre Soimeme; ou, la recherche des Sources de la Morale,” Rotterdam, 1692, 12mo. An edition of this excellent treatise was published at Lyons in 1693, in which all the passages in favour of the Protestant religion are left out. 7. “Defence de la Nation Britannique,” &c. London, 1692, 8vo. This defence of the Revolution in England was in answer to Mr. Bayle’s “Avis important.” 8. “Panegyrique de Marie reine d'Angleterre,” Hague, 1695, 4to. 9. “Histoire de la Conspiration derniere d'Angleterre,” &c. Lond. 1698, 8vo, reprinted in Holland, and translated into English, but at present a very scarce book. It regards what was called the Assassination-plot, and was written by order of king William 111.; the original papers and documents were furnished by the earl of Portland, and sir William Trumball, secretary of state. 10. “La Verite de la Religion lleformee,” Rotterdam, 1718, 2 vols. 8vo. Dr. Henry Lambert, bishop of Dromore, translated this work for the instruction of the Roman Catholics in his diocese. 11. “Le triomphe de la Providence et de la Religion, en l'ouverture des Sept Sceaux par le Fils de Dieu,” &c. Amsterdam, 1723, 4 vols. 12mo. In this commentary on the Revelations, for such it is, the author has been supposed more inclining to conjecture and fancy than in his other works. Besides these he revised, in 1719, the French translation of the Common Prayer, and published some single sermons and small tracts.

In 1608, on the death of his patron, lord Buckhurst, earl of Dorset, he became chaplain to George Hume, earl of Dunbar, and treasurer of Scotland; and went home with him,in order to establish an union between the Churches of England and Scotland. King James’s object was to restore the antient form of government by bishops; notwithstanding the aversion of the people of Scotland to this measure, Dr. Abbot’s skill, prudence, and Moderation succeeded so far as to procure an act of the General Assembly, which was afterwards ratified and confirmed by the Parliament of Scotland. By this it was enacted, that the king should have the calling of all General Assemblies; that the bishops or their deputies should be perpetual moderators of the diocesan synods; that no excommunication or absolution should be pronounced without their approbation; that all presentations of benefices should be made by them, and that the deprivation or suspension of ministers should belong to them; that every minister, at his admission to a benefice, should take the oath of supremacy, and canonical obedience; that the visitation of the diocese should be performed by the bishop or his deputy only; and finally, that the bishop should be moderator of all conventions for exercisings or prophesyings, which should be held within their bounds.

In the following year he was preferred to the see of Canterbury, and confirmed April 9, and on the 23d of June he was sworn of his majesty’s most honourable privycouncil. At this time he was in the highest favour both with prince and people, and appears to have taken an active part in all the great transactions in church and state. Although not thought excessively fond of power, or desirous of carrying his prerogative, as primate of England, to an extraordinary height, yet he was resolute in maintaining the rights of the high commission court, and would not submit to lord Coke’s prohibitions. In the case of Vorstius, his conduct was more singular. Vorstius had been appointed to a professorship hi the university of Leyden, and was a noted Arminian. King James, by our archbishop’s advice, remonstrated with the States on this appointment; and the consequence was that Vorstius was banished by the synod of Dort, as will appear more at length in his life. This condact on the part of the archbishop alarmed those who were favourers of Arminianism, and who dreaded Calvinism from its supposed influence on the security of the church; but their fears as far as he was concerned appear to have been groundless, his attachment to the church of England remaining firm and uniform. He had soon, however, another opportunity of testifying his dislike of the Arminian doctrines. The zeal which the king had shewn for removing, first Arminius, and then Vorstius, had given their favourers in Holland so much uneasiness, that the celebrated Grotius, the great champion of their cause, was sent over to England to endeavour to mitigate the King’s displeasure, and, if possible, to give him a better opinion of the Remonstrants, as they then began to be called. On this occasion the archbishop wrote an account of Grotius and his negociation in a letter to sir Ralph Winwood, in which he treats Grotius with very little ceremony. For this he has met with an advocate in archdeacon Blackburn, who, in his Confessional, observes in his behalf, that “his disaffection to Grotius was owing to the endeavours and proposals of the latter, towards a coalition of the Protestants and Papists, which every wise and consistent Protestant, in every period lince the Reformation, as well as Abbot, has considered as a snare, and treated accordingly.” Another affair which occurred in 1613, created no little perplexity to our archbishop, while it afforded him an opportunity of evincing a decidedness of character not common at that period. This was the case of divorce between lady Frances Howard, daughter to the earl of Suffolk, and Robert, earl of Essex, her husband, which has always been considered as one of the greatest blemishes of king James’s reign. The part Abbot took in this matter displayed his unshaken and incorruptible integrity; and he afterwards published his reasons for opposing the divorce, as a measure tending to encourage public licentiousness. If this conduct displeased the king, he does not appear to have withdrawn his favour from the archbishop, as in 1615 he promoted his brother, Robert, to the see of Salisbury. The archbishop was less prudent in recommending -to the king, George Villiers, afterwards the celebrated duke of Buckingham; but of this he lived to repent, and to leave a satisfactory vindication.

In 1619 he executed a design which he had long formed, of founding an hospital at Guildford, where, on the 5th of April, he was present when sir Nicholas Kempe laid the first stone. The archbishop endowed it with lands to the value of three hundred pounds per annum: one hundred of which was to be employed in setting the poor to work, and the remainder for the maintenance of a master, twelve brothers, and eight sisters, who were to have blue clothes, and gowns of the same colour, and half-a-crown a week each. Oct. 29, being the anniversary of the archbishop’s birth, is commemorated at Guildford; and the archbishop of Canterbury for the time being is visitor of the hospital. Towards the end of this year, the Elector Palatine accepted of the crown of Bohemia, which occasioned great disputes in king James’s councils. Some were desirous that his majesty should not interfere in this matter, foreseeing that it would produce a war in Germany; others were of opinion, that natural affection to his son and daughter, and a just concern for the Protestant interest, ought to engage him to support the new election. The latter was the archbishop’s sentiment; and not being able at that time to attend the privy council, he wrote his mind with great boldness and freedom to the secretary of state. The archbishop, now in a declining state of health, used in the summer to go to Hampshire for the sake of recreation; and, being invited by lord Zouch to hunt in his park at Branzill, he met there with the greatest misfortune that ever befel him; for he accidentally killed that nobleman’s keeper, by an arrow from a cross-bow, which he shot afc one of the deer. This accidentthrew him into a deep melancholy; and he ever afterwards kept a monthly fast on Tuesday, the day on which this fatal mischance happened. He also settled an annuity of 20l. on the widow. There were several persons who took advantage of this misfortune, to lessen him in the king’s favour; but his majesty said, “An angel might have miscarried in this sort.” But his enemies representing, that, having incurred an irregularity, he was thereby incapacitated for performing the offices of a primate, the king directed a commission to ten persons, to inquire into this matter. The points referred to their decision were, 1. Whether the archbishop was irregular by the fact of involuntary homiciue 2. Whether that act might tend to scandal in a churchman 3. How his grace should be restored, in case the commissioners should find him irregular All agreed, that it could not be otherwise done, than by restitution from the king; but they varied in the manner. The bishop of Winchester, the lord chief justice, and Dr. Steward, thought it should be done by the king, and by him alone. The lord keeper, and the bishops of London/ Rochester, Exeter, and St. David’s, were for a commission from the king directed to some bishops. Judge Doddridge and sir Henry Martin were desirous it should be done both ways, by way of caution. The king accordingly passed a pardon and dispensation; by which he acquitted the atchbishop of all irregularity, scandal, or infamation, and declared him capable of all the authority of a primate. From that time an increase of infirmities prevented his assistance at the council. But when, in the last illness of James I. his attendance was required, he was attentive to the charge till the 27th of March 1625, the day on which the king expired. Though very infirm, and afflicted with the gout, he assisted at the ceremony of the coronation of Charles I. whose favour, however, he did not long enjoy. His avowed enemy, the duke of Buckingham, soon found an opportunity to make him feel the weight of his displeasure. Dr. Sibthorp had in the Lent assizes 1627 preached before the judges a sermon at Northampton, to justify a loan which the king had demanded. This sermon, calculated to reconcile the people to an obnoxious measure, was transmitted to the archbishop with the king’s direction to license it; which he refused, and gave his reasons for it : and it was not licensed by the bishop of London, until after the passages deemed exceptionable had been erased. On July 5, lord Conway, who was then secretary of state, made him a visit; and intimated to him, that the king expected he should withdraw to Canterbury. The archbishop declined this proposal, because he had then a law-suit with that city; and desired that he might rather have leave to retire to his house at Ford, five miles beyond Canterbury. His request was granted; and, on Oct. 9 following, the king gave a commission to the bishops of London, Durham, Rochester, Oxford, and Bath and Wells, to execute the archiepiscopal authority; the cause assigned being, that the archbishop could not at that time in his own person attend those services which were otherwise proper for his cognizance and direction. The archbishop did not remain long in this situation; for, a parliament being absolutely necessary, he was recalled about Ciuistmas, and restored to his authority and jurisdiction. On his arrival at court he was received by the archbishop of York and the earl of Dorset, who conducted him to the king, and his regular attendance was from that time required. He sat in the succeeding parliament, and continued afterwards in the full exercise of his office. On the 24th of August 1628, the archbishop consecrated to the see of Chichester Dr. Richard Montague, who had before been active in supporting the pretence of irregularity which had been alleged against him. Laud, bishop of London, one of his former enemies, also assisted at the consecration. When the petition of right was discussed in parhament, the archbishop dehvercd the opinion of the House of Lords at a conference with the House of Commons, offering some propositions from the former, and received the thanks of sir Dudley Digges. Dr. Manwaring, having preached before the House of Commons two sermons, which he afterwards published, and in which he maintained the king’s authority in raising subsidies without the consent of parliament, was brought before the bar of the House of Lords, by impeachment of the Commons. Upon this occasion the archbishop, with the king’s consent, gave the doctor a severe admonition, in which he avowed his abhorrence of the principles maintained in the two discourses. The interest of bishop Laud being now very considerable at court, he drew up instructions, which, having the king’s name, were transmitted to the archbishop, under the title of “His majesty’s instructions to the most reverend father in God, George, lord archbishop of Canterbury, containing certain orders to be observed and put in execution by the several bishops in his province.” His grace communicated them to his suffragan bishops; but, to prove that he still intended to exercise his authority in his own diocese, he restored Mr. Palmer and Mr. Unday to their lectureships, after the dean and archdeacon of Canterbury had suspended them. In other respects he endeavoured to soften their rigour, as they were contrived to enforce the particular notions of a prevailing party in the church, which the archbishop thought too hard for those who made the fundamentals of religion their study, and were not so zealous for forms. His conduct in this and other respects made his presence unwelcome at court; so that, upon the birth of the prince of Wales, afterwards Charles H. Laud had the honour to baptize him, as dean of the chapel. It appears, ho.vever, from almost the last public act of his life, that Abbot was not so regardless of the ceremonial parts of religious duty in the church of England as his enemies have represented him; for he issued an order, dated the 3d of July 1633, requiring the parishioners of Crayford in Kent to receive the sacrament on their knees, at the steps ascending to the communion table. On the 5th of August, in the same year, he died at Croydon, worn out with cares and infirmities, at the age of 71, and was according to his own direction buried in the chapel of Our Lady, within the church dedicated to the Holy Trinity at Guildford. A stately monument was erected over the grave, with the effigies of the archbishop in his robes. He shewed himself, in most circumstances of his life, a man of great moderation to all parties; and was desirous that the clergy should attract the esteem of the laity by the sanctity of their manners, rather than claim it as due to their function. His notions and principles, however, not suiting the humour of some writers, have drawn upon him many severe reflections. Heylin asserts, “That marks of his benefactions we find none in places of his breeding and preferment;” an aspersion which is totally groundless. Dr. Wellwood has done more justice to the merit and abilities of our prelate: “Archbishop Abbot,” says he, “was a person of wonderful temper and moderation; and in all his conduct shewed an unwillingness to stretch the act of uniformity beyond what was absolutely necessary for the peace of the church, or the prerogative of the crown, any farther than conduced to the good of the state. Being not well turned for a court, though otherwise of considerable learning and genteel education, he either could not, or would not, stoop to the humour of the times; and now and then, by an unseasonable stiffness, gave occasion to his enemies to represent him as not well inclined to the prerogative, or too much addicted to a popular interest; and therefore not fit to be employed in matters of government.”

His works are: 1. “Quæstiones Sex, totidem pralectionibus in Schola Theologica Oxoniae, pro forma habitis, discussae et disceptatae anno 1597, in quibus e Sacra Scriptura & Patribus, quid statuendum sit definitur.” Oxon. 1598, 4to, & Francfort, 1616, 4to, published by Abraham Scultetus. 2. “Exposition on the Prophet Jonah, contained in certaine Sermons, preached in S. Maries Church in Oxford,” 4to, 1600. It appears by a postscript to the reader, that these sermons or lectures were delivered on Thursdays early in the morning, “sometimes before daylight,” from 1594 to 1599. They were reprinted in and form the most popular of his works. 3. His “Answer to the questions of the Citizens of London in Jan. 1600, concerniug Cheapside Cross,” not printed until 1641. 4. “The reasons which Dr. Hill hath brought for the upholding of Papistry, unmasked and shewed to be very weak, &c.” Oxon. 4to. 1604. Hill was a clergyman of the church of England, which he exchanged for that of Rome, and wrote his “Quatron of Reasons” in vindication of his conduct, printed at Antwerp, 4to. 1600. 5. “A Preface to the examination of George Sprot,” &c. noticed before. 6. “Sermon preached at Westminster, May 26, 1608, at the funeral of Thomas earl of Dorset, late lord high treasurer of England, on Isaiah xl. 6.” 4to. 1608. 7. “Translation of a part of the New Testament,” with the rest of the Oxford divines, 1611. 8. “Some memorials, touching the Nullity between the earl-of Essex and his lady, pronounced Sept. 25, 1613, at Lambeth; and the difficulties endured in the same.” To this is added “some observable things since Sept. 25, 1613, when the sentence was given in the cause of the earl of Essex, continued unto the day of the marriage, Dec. 26, 1613,” which appears also to have been penned by his grace, or by his direction; and to it is annexed “the speech intended to be spoken at Lambeth, Sept. 25, 1613, by the archbishop of Canterbury, &c.” These were reprinted in one volume, 1719, 12mo, and the ms. in the archbishop’s hand was then said to be in the hands of an eminent lawyer. 9. “A brief description of the whole World, wherein is particularly described all the monarchies, empires, and kingdoms of the same, with their academies,” &c. 4to. 1617; a work, of which there have been several editions. 10. “A short apology for archbishop Abbot, touching the death of Peter Hawkins, dated Oct. 8, 1621.” 11. “Treatise of perpetual visibility and succession of the true Church in all ages,” Lond. 4to. 1624; published without his name; but his arms, impaled with those of Canterbury, are put before it. 12. “A narrative containing the true cause of his sequestration and disgrace at Court: in two parts, written at Ford in Kent,” 1627, printed in Rushworth’s Historical Collections, vol. I. p. 438—461, and In the Annals of king Charles, p. 213 224. Bp. Racket, in his life of Abp. Williams, p. 68, attests the authenticity of this curious memorial. 13. “History of the Massacre in the Valtoline,” printed in the third volume of Fox’s Acts and Monuments. 14. His “Judgment on bowing at the name of Jesus,” Hamburgh, 8vo. 1632. In 1618, he and sir Henry Savile defrayed the expence of an edition of Bradwardin’s “Cause of God,” a work written against the Pelagians.

, one of the writers in the Byzantine history, was born at Constantinople in the year 1220, and brought up at the court of the emperor John Ducas, at Nice. He studied mathematics, poetry, and rhetoric under Theodorus Exapterygus, and learned logic of Nicephorus Blemmidas. In his one-and-twentieth year, he maintained a learned dispute with Nicholas the physician, concerning the eclipse of tLe sun, before the emperor John. He was at length appointed great logothete, and employed in the most important affairs of the empire. John Ducas sent him ambassador to Larissa, to establish a peace with Michael of Epirus. He was also constituted judge by this emperor, to try Michael Comnenus on a suspicion of being engaged in a conspiracy. Theodorus Lascaris, the son of John, whom he had taught logic, appointed him governor of all the western provinces of his empire. When he held this government, in the year 1255, being engaged in a war with Michael Angelus, he was taken prisoner by him. In 1260, he gained his liberty by means of the emperor Palasologus, who sent him ambassador to Constantine prince of Bulgaria. After his return, he applied himself wholly to the instruction of youth, in which employment he acquitted himself with great honour for many years; but being at last weary of the fatigue, he resigned it to Holobolus. In 1272, he sat as one of the judges upon the cause of John Vecchus, patriarch of Constantinople. The year following he was sent to pope Gregory, to settle a peace and re-union between the two churches, which was accordingly concluded; and he swore to it, in the emperor’s name, at the second council of Lyons, in 1274. He was sent ambassador to John prince of Bulgaria in 1382, and died soon after his return. His principal work is his “Historia Byzantina,” Gr. Lat. Paris, fol. 1651. This history, which he was well qualified to write, as he took an active part in public aifajrs, contains the history of about fifty-eight years; i.e. from 1203, when Baldwin, earl of Flanders, was crowned emperor, to 1261, when M. Palseologus put himself in the place of Baldwin II. A manuscript translation of it, by sir William Petty, was in Mr. Ames’s collection. The original was found in the east by Douza, and first published in 1614; but the Paris edition is superior, and now very scarce. His theological writings were never printed. His son Coustantine succeeded him as grand logothete, and was called by the Greeks, the younger Metaphrastes, from his having written the lives of some of the saints in the manner of Simeon Metaphrastes. There is little else in his history that is interesting.

, an eminent architect, was born in 1728, at the town of Kirkaldy, in Fifeshire, Scotland. He was the second son of William Adam, esq. of Maryburgh, an architect of distinguished merit. He received his education at the university of Edinburgh. The friendships which he formed in that seat of learning were with men of high literary fame, among whom were Mr. Hume, Dr. Robertson, Dr. Adam Smith, and Dr. Ferguson. As he advanced in life, he had the happiness to enjoy the friendship and intimacy of Archibald duke of Argyle, Mr. Charles Townsend, and the celebrated earl of Mansfield. To perfect his taste in the science to which he had devoted himself, he went to Italy, and there studied, for some time, the magnificent remains of antiquity which still adorn that country. He was of opinion, that the buildings of the ancients are, in architecture, what the works of nature are with respect to the other arts; serving as models for our imitation, and standards of our judgment. Scarce any monuments, however, of Grecian or Roman architecture now remain, except public buildings, The private edifices, however splendid and elegant, in which the citizens of Athens and Rome resided, have all perished: few vestiges remaining, even of those innumerable villas with which Italy was crowded, although, in erecting them, the Romans lavished the spoils and riches of the world. Mr. Adam, therefore, considered the destruction of these buildings with particular regret; some incidental allusions in the ancient poets, and occasional descriptions in their historians, conveying ideas of their magnificence, which astonish the artists of the present age. He conceived his knowledge of architecture to be imperfect, unless he should be able to add the observation of a private edifice of the ancients fo his study of their public works. He therefore formed the scheme of visiting the ruins of the emperor Dioclesian’s palace, at Spalatro, in Venetian Dalmatia. To that end, having prevailed on M. Clerisseau, a French artist, to accompany him, and engaged two draughtsmen to assist him in the execution of his design, he sailed from Venice, in June 1757, on his intended expedition, and, in five weeks, he accomplished his object with much satisfaction.

, a Scottish prelate, archbishop of St. Andrew’s. He was born 1543, in the town of Perth, where he received the rudiments of his education, and afterwards studied philosophy, and took his degree of M. A. at the university of St. Andrew’s. In the year 1566 he set out for Paris, as tutor to a young gentleman. In the month of June in the same year, Mary queen of Scots being delivered of a son, afterwards James VI. of Scotland, and first of England, Mr. Adamson wrote a Latin poem on the occasion, in which he styled him king of England and France. This proof of his loyalty involved him in some difficulties, causing him to be arrested in France, and confined for six months; but he escaped by the intercession, of queen Mary, and some of the principal nobility. As soon as he recovered his liberty, he retired with his pupil to Bourges. He was in this city during the massacre at Paris; and, the same bloody persecuting spirit prevailing amongst the Catholics at Bourges as at the metropolis, he lived concealed for seven months at a public-house, the master of which, upwards of 70 years of age, was thrown from the top of the building, and had his brains dashed out, for his charity to heretics. Whilst Mr. Adamson lay thus in his sepulchre, as he called it, he wrote his Latin poetical version of the book of Job, and his tragedy of Herod, in the same language. In 1573, he returned to Scotland; and, having entered into holy orders, became minister of Paisley. In 1575, he was appointed one of the commissioners, by the general assembly, to settle the jurisdiction and policy of the church; and the following year he was named, with Mr. David Lindsay, to report their proceedings to the earl of Moreton, then regent. About this time, the earl made him one of his chaplains, and, on the death of bishop Douglas, promoted him to the archiepiscopal see of St. Andrew’s, a dignity which brought upon him great trouble and uneasiness; for he was extremely obnoxious to the Presbyterian party, and many inconsistent absurd stories were propagated about him. Soon after his promotion, he published his Catechism in Latin verse, a work highly approved, even by his enemies; who, nevertheless, continued to persecute him with great violence. In 1578, he submitted himself to the general assembly, which procured him peace but for a very little time; for, the year following, they brought fresh accusations against him. In the year 1582, being attacked with a grievous disease, in which the physicians could give him no relief, he happened to take a simple medicine from an old woman, which did him service. The woman, whose name was Alison Pearsone, was immediately charged with witchcraft, and committed to prison, but escaped out of her confinement: however, about four years afterwards, she was again found, and burnt for a witch. In 1583, king James came to St. Andrew’s; and the archbishop, being much recovered, preached before him, and disputed with Mr. Andrew Melvil, in presence of his Majesty, with great reputation, which drew upon him fresh calumny and persecution. The king, however, was so well pleased with him, that he sent him ambassador to queen Elizabeth, at whose court he resided for some years. His conduct, during his embassy, has been variously reported by different authofsV Two things he principally laboured, viz. the recommending the king, his master, to the nobility and gentry of England, and the procuring some support for the episcopal party in Scotland. By his eloquent preaching he drew after him such crowds of people, and raised in their minds Such a high idea of the young king, his master, that queen Elizabeth forbade him to enter the pulpit during his stay in her dominions. In 1584 he was recalled, and sat in the parliament held in August at Edinburgh. The Presbyterian party were still very violent against the archbishop. A provincial synod was held at St. Andrew’s in April 1586; where the archbishop was accused and excommunicated: he appealed to the king and the states, but this availed him but little; for the mob being excited against him, it became dangerous to appear in public in the city of St. Andrew’s. At the next general assembly, a paper being produced, containing the archbishop’s submission, he was absolved from the excommunication. In 1588, fresh accusations were brought against him. The year following, he published the Lamentations of the prophet Jeremiah, in Latin verse, which he dedicated to the king, complaining of his hard usage. In the latter end of the same year, he published a translation of the Apocalypse in Latin verse, and a copy of Latin verses, addressed also to his Majesty, when he was in great distress. The king, however, was so far from giving him assistance, that he granted the revenue of his see to the duke of Lenox so that the remaining part of this prelate’s life was very wretched — he having hardly subsistence for his family, notwithstanding his necessities compelled him to deliver to the assembly a formal recantation of all his opinions concerning church government. He died in 1591. His works were printed in a 4to volume in London in 1619, with his Life by Thomas Volusenus, or Wilson. Besides the contents of this volume, our author wrote many things which were never published: such as, six books on the Hebrew republick, various translations of the prophets into Latin verse, Praelections on St. Paul’s Epistles to Timothy, various apologetical and funeral orations; and, what deserves most to be regretted, a very candid history of his own times. His character has. been variously represented, as may be seen in Calderwood and Spotiswood’s Histories, Mackenzie’s Lives of Scottish Authors, and the last edition of the Biographia Britannica. He appears to have been one of those men of whom no just estimate can be formed, without taking into the account the distraction of the times in which he lived.

Dean Addison published, 1. “West Barbary, or a short narrative of the revolutions of Fez and Morocco,” 1671, 8vo. 2. “The present State of the Jews (more particularly relating to those in Barbary), wherein is contained an exact account of their customs secular and religious, &c.” 1675, 8vo. 3. “The primitive Institution, or a seasonable discourse of Catechizing.” 4. “A modest plea for the Clergy,” 1677, 8vo. 5. “The first state of Mahometism, or an account of the Author and doctrine of that imposture,” 1678, 8vo-, reprinted afterwards under the title of “The Life and Death of Mahomet.” 6. “An introduction to the Sacrament,” 1681; reprinted in 1686 with the addition of “The Communicant’s Assistant.” 7. “A discourse of Tangier, under the government of the earl of Tiviot,” 4to, 1685, second edition. 8. “Χριστοσ Αυτοθεοσ, or an historical account of the heresy denying the Godhead of Christ;” one of the best books that had then appeared on the subject. 9. “The Christian’s daily Sacrifice, on Prayer,” 1698, 12mo. 10. “An account of the Millenium, the genuine use of the two Sacraments, &c.” And some have attributed to him “The Catechumen; or an account given by a young Person to a Minister of his knowledge in Religion, &c.” 1690, 12mo; but this appears to have been only recommended by him and Dr. Scot.

, son of Dr. Addison mentioned in the last article, and one of the most illustrious ornaments of his time, was born May 1, 1672, at Milston near Ambrosbury, Wiltshire, where his father was rector. Appearing weak and unlikely to live, he was christened the same day. Mr. Tyers says, that he was laid out for dead as soon as he was born. He received the first rudiments of his education at the place of his nativity, under the rev. Mr. Naish; but was soon removed to Salisbury, under the care of Mr. Taylor; and thence to Lichfield, where his father placed him for some time, probably not long, under Mr. Shaw, then master of the school there. From Lichfield he was sent to the Charter-house, where he pursued his juvenile studies under the care of Dr. Ellis, and contracted that intimacy with sir Rich. Steele, which their joint labours have so effectually recorded. In 1687 he was entered of Queen’s college in Oxford; where, in 1689, the accidental perusal of some Latin verses gained him the patronage of Dr. Lancaster, by whose recommendation he was elected into Magdalen college as demy. Here he took the degree of M. A. Feb. 14, 1693; continued to cultivate poetry and criticism, and grew first eminent by his Latin compositions, which are entitled to particular praise, and seem to have had much of his fondness; for he collected a second volume of the Musæ Anglicanæ, perhaps for a convenient receptacle; in which all his Latin pieces are inserted, and where his poem on the Peace has the first place. He afterwards presented the collection to Boileau, who from that time conceived an opinion of the English genius for poetry. In his 22d year he first shewed his power of English poetry, by some verses addressed to Dryden; and soon afterwards published a translation of the greater part of the fourth Georgic upon Bees. About the same time he composed the arguments prefixed to the several books of Dry den’s Virgil; and produced an essay on the Georgics, juvenile, superficial, and uninstructive, without much either of the scholar’s learning or the critic’s penetration. His next paper of verses contained a character of the principal English poets, inscribed to Henry Sacheverell, who was then, if not a poet, a writer of verses; as is shewn by his version of a small part of Virgil’s Georgics, published in the Miscellanies, and a Latin encomium on queen Mary, in the Musae Anglicana?. At this time he was paying his addresses to SacheverelPs sister. These verses exhibit all the fondness of friendship; but, on one side or the other, friendship was too weak for the malignity of faction. In this poem is a very confident and discriminative character of Spenser, whose work he had then never read. It is necessary to inform the reader, that about this time he was introduced by Congreve to Montague, then chancellor of the exchequer: Addison was now learning the trade of a courtier, and subjoined Montague as a poetical name to those of Cowley and of Dryden. By the influence of Mr. Montague, concurring with his natural modesty, he was diverted from his original design of entering into holy orders. Montague alleged the corruption of men who engaged in civil employments without liberal education; and declared, that, though he was represented as an enemy to the church, he would never do it any injury but by withholding Addison from it. Soon after, in 1695, he wrote a poem to king William, with a kind of rhyming introduction addressed to lord Somers. King William had no regard to elegance or literature; his study was only war; yet by a choice of ministers whose disposition was very different from his own, he procured, without intention, a very liberal patronage to poetry. Addison was caressed both by Somers and Montague. In 1697 he wrote his poem on the peace of Ryswick, which he dedicated to Montague, and which was afterwards called by Smith “the best Latin poem since the Æneid.” Having yet no public employment, he obtained in 1699 a pension of 300l. a year, that he might be enabled to travel. He staid a year at Blois, probably to learn the French language; and then proceeded in his journey to Italy, which he surveyed with the eyes of a poet. While he was travelling at leisure, he was far from being idle; for he not only collected his observations on the country, but found time to write his Dialogues on Medals, and four acts of Cato. Such is the relation of Tickell. Perhaps he only collected his materials, and formed his plan. Whatever were his other employments in Italy, he there wrota the letter to lord Halifax, which is justly considered as the most elegant, if not the most sublime, of his poetical productions. But in about two years he found it necessary to hasten home; being, as Swift informs us, “distressed by indigence, and compelled to become the tutor of a travelling squire.” At his return he published his travels, with a dedication to lord Somers. This book, though a while neglected, is said in time to have become so much the favourite of the publick, that before it was reprinted it rose to five times its price. When he returned to England in 1702, with a meanness of appearance which gave testimony to the difficulties to which tie had been reduced, he found his old patrons out of power; but he remained not long neglected or useless. The victory at Blenheim 1704 spread triumph and confidence over the nation; and lord Godolphin, lamenting to lord Halifax that it had not been celebrated in a manner equal to the subject, desired him to propose it to some better poet. Halifax named Addison; who, having undertaken the work, communicated it to the treasurer, while it was yet advanced no further than the simile of the angel, and was immediately rewarded by succeeding Mr. Locke in the place of commissioner of appeals. In the following year he was at Hanover with lord Halifax; and the year after was made under-secretary of state, first to sir Charles Hedges, and in a few months more to the earl of Sunderland. About this time the prevalent taste for Italian operas inclining him to try what would be the effect of a musical drama in our own language; he wrote the opera of Rosajnond, which, when exhibited on the stage, was either hissed or neglected; but, trusting that the readers would do him more justice, he published it, with an inscription to the duchess of Marlborough. His reputation had been somewhat advanced by The Tender Husband, a comedy, which Steele dedicated to him, with a confession that he owed to him several of the most successful scenes. To this play Addison supplied a prologue. When the marquis of Wharton was appointed lord lieutenant of Ireland, Addison attended him as his secretary; and was made keeper of the records in Bermingham’s tower, with a salary of 300l. a year. The office was little more than nominal, and the salary was augmented for his accommodation. When he was in office, he made a law to himself, as Swift has recorded, never to remit his regular fees in civility to his friends “I may have a hundred friends; and if my fee be two guineas, I shall by relinquishing my right lose 200 guineas, and no friend gain more than two.” He was in Ireland when Steele, without any communication of his design, began the publication of the Tatler; but he was not long concealed: by inserting a remark on Virgil, which Addison had given him, he discovered himself. Steele’s first Tatler was published April 22, 1709, and Addison’s contribution appeared May 26. Tickell observes, that the Tatler began and was concluded without his concurrence. This is doubtless literally true; but the work did not suffer much by his unconsciousness of its commencement, or his absence at its cessation; for he continued his assistance to Dec. 23, and the paper stopped on Jan. 2. He did not distinguish his pieces by any signature.

On the 2d of August 1716, he married the countess dowager of Warwick, whom he had solicited by a very long and anxious courtship. 'He is said to have first known her by becoming tutor to her son. The marriage, if uncontradieted report can be credited, made no addition to his happiness; it neither found them nor made them equal. She always remembered her own rank, and thought herself intitled to treat with very little ceremony the tutor of her son. It is certain that Addison has left behind him no encouragement for ambitious love. The year after, 1717, he rose to his highest elevation being made secretary of state but it is universally confessed that he was unequal to the duties of his place. In the House of Commons he could not speak, and therefore was useless to the defence of the government. In the office he could not issue an orjler without losing his time in quest of fine expressions. What he gained in rank he lost in credit; and finding, by experience, his own inability, was forced to solicit his dismission, with a pension of 1500l. a year. His friends palliated this relinquishment, of which both friends and enemies knew the true reason, with an account of declining health, and the necessity of recess and quiet. He now returned to his vocation, and began to plan literary occupations for his future life. He proposed a tragedy on the death of Socrates; a story of which, as Tickell remarks, the basis is narrow, and to which love perhaps could not easily have been appended. He engaged in a noble work, a defence of the Christian religion, of which part was published after his death; and he designed to have made a new poetical version of the Psalms. It is related that he had once a design to make an English dictionary, and that he considered Dr. Tillotson as the writer of highest authority. Addison, however, did not conclude his life in peaceful studies; but relapsed, when he was near his end, to a political question. It happened that, in 1719, a controversy was agitated, with great vehemence, between, those friends of long continuance, Addison and Steele. The subject of their dispute was the earl of Sunderland’s memorable act, called “The Peerage bill,” by which the number of peers should be fixed, and the king restrained from any new creation of nobility, unless when an old family should be extinct. Steele endeavoured to alarm the ration by a pamphlet called “The Plebeian:” to this an Answer was published by Addison under the title of “The Old Whig.” Steele was respectful to his old friend, though he was Mow his political adversary; but Addison could not avoid discovering a contempt of his opponent, to whom he gave the appellation of “Little Dicky.” The bill was laid aside during that session, and Addison died before the next, in which its commitment was rejected. Every reader surely must regret that these two illustrious friends, after so many years passed in confidence and endearment, in unity of interest, conformity of opinion, and fellowship of study, should finally part in acrimonious opposition. The end of this useful life was now approaching. Addison had for some time been oppressed by shortness of breath, which was now aggravated by a dropsy; and finding his danger pressing, he prepared to die conformably to his own precepts and professions. During this lingering decay, he sent, as Pope relates, a message by the earl of Warwick to Mr. Gay, desiring to see him. Gay, who had not visited him for some time before, obeyed the summons, and found himself received with great kindness. The purpose for which the interview had been solicited was theti discovered: Addison told him, that he had injured him; but that, if he recovered, he would recompense him. What the injury was he did not explain, nor did Gay ever know; but supposed that some preferment designed for him had by Addison' s intervention been withheld. Lord Warwick was a young man of very irregular life, and perhaps of loose opinions. Addison, for whom he did not want respect, had very diligently endeavoured to reclaim him; but his arguments and expostulations had no effect; one experiment, however, remained to be tried. When he found his life near its end, he directed the young lord to be called; and, when he desired, with great tenderness, to hear his last injunctions, told him, “I have sent for you that you may see how a Christian can die.” What effect this awful scene had on the earl’s behaviour is not known: he died himself in a short time. Having given directions to Mr. Tickell for the publication of his works, and dedicated them on his death-bed to his friend Mr. Craggs, he died June 17, 1719, at Holland-house, leaving no child but a daughter, who died in 1797, at Bilton, near Rugby, in Warwickshire.

, a writer of romance in the 13th, century, and probably so called from often wearing the laurel crown, was minstrel to Henry III. duke of Brabant and Flanders. In La Valliere’s collection of Mss. are several metrical romances by this author: 1. “The romance of William of Orange,” surnamed Short-nose, constable of France. There are some extracts from this in Catel’s history of Languedoc. 2. “The romance of the Infancy of Ogier the Dane,” written in rhyme by order of Guy earl of Flanders. Of this are several translations published in the 16th century. 3. “The romance of Cleomades,” written by order of Maria of Brabant, daughter of his patron. This, translated into prose by Philip Camus, has been several times printed; at first, without date, at Paris and Troyes; and at Lyons, 1488, 4to. 4. “The romance of Aymeri of Narbonne.” 5. “The romance of Pepin and Bertha his wife;” the facts taken from the chronicles in the abbey of St. Denis. A sequel to this was written by Girardin of Amiens, as the “Romance of Charlemagne, son of Bertha.” 6. “The romance of Buenon of Commarchis,” the least esteemed of all his productions, perhaps from the insignificance of his hero. The time of the death of Adenez is not known.

In 1148 Eugenius sent him legate to Denmark and Norway; where, by his fervent preaching and diligent instructions, he converted those barbarous nations to the Christian faith; and we are told, that he erected the church of Upsal into an archiepiscopal see. On his return to Rome, he was received by the pope and cardinals with great marks of honour: and pope Anastatius, who succeeded Eugenius, happening to die at this time, Nicholas was unanimously chosen to the holy see, in November, 1154, and took the name of Adrian. When the news of his promotion reached England, Henry II. sent Robert, abbot of St. Alban’s, and three bishops, to Rome, to congratulate him on his election; upon which occasion Adrian granted to the monastery of St. Alban’s, the privilege of being exempt front all episcopal jurisdiction except that of Rome. Next year, king Henry having solicited the pope’s consent that he might undertake the conquest of Ireland, Adrian very readily complied, and sent him a bull for that purpose, of which the following is a translation: “Adrian, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to his most dear son in Christ, the illustrious king of England, sendeth greeting and apostolical benediction. Your magnificence is very careful to spread your glorious name in the world, and to merit an immortal crown in heaven, whilst, as a good catholic prince, you form a design of extending the bounds of the church, of instructing ignorant and barbarous people in the Christian faith, and of reforming the licentious and immoral; and the more effectually to put this design in execution, you desire the advice and assistance of the holy see. We are confident, that, by the blessing of God, the success will answer the wisdom and discretion of the undertaking. You have advertised us, dear son, of your intended expedition into Ireland, to reduce that people to the obedience of the Christian faith; and that you are willing to pay for every house a yearly acknowledgment of one penny to St. Peter, promising to maintain the rights of those churches in the fullest manner. We therefore, being willing to assist you in this pious and laudable design, and consenting to your petition, do grant you full liberty to make a descent upon that island, in order to enlarge the borders of the church, to check the progress of immorality, and to promote the spiritual happiness of the natives: and we command the people of that country to receire and acknowledge you as their sovereign lord; provided the rights of the churches be inviolably preserved, and the Peter pence duly paid: for indeed it is certain (and your highness acknowledges it) that all the islands, which are enlightened by Christ, the sun of righteousness, and have embraced the doctrines of Christianity, are unquestionably St. Peter’s right, and belong to the holy Roman church. If, therefore, you resolve to put your designs in execution, be careful to reform the manners of that people; and commit the government of the churches to able and virtuous persons, that the Christian religion may grow and flourish, and the honour of God and the preservation of souls be effectually promoted; so shall you deserve an everlasting reward in heaven, and leave a glorious name to all posterity.” His indulgence to this prince was so great, that he even consented to absolve him from the oath he had taken not to set aside any part of his father’s will. The reason of this was, that Geoffry Plantagenet, earl of Anjou, had by the empress Maud, three sons, Henry, Geoffry, and William. This prince, being sensible that his ovrn dominions would of course descend to his eldest son Henry, and that the kingdom of England and duchy of Normandy would likewise fall to him in right of his mother, thought fit to devise the earldom of Anjou to his second son Geoffry; and to render this the more valid, he exacted an oath of the bishops and nobility, not to suffer his corpse to be buried till his son Henry had sworn to fulfil every part of his will. When Henry came to attend his father’s funeral, the oath was tendered to him; but for some time he refused to swear to a writing, with the contents of which he was unacquainted. Howerer, being reproached with the scandal of letting his father lie unburied, he at last took the oath with great reluctance. But after his accession to the throne, upon a complaint to pope Adrian that the oath was forced upon him, he procured a dispensation from his holiness, absolving him from the obligation he had laid himself under: and in consequence thereof, he dispossessed his brother Geoffry of the dominions of Anjou, allowing him only a yearly pension for his maintenance.

, successively bishop of Wilton and archbishop of Canterbury, and one of the greatest luminaries of his dark era, was the son of an earl of Kent, and after receiving a few scanty instructions from an ignorant secular priest, assumed the habit of the Benedictine order of monks in the monastery at Abingdon, over which Athelwold then presided, having been appointed abbot in the year 955. Athelwold, being created bishop of Winchester in the year 693, settled several of the Abingdon monks in his cathedral. Among these was Ælfric; who, in return for the benefit which he had formerly derived from the instructions of Alhelwold, was now eager to show his gratitude, by forwarding the wishes of his benefactor to instruct the youth of his diocese. With this view he drew tip his “Latin-Saxon Vocabulary,” and some “Latin Colloquies.” The former of these works was published by Somner, under the title of a Glossary, Oxon. 1659 (See Somner). During his residence in this city, Ælfric translated, from the Latin into the Saxon language, most of the historical books of the Old Testament: the greatest part of which translations has reached our time, having been printed at Oxford in 1698. Here, likewise, at the request of Wulfsine, bishop of Sherborn, he drew up what has been called his “Canons,” but might more properly be styled, a charge to be delivered by the bishops to their clergy. They are preserved in the first volume of Spelman’s Councils, and were composed, between the years 980 and 987. Some time about this last year, Ælfric was removed to Cerne Abbey, to instruct the monks, and regulate the affairs of that monastery. Here it was that he translated, from the Latin fathers, the first volume of his “Homilies.” After remaining in this place about a year, he was made abbot of St. Alban’s in the year 988, and composed a liturgy for the service of his abbey, which continued to be used there till Leland’s time. In the year 989 he was created Lishop of Wilton, and during his continuance in that see, translated, about the latter end of the year 991, a second volume of “Homilies.” These are the volumes of which Mrs. Elstob issued proposals for a translation, in 1713, accompanied with the original, but did not live to publish the work. Here also Ælfric wrote his “Grammar,” a supplement to his Homilies, and, probably, a tract dedicated to Sigeward or Sigeferth, containing two epistles oil the Old and New Testament, which his biographer concludes to have been written between the years 987 and 991. In 994, he was translated to Canterbury, where, after exerting himself for some years, with equal spirit and prudence, in defending his diocese against the incursions of the Danes, he died Nov. 16, 1005. He was buried at Abingdon, the place where he first embraced the profession of a monk, whence his remains were afterwards transferred to Canterbury, in the reign of Canute.

, or Egelnoth, or Æthelnoth, in Latin Achelnotus, archbishop of Canterbury in the reign of Canute the Great, succeeded to that see in the year 1020. This prelate, surnamed the Good, was son of earl Agilmer, and, at the time of his election, dean of Canterbury. After his promotion he went to Rome, and received his pall from pope Benedict VIII. In his way thither, as he passed through Pavia, he purchased, for an hundred talents of silver and one of gold, St. Augustine’s arm, which was kept there as a relic; and sent it over to England, as a present to Leofric, earl of Coventry. Upon his return, he is said to have raised the see of Coventry to its former lustre. He was much in favour with king Canute, and employed his interest with that monarch to good purposes. It was by his advice the king sent over large sums of money for the support of the foreign churches: and Malmsbury observes, that this prince was prompted to acts of piety, and restrained from excesses, by the regard he had for the archbishop. King Canute being dead, Agelnoth refused to crown his son Harold, alleging that the late king had enjoined him to set the crown upon none but the issue of queen Emma; that he had given the king a promise upon this head, and that he was resolved to be true to his engagement. Having declared himself with this freedom, he iaid the crown upon the altar, with an imprecation against those bishops who should venture to perform the ceremony. Harold, who was greatly chagrined at this disappointment, endeavoured, both by menaces and large offers, to prevail upon the archbishop, but in vain: and whether he was afterwards crowned by any other person is uncertain. Agelnoth, after he had held the see of Canterbury seventeen years, died Oct. 29, 1038. Three works have been attributed to him “A panegyric on the blessed Virgin Mary;” “A letter to Earl Leofric, concerning St, Augustine;” and “Letters to several persons.”

In this society he soon became known to and patronized by people of the first rank, and was in habits of intimacy with many of them; particularly the earl of Burlington, so well known for his taste in the fine arts, especially architecture. For him he painted, among others, a large picture of the royal family of England: in the middle compartment are all the younger branches of the family on a very large canvas, and on one hand above the door a half length of her majesty queen Caroline; the picture of the king was intended to fill the niche opposite to it, but Mr. Aikman’s death happening before it was begun, the place for it is left blank. This picture came into the possession of the duke of Devonshire, whose father married lady Mary Boyle, daughter and only child to the earl of Burlington. Towards the close of his life he painted many other piclures of people of the first rank and fashion in England. At Blickling in Norfolk, the seat of Hobart earl of Buckinghamshire, are a great many full length pictures by Mr. Aikman, of noblemen, gentlemen, and ladies, relations and friends of the earl. These, with the royal family above named, were his last works; and but a few of the number he painted in London. He died June 7, 1731.

Be wise and meditate thy end.” Of his private life, little else is known, except that in 1721 or 1724, he was elected a fellow of the society of Antiquaries; and honourable notice is taken of him in the history of the society prefixed to the first volume of the Archæologia. He published, 1. “Monumenta Vetustatis Kempiana, &c.” 1720, 8vo. The greatest part of this collection was originally made by Mr. John Gailhard, who had been governor to George, first lord Carteret, and sold to his lordship for an annuity of 200l. After lord Carteret’s death in 1695, Mr. John Kemp bought a considerable part of the collection duriug the minority of John lord Carteret, afterwards earl Granville, and more after his death. Some years after Kemp’s death, the collection was sold by auction. 2. “Irtiov, sive ex veteris monumenti Isiaci descriptione Isidis Delubrum reseratum,” 1729, 4to. 3. “De Clypeo Carnilli antique,” 1734, which had before appeared at the end of “Museum Woodwardianum,” the latter part of which was drawn up by Ainsworth, though Dr. Woodward himself had described most of the statues, tables, and vases, and written large notes upon most of them. But the work which has contributed most to Mr. Ainsworth’s name is his well-known Latin Dictionary. About the year 1714, it having been suggested to some principal booksellers, that a new compendious English and Latin Dictionary, upon a plan somewhat similar to Faber’s Thesaurus, was much wanted, Mr. Ainsworth was considered as a proper person to execute what proved to be a long and troublesome undertaking: and how well he completed it has been sufficiently shewn by the approbation bestowed on it by a succession of the ablest teachers and scholars. The first edition appeared in 1736, 4to, in which Dr. Patrick appears to have assisted Ainsworth; and the second edition in 1746 was entirely entrusted to Patrick’s care, who introduced many additions and improvements. Dr. Ward also contributed to this edition. The third edition irt 1751 was superintended by Mr.Kimber, but with little or no variation. In 1752 another appeared, greatly improved by Mr. William Young (the parson Adams of Fielding), and an editor far superior to either of the preceding. An abridgment in 2 vols. 8vo, 1758, by Mr. Nathanael Thomas, is chiefly valuable for the clearness of the print, and the facility of reference. In 1773, Dr. Morell corrected, for the third time, the quarto edition, and continued to improve it as far as the edition of 1780; the last edition of 1808 was revised by a gentleman, whose name we are not at liberty to mention, amply qualified for the task. By a curious list of the sums given to the various editors of this work, published by Mr. Nichols, we learn that Ainsworth received for the first edition, 66 6l. 17s. 6d., and-for what he had contributed to the second, his executors were paid 2501.

, an eminent botanist, was born m 1731, at a small village near Hamilton, in Lanarkshire. He had been early initiated in horticulture; and in 1754, coming for employment to the southern parts of the kingdom, he attracted, in the following year, the notice of Mr. Philip Miller, author of the Gardener’s Dictionary, who was at that time superintendant of the botanical garden at Chelsea. The instructions which he received from that eminent gardener, it is said, laid the foundation of his futnre fortune. His attention to his profession procured for him a recommendation to the late princess dowager of Wales, and his present majesty. In 1759, he consequently was appointed to superintend the botanical garden at Kew, an opportunity for the exertion of his talents which was not neglected. The most curious plants were collected from every part of the world, and his skill in the cultivation of them was evinced by his attention to the various soils and degrees of warmth or cold which were necessary for their growth. The borders in the garden were enlarged for the more free circulation of the air where it was required, and the stoves were improved for the reception of plants, and, as near as it was thought possible, adapted to the climates from which they were produced. His professional abilities were not unnoticed by the most eminent botanists of the time; and in 1764 he became acquainted with sir Joseph Banks, when, equally honourable to both, a friendship commenced which subsisted for life. In 1783, Mr. Haverfield, having been advanced to a higher station, was succeeded by Mr. Aiton, in the more lucrative office of superintending the pleasure and kitchen gardens at Kew, with which he was permitted to retain his former post. His labours proved that his majesty’s favours were not injudiciously bestowed; forin 1789 he published an ample catalogue of the plants at Kew, with the title of “Hortus Kewensis,” 3 vols. 8vo. In this catalogue was given an account of the several foreign plants which had been introduced into the English gardens at different times. The whole impression of this elaborate performance was sold within two years, and a second and improved edition was published by his son William Townsend Aiton in 1810. Though active and temperate, Mr. Aiton had for some time been afflicted with a complaint which is thought by the faculty to be incurable. It was that of a scirrhous liver, nor was it to be surmounted by the aid of medicine, though every possible assistance was liberally bestowed. He died on February 1st, 1793, in the 63d year of his age, having left behind him a wife, two sons, and three daughters. He had been distinguished by the friendship of those who were most celebrated for their botanical science. The late earl of Bute, sir Joseph Banks, the late Dr. Solander, and Mr. Dryander, were the friends to whom he always was inclined to declare his acknowledgements for their kindness, and to the three latter for the assistance which they afforded hint in completing the “Hortus Kewensis.” He was assiduous in his employment, easy in his temper, and faithful to his duty. As a friend, a husband, and a father, his character was exemplary. On his burial in the church-yard at Kew, his pall was supported by those who knew and esteemed him; by sir Joseph Banks, the Rev. Dr. Goodenough, Mr. Dryander, Dr. Pitcairn, Mr. Dundas of Richmond, and Mr. Zoffany. The king, attentive to his faithful servants, demonstrated his kindness to Mr. Aiton, by appointing his eldest son to his father’s places. There is a portrait of our author in the library at sir Joseph Banks’ s, Soho square, which is thought a good likeness. He holds in his hand a plant called, in compliment to him, Aitonia, by the celebrated Thunberg.

Upon the publication of his “Pleasures of Imagination,” he gave offence to Warburton, by a note in the third book, in which he revived and maintained the notion of Shaftesbury, that ridicule is the test of truth. Warburton attacked him with severity in a preface; and Akenside was warmly defended in “An Epistle to the rev. Mr. Warburton.” Though the pamphlet was anonymous, it was known to be the production of his friend Jeremiah Dyson. In the revisal of his poems, which he left unfinished, he omitted the lines and the note to which Warburton had objected. In 1745 he published a collection of his Odes; and wrote a vehement invective against Pulteney, earl of Bath, whom he stigmatizes, under the name of Curio, as the betrayer of his country. He seems to have afterwards been dissatisfied with his epistle to Curio; for he expunged about half the lines, and changed it to the form of an ode. At different and long intervals some other poems of his appeared, which were, together with the rest, published after his decease.

, an English divine, was born in Suffolk, and educated in Trinity college, Cambridge, where he took the degree of M. A. and was afterwards incorporated of the university of Oxford, June 7, 1592. Wood says, he was the rarest poet and Grecian that any one age or nation produced. He attended the unfortunate earl of Essex in his voyage to Cadiz, as his chaplain; and entertaining some doubts on religion, he was prevailed upon to declare himself a Roman Catholic, and published “Seven Motives for his Conversion,” but he soon discovered many more for returning to the church of England. He applied himself much to caballistic learning, the students of which consider principally the combination of particular words, letters, and numbers, and by this, they pretend to see clearly into the sense of scripture. In their opinion there is not a word, letter, number, or accent, in the law, without some mystery in it, and they even venture to look into futurity by this study. Alabaster made great proficiency in it, and obtained considerable promotion in the church. He was made prebendary of St. Paul', doctor of divinity, and rector of Thai-field in Hertfordshire. The text of the sermon which he preached for his doctor’s degree, was the first verse of the first chapter of the first book of Chronicles, namely “Adam, Seth, Enoch,” which he explained in the mystical sense, Adam signtfying misery, &c. He died April 1640. His principal work was “Lexicon Pentaglotton, Hebraicum, Chaldaicum, Syriacum, &c.” Lond. 1637, fol. He published also, in 1621, “Commentarius de bestia Apocalyptica,” and other works of that stamp. As a poet he has been more highly applauded. He wrote the Latin tragedy of “Roxana,” which bears date 1632, and was acted, according to the custom of the times, in Trinity college hall, Cambridge. “If,” says Dr. Johnson, in his life of Milton, “we produced any thing worthy of notice before the elegies of Milton, it was perhaps Alabaster’s Roxana.” He also began to describe, in a Latin poem entitled “Elisceis,” the chief transactions Of queen Elizabeth’s reign, but left it unfinished at the time of his death. The manuscript was for some time in the possession of Theodore Haak, and some manuscript verses of his are in the library of Gonvil and Caius college, Cambridge, and the Elisceis is in that of Emmanuel.

He now began to write in support of the cause for which he had left his country; and his first piece, published in 1565, was entitled “A defence of the doctrine of Catholics, concerning Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead,” 8vo. This was intended as an answer to the celebrated bishop Jewell’s work on the same subject; and if elegance of style, and somewhat of plausibility of matter, could have prevailed, it would have served his cause very essentially; but, unluckily, of all the subjects which Jewell had handled, there was none in which he reasoned with such irresistible force. Alan’s work was at the same time answered by Dr. William Fulke; but whatever its fate in England, it procured him the highest reputation abroad, among the chiefs of his party, who, as a mark of their confidence, put under his care a young man, afterwards sir Christopher Blount, and who was concerned in the earl of Essex’s insurrection.

Aldhun had a daughter named Ecgfrid, whom he gave in marriage to Ucthred, son of Waltheof earl of Northumberland, and with her, six towns belonging to the episcopal see, upon condition that he should never divorce her. But that young lord afterwards repudiating her, with a view to a nobler alliance, Aldhun received back the church lands he had given with her. This prelate educated king Ethelred’s two sons, Alfred and Edward; and, when their father was driven from his throne by Swane, king of Denmark, he conducted them, together with queen Emma, into Normandy, to duke Richard the queen’s brother. This was in the year 1017, a little before bishop Aldhun’s death; for the next year, the English having received a terrible overthrow in a battle with the Scots, the good bishop was so affected with the news, that he died a few days after, having enjoyed the prelacy twenty-nine years. RaduU phus de Diceto calls this bishop Alfhunus, and bishop Godwin, Aldwinus.

, abbot of Tavistock, was promoted to the bishopric of Worcester in 1046. He was so much in favour with king Edward the Confessor, and had so much power over his mind, that he obliged him to be reconciled with the worst of his enemies, particularly with Swane, son of the earl Godwin, who had revolted against him, and came with an army to invade the kingdom. Aldred also restored the union and friendship between king Edward and Griffith king of Wales. He took afterwards a journey to Rome; and being returned into England in the year 1054, he was sent ambassador to the emperor Henry It staid a whole year in Germany, and was very honourably entertained by Herman archbishop of Cologn, from whom he learned many things relative to ecclesiastical discipline, which on his return he established in his own diocese. In 10.58, he went to Jerusalem, which no archbishop or bishop of England had ever done before him. Two years after, he returned to England; and Kinsius, archbishop York, dying the 22d of December, 1060, Aldred was elected in his stead on Christmas day following, and thought fit to keep his bishopric of Worcester with the archbishopric of Canterbury, as some of his predecessors had done. Aldred went soon after to Rome, in order to receive the pallium from the pope; he was attenc.ed by Toston, earl of Northumberland, Giso, bishop of Wells and Walter, bishop of Hereford. The pope received Joston very honourably, and made him sit by him in the synod which he held against the Simonists. He wanted to Giso and Walter their request, because they were tolerably well learned, and not accused of simony. But Aldred being by his answers found ignorant, and guilty of simony, the pope deprived him very indignantly of all his honours; so that he was obliged to return without the pallium. On his way home, he and his fellow-travellers were attacked by some robbers, who took from them all that they had. This obliged them to return to Rome; and the pope, either out of compassion, or by the threatenings of the earl of Northumberland, gave Aldred the pallium; but he was obliged to resign his bishopric of Worcester. However, as the archbishop of York had been almost entirely ruined by the many invasions of foreigners, king Edward gave the new archbishop leave to keep twelve villages or manors which belonged to the bishopric of Worcester. Edward the Confessor dying in 1066, Aldred crowned Harold his successor. He also crowned William the Conqueror, after he had made him take the following oath, viz That he would protect the holy church of God and its eaders: that he would establish and observe righteous that he would entirely prohibit and suppress all rapines and unjust judgments. He was so much in favour with the conqueror, that this prince looked upon him as a father; and, though imperious in regard to everybody else, he yet submitted to obey this archbishop; John Brompton gives us an instance of the king’s submission, which at the same time shews the prelate’s haughtiness. It happened one day, as the archbishop was at York, that the deputy-governor or lord-lieutenant going out of the city with a great number of people, met the archbishop’s servants, who came to town with several carts and horses loaded with provisions. The governor asked to whom they belonged; and they having answered they were Aldred’s servants, the governor ordered that all these provisions should be carried to the king’s store-house. The archbishop sent immediately some of his clergy to the governor, commanding him to deliver the provisions, and to make satisfaction to St. Peter, and to him the saint’s vicar, for the injury he had done them; adding, that if he refused to comply, the archbishop would make use of his apostolic authority against him (intimating that he would excommunicate him.) The governor, offended at this proud message, insulted the persons whom the archbishop had sent, and returned an answer as haughty as the message. Aldred fhen went to London to make his complaint to the king; but even here he acted with his wonted insolence; for meeting the king in the church of St. Peter at Westminster, he spoke to him in these words “Hearken, Q William when thou wast but a foreigner, and God, tQ punish the sins of this nation, permitted thee to become master of it, after having shed a great deal of blood, I consecrated thee, and put the crown upon thy head with blessings; but now, because thou hast deserved it, I pronounce a curse over thee, instead of a blessing, since thou art become the persecutor of God’s church, and of his ministers, and hast broken the promises and oaths which thou madestto me before St. Peter’s altar.” The king, terrified at this discourse, fell upon his knees, and humbly begged the prelate to tell him, by what crime he had deserved so severe a sentence. The noblemen, who were present, were enraged against the archbishop, and loudly cried out, he deserved death, or at least banishment, for having offered such an insult to his sovereign; and they pressed him with threatenings to raise the king from the ground. But the prelate, unmoved at all 'this, answered calmly, “Good men, let him lie there, for he is not at Aldred’s but at St. Peter’s feet; let him feel St. Peter’s power, since he dared to injure his vicegerent.” Having thus reproved the nobles by his episcopal authority, he vouchsafed to take the king by the hand, and to tell him the ground of his complaint. The king humbly excused himself, by saying he had been ignorant of the whole matter; and oegged of the noblemen to entreat the prelate, that he might take off the curse he had pronounced, and change it into a blessing. Aldred was at last prevailed upon to favour the king thus far; but not without the promise of several presents and favours, and only after the king had granted him to take such a revenge on the governor as he thought fit. Since that time (adds the historian) none of the noblemen ever dared to offer the least injury. The Danes having made an invasion in the north of England in 1068, under the command of Harold and Canute the sons of king Swane, Aldred was so much afflicted at it, that he died of grief on the llth of September in that same year, having besought God that he might not see the desolation of his church and country.

, a poet and statesman of Scotland, is said to have been a descendant of the ancient family of Macdonald. Alexander Macdonald, his ancestor, obtained from one of the earls of Argyle a grant of the lands of Menstrie in the comity of Clackmanan, and our author’s sirname was taken from this ancestor’s proper name. He was born about the year 1580, and from his infancy exhibited proofs of genius, which his friends were desirous of improving by the best instruction which the age afforded, Travelling was at that time an essential branch of education, and Mr. Alexander had the advantage of being appointed tutor, or rather companion, to the earl of Argyle, who was then about to visit the continent.

But whatever opposition or censure he encountered from the public in this affair, he still remained in high credit with the king, who, in 1626, appointed him secretary of state for Scotland, and in 1630, created him a peer of that kingdom by the title of viscount Canada, lord Alexander pf Menstrie. About three years after, he was advanced to the title of earl of Stirling, at the solemnity of his majesty’s coronation in Holyrood house. His lordship appears to have discharged the office of secretary of state for Scotland with universal reputation, and endeavoured to act with moderation during a crisis of peculiar delicacy, when Laud was endeavouring to abolish presbytery in Scotland, and to establish episcopacy.

He left, by his lady, 1. William, lord Alexander, viscount Canada, his eldest son, who died in the office of his majesty’s resident in Nova Scotia, during his father’s lifetime: William, the son of this young nobleman succeeded his grandfather in the earldom, but died about a month after him 2. Henry Alexander, afterwards earl of Stirling 3. John, and two daughters, lady Margaret and lady Mary. Henry Alexander settled in England, and was succeeded in titles and estate by his grandson Henry, who died in 1739, and was the last male descendant of the first earl. A claimant appeared in 1776, but, being unable to prove his descent before the house of peers, was ordered not to assume the title .

Besides the writings already enumerated, the earl of Stirling published, in 1621, folio, “A Supplement of a defect in the third part of Sidney’s Arcadia,” printed, according to Mr. Park, at Dublin; and “A Map and Description of New England, with a Discourse of Plantation and the Colon es, &c.” Lond. 1630, 4to. He has also Sonnets prefixed to Dray ton’s Heroical Epistles to Quin’s Elegiac Poem on Bernard Stuart, Lord Anbume to Abernethy’s “Christian and heavenly treatise, concerning Physicke for the Soule:” and several are interspersed among the works of Drummond, as are a few of his letters, and “Anacrisis,” or a censure of the poets, in the folio edition of Drummond’s works, which last Mr. Park considers as very creditable to his lordship’s critical talents. Two pieces in Ramsay’s Evergreen, entitled “The Comparison,” and the “Solsequium,” are ascribed to him by lord Hailes. His works were added to the late edition of the English poets, 21 vols. 8vo, 1810.

Alfred enjoyed a profound peace during the three last years of his reign, which he chiefly employed in establishing and regulating his government for the security of himself and his successors, as well as for the ease and benefit of his subjects in general. Before his reign, though there were many kings who took the title, yet none could properly be called monarch of the English nation; for notwithstanding there was always, after the time of Egbert, a prince who held a kind of pre-eminence over the rest, yet he had no dominion over their subjects, as Alfred had in the latter part of his reign; for to him all parts of England, not in the possession of the Danes, submitted, which was greatly owing to the fame of his wisdom and mildness of his government. He is said to have drawn up an excellent system of laws, which are mentioned in the Mirror of Justice, published by Andrew Home, in the reign of Edward I. as also a collection of Judgments; and, if we may credit Harding’s chronicle , they were used in Westminster-hall in the reign of Henry IV. In the chronicle said to be written by John Brompton, we meet some laws ascribed to king Alfred. They are in number 51; and before them is a preface, wherein the king recites many things concerning the excellency and use of laws. In the close he says, he collected from the laws of his ancestor king Ina, such as seemed to him most reasonable; and having communicated them to the learned men of his kingdom, he, with their assent, published them to be the rule of his people’s actions. These laws borrowed from king Ina were, if we believe himself, many of them taken from the British constitutions; and those, if credit is to be given to their authors, were excerpts from the Greek and Trojan laws. Although there remain but few laws which can be positively ascribed to Alfred, yet his biographers inform us, that to him we owe many of those advantages which render our constitution so dear and valuable, and that to him we are indebted for trial by jury; and if we rely on sir John Spelman’s conjecture, his institutions were the foundation of what is called the common law, so styled either on account of its being the common law of all the Saxons, or because it was common both to Saxons and Danes 1. It is said also, but this is a disputed point, that he was the first who divided the kingdom into shires; what is ascribed to him is not a bare division of the country, but the settling a new form of judicature; for, after having divided his dominions into shires, he subdivided each shire into three parts, called tythings, which though now grown out of date, yet there are some remains of this ancient division in the ridings of Yorkshire, the laths of Kent, and the three parts of Lincolnshire. Each tything was divided into hundreds or wapentukes, and these again into tythings or dwellings of ten householders each of these householders stood engaged to the king, as a pledge for the good behaviour of his family, and all the ten were mutually pledges for each other; so that if any one of the tything was suspected of an offence, if the headboroughs or chiefs of the tything would not be security for him, he was imprisoned; and if he made his escape, the ty thing and hundred were fined to the king. Each shire was under the government of an earl, under whom was the reive, his deputy, since, from; ji cs, called shire-reive, or sheriff . Alfred also framed a book called the Book of Winchester, and which contained a survey of the kingdom; and of which the Doomsday book, still preserved in the exchequer, is no more than a second edition.

, archbishop of Dublin in the reign of Henry VIII. was first educated at Oxford, whence he removed to Cambridge, and took the degree of master of arts; or, as Wood rather thinks, that of bachelor of laws. He was afterwards sent to Rome to the pope, by Warham, archbishop of Canterbury, to manage some affairs relating to the church. He continued there about nine years, and was created doctor of laws in some Italian university. On his return he was made chaplain to cardinal Wolsey, and commissary or judge of his court, when he was legate a latere, but he was accused of great dishonesty in the execution of that office. He assisted the cardinal in first visiting and afterwards dissolving forty small monasteries, for the erection of his colleges at Oxford and Ipswich. His church-preferment was considerable. Archbishop Warham gave him Aldyngton, with the chapel annexed, March 6, 1510, in which he was succeeded by Erasmus; and in the following year his grace presented him to Riseburgh, in the deanery of Riseburgh. In 1524 he was presented to the perpetual vicarage of Alborne, and he had, by the favour of Wolsey, the church of Dalby on the Would sin Leicestershire, though it belonged to the master and brethren of the hospital of Burton Lazars. In the latter end of the year 1525, he was incorporated doctor of laws of the university of Oxford; and March 13, 1528, upon the death of Dr. Hugh Inge, he was consecrated archbishop of Dublin, and about the same time was made chancellor of Ireland. In 1534 he was barbarously murdered in an insurrection, by Thomas Fitz-gerald, eldest son of the earl of Kildare, in the fiftieth year of his age. He wrote some treatises on ecclesiastical affairs, which remain in manuscript.

, an eminent mathematician of the sixteenth century, was born at Uttoxeter in Staffordshire, Dec. 21, 1542, and was a descendant, through six generations, of Henry Allen, or Alan, lord of the manor of Buckenhall in that county. He was admitted scholar of Trinity college, Oxford, June 4, 1561, became fellow in 1565, and in 1567, took his master’s degree. From a strong inclination to a retired life, and a dislike to entering into holy orders, to which, according to the statutes, he ftmst have been called, he quitted the college, resigned his fellowship, and went to Gloucester-hall (now Worcester college), in 1570. Here he studied very closely, and acquired a high reputation for his knowledge in antiquity, philosophy, and mathematics. Having received an invitation from Henry earl of Northumberland, a great friend and patron of the mathematicians, he spent some time at the earl’s house, where he became acquainted with those celebrated mathematicians Thomas Harriot, John Dee, Walter Warner, and Nathanael Torporley. Robert earl of Leicester had a particular esteem for Mr. Allen, and would have conferred a bishopric upon him, but his love of solitude and retirement made him decline the offer. He was also highly respected by other celebrated contemporaries, sir Thomas Bodley, sir Henry Savile, Mr. Camden, sir Robert Cotton, sir Henry Spelman, Mr. Selden, &c. His great skill in the mathematics made the ignorant and vulgar look upon him as a magician or conjuror: and the author of a book, intituled “Leicester’s Commonwealth,” has absurdly accused him of using the art of figuring, to bring about the earl of Leicester’s schemes, and endeavouring, by the black art, to effect a match betwixt him and queen Elizabeth. It is more certain the earl placed such confidence in Allen, that nothing material in the state was transacted without his knowledge, and he had constant information, by letter from Allen, of what passed in the university. Allen was very curious and indefatigable in collecting scattered manuscripts relating to history, antiquity, astronomy, philosophy, and mathematics, which collections have been quoted by several learned authors, &c. There is a catalogue of them, bearing date 1622, among Anthony Wood’s papers in the Ashmolean museum. He published in Latin the second and third books of Ptolemy, “concerning the Judgment of the Stars,” or, as it is commonly called, of the quadripartite construction, with an exposition. He wrote also notes on many of Lilly’s books, and some on John Bale’s work, “De scriptoribus Maj. Britanniae.” Having lived to a great age, he died at Gloucester-hall, Sept. 30, 1632, and was buried with a solemnity suited to the greatness of his character. He bequeathed a valuable portrait of himself, which has since been engraven, to the president of Trinity college and his successors. Mr. Burton, the author of his funeral oration, calls him not only the Coryphaeus, but the very soul and sun of all the mathematicians of his time. Mr. Selden mentions him as “omni eruditionis genere summoque judicio ornatissimus, cele-” berrimae academies Oxoniensis dec us insignissimum; a person of the most extensive learning and consummate judgment, the brightest ornament of the university of Oxford.“Camden says, he was” Plurimis optimisque artibus Ornatissimus; skilled in most of the best arts and sciences.“Mr. Wood has transcribed part of his character from a manuscript in the library of Trinity college, in these words:” He studied polite literature with great application; he was strictly tenacious of academic discipline, always highly esteemed both by foreigners and those of the university, and by all of the highest stations in the church of England and the university of Oxford. He was a sagacious observer, and an agreeable companion.

, an eminent English divine, was born in March 1619, at Uppington near the YVrekin in Shropshire. He was at first educated at a free-school in that neighbourhood, and afterwards removed to one at Coventry, taught by Philemon Holland the translator. In 1636, he was sent to Oxford, and entered a commoner in Christ-church, under the tuition of Mr. Richard Busby, afterwards master of Westminster school. Six months after his settlement in the university, Dr. Fell, dean of Christ-church, having observed the parts and industry of young Allestry, made him a student of that college, where he applied himself to his books with great assiduity and success. When he had taken the degree of bachelor of arts, he was chosen moderator in philosophy, in which office he continued till the disturbances of the kingdom interrupted the studies and repose of the university. In 1641, Mr. Allestry, amongst other of the Oxford students, took ar;ns for the king, under sir John Biron, and continued therein till that gentleman withdrew from Oxford, when he returned to his studies. Soon after, a party of the parliament forces having entered Oxford and plundered the colleges, Mr. Allestry narrowly escaped being severely handled by them. Some of them having attempted to break into the treasury of Christ-church, and having forced a passage into it, met with nothing but a single groat and a halter, at the bottom of a large iron chest. Enraged at their disappointment, they went to the deanry, where having plundered as much as they thought fit, they put it all together in a chamber, locked it up, and retired to their quarters, intending next day to return and dispose of their prize; but, when they came, they found themselves disappointed, and every thing removed out of the chamber. Upon examination it was discovered, that Mr. Allestry had a key to the lodgings, and that this key had been made use of. Upon this he was seized, and would probably have suffered severely, had not the earl of Essex called away the forces on a sudden, and by that means rescued him from their fury. In October following, he took arms again, and was at the battle fought betwixt the king and the parliament’s forces under the command of the earl of Essex upon Keinton-field in Warwickshire; after which, understanding that the king designed immediately to march to Oxford, and take up his residence at the deanry of Christ-church, he hastened thither to make preparations for his majesty’s reception; but in his way was taken prisoner by a party of horse from Boughton-house, which was garrisoned by lord Say for the parliament: his confinement, however, was but short, as the garrison surrendered to the king. And now Mr. Allestry returned again to his studies, and the spring following took his degree of master of arts. The same year he was in extreme danger of his life by a pestilential distemper, which raged in the garrison at Oxford; but as soon as he recovered, he entered once more into his majesty’s service, and carried a musquet in a regiment formed out of the Oxford scholars. Nor did he in the mean time neglect his studies, “but frequently (as the author of the preface to Dr. Allestry’s Sermons expresses it) held the musquet in one hand and the book in the other, unitinEf the watchfulness of a soldier with the lucubrations of a student.” In this service he continued till the end of the war; then went into holy orders, and was chosen censor of his college. He had a considerable share in that test of loyalty, which the university of Oxford gave in their decree and judgment against the Solemn League and Covenant. In 1648, the parliament sent visitors to Oxford, to demand the submission of that body to their authority: those who refused to comply were immediately proscribed; which was done by writing their names on a paper, and affixing it on the door of St. Mary’s church, signifying that such persons were, by the authority of the visitors, banished the university, and required to depart the precincts within three days, upon pain of bein,; taken for spies of war, and proceeded against as such. Mr. Allestry, amongst many others, was accordingly expelled the university. He now retired into Shropshire, and was entertained as chaplain to the honourable Francis Newport, esq. and upon the death of Richard lord Newport, that gentleman’s father, in France, whither he had Hed to avoid the violence of the prevailing party, was sent over to France to take care of his effects. Having dispatched this affair with success, he returned to his employment, in which he continued till the defeat of king Charles II, at Worcester. At this time the royalists wanting an intelligent and faithful person to send over to his majesty, Mr. Allestry was solicited to undertake the journey, which he accordingly did; and having attended the king at Roan, and received his dispatches, returned to England. In 1659, he went over again to his majesty in Flanders; and upon his return was seized at Dover by a party of soldiers, but he had the address to secure his letters, by conveying them to a faithful hand. The soldiers guarded him to London, and after being examined by a committee of the council of safety, he was sent prisoner to Larnbeth-house, where he contracted a dangerous sickness. About six or eight weeks after, he was set at liberty; and this enlargement was perhaps owing to the prospect of an approaching revolution; for some of the heads of the republican party, seeing every thing tend towards his majesty’s restoration, were willingby kindnesses to recommend themselves to the royal party.

It may appear surprising, how one of Mr. Alleyn’s profession should be enabled to erect such an edifice as Dulwich college, and liberally endow it for the maintenance of so many persous. But it must be observed that he had some paternal fortune, which, though small, probably laid the foundation of his future affluence; and it is to be presumed that the profits he received from acting, to one of his provident and managing disposition, and one who by his excellence in playing drew after him such crowds of spectators, must have considerably improved his fortune: besides, he was not only an actor, but master of a playhouse, built at his own expence, by which he is said to have amassed considerable wealth. This was the Fortune play-house, near Whitecross street, by Moorfields. There is a tradition in the neighbourhood of this place, that in digging the foundation of this house, there was found a considerable treasure; so that it is probable the whole or greatest part of it might fall to Mr. Alleyn. He was also keeper of the king’s wild beasts, or master of the royal bear-garden, which was frequented by vast crowds of spectators: and the profits arising from these sports are said to have amounted to 500l. per annum. He was thrice married; and the portions of his two first wives, they leaving him no issue to inherit, probably contributed to this benefaction. Such donations have been frequently thought to proceed more from vanity and ostentation than real charity; but this of Mr. Alleyn has been ascribed to a very singular cause. Mr. Aubrey mentions a tradition, that Mr. Alleyn, playing a daemon with six others, in one of Shakspeare’s plays, was, in the midst of the play, surprised by an apparition of the devil, which so worked on his fancy, that he made a vow, which he performed by building Dulwich college. Whatever may be in this story, he began the foundation of this college, under the direction of Inigo Jones, in 1614; and the buildings, gardens, &c. were finished in 1617, in which he is said to have expended about 10,Ooo/. After the college was built, he met with some difficulty in obtaining a charter for settling his lands in mortmain; for he proposed to endow it with 800l. per annum, for the maintenance of one master, one warden, and four fellows, three whereof were to be clergymen, and the fourth a skilful organist; also six poor men, and as many women, besides twelve poor boys, to be educated till the age of fourteen or sixteen, and then put out to some trade or calling. The obstruction he met with arose from the lord chancellor Bacon, who wished king James to settle part of those lands for the support of two academical lectures; and he wrote a letter to the marquis of Buckingham, dated Aug. Is, 1618, entreating him to use his interest with his majesty for that purpose . Mr. Alleyn’s solicitation was, however, at last complied with, and he obtained the royal licence, giving him full power to lay his foundation, by his majesty’s letters patent, bearing date the 2 1st of June, 1619; by virtue whereof he did, in the chapel of the said new hospital at Dulwich, called “The College of God’s Gift,” on the 13th of September following, publicly read, and published, a quadripartite writing in parchment, whereby he created and established the said college; he then subscribed it with his name, and fixed his seal to several parts thereof, in presence of several honourable persons, and ordered copies of the writings to four different parishes. Those honourable persons were Francis lord Verulam lord chancellor; Thomas earl of Arundel, earl marshal of England; sir Edward Cecil, second son to the earl of Exeter; sir John Howard, high sheriff of Sussex and Surrey; sir Edward Bowyer, of Camberwell; sir Thomas Grymes of Peckham; sir John Bodley, of Stretham; sir John Tonstal, of L'arshalton; and divers other persons of great worth and respect. The parishes in which the said writings were deposited, were St. Botolph’s without Bishopsgate, St. Giles’s without Cripplegate, St. Saviour’s in Southwark, and the parish of Camberwell in Surrey. The contents or heads of the said statutes, or quadripartite writings, containing the laws and rules of this foundation, are as follow: 1. A recital of king James’s letters patent. 2. Recital of the founder’s deed quadripartite. 3. Ordination of the master, warden, &c. 4. Ordination of the assistant members, &c. 5. The master and warden to be unmarried, and always to be of the name of Alleyn or Allen. 6. The master and warden to be twenty-one years of age at least. 7. Of what degree the fellows to be. 8. Of what degree the poor brothers and sisters to be. 9. Of what condition the poor scholars are to be. 10. Of what parishes the assistants are to be. 11. From what parishes the poor are to be chosen, and the members of this college. 12. The form of their election. 13. The warden to supply when the master’s place is void. 14. The election of the warden. 15. The warden to be bound by recognizance. 16. The warden to provide a dinner for the college upon his election. 17. The form of admitting the fellows. 18. The manner of electing the scholars. 19. Election of the poor of Camberwell. 20. The master and warden’s oath. 21. The fellow’s oath. 22. The poor brother’s and sister’s oath. 23. The assistant’s oath. 24. The pronunciation of admission. 25. The master’s office. 26. The warden’s office. 27. The fellow’s office. 23. The poor brother’s and sister’s office. 29. Thac of the matron of the poor scholars. 30. The porter’s office. 31. The office of the thirty members. 32. Of residence. 33. Orders of the poor and their goods. 34. Of obedience. 35. Orders for the chapel and burial. 36. Orders for the school and scholars, and putting them forth apprentices. 37. Order of diet. 38. The scholars’ surplices and coats. 39. Time for viewing expences. 40. Public audit and private sitting days. 41. Audit and sitting chamber. 42. Of lodgings. 43. Orders for the lands and woods. 44. Allowance to the master and warden of diet for one man a piece, with the number and wages of the college servants. 45. Disposition and division of the revenues. 46. Disposition of the rent of the Blue-house. 47. The poor to be admitted out of other places, in case of deficiency in the parishes prescribed. 48. The disposition of forfeitures. 49. The statutes to be read over four several times in the year. 50. The dispositions of certain tenements in St. Saviour’s parish, Southwark.

, a bookseller, author, and editor, was born at Liverpool, about the year 1738, and was educated at Warrington. About 1748 he was put apprentice to a bookseller at Liverpool, but in 1756 he went to sea, as a common seaman. In 1758 or 1759, he returned to England, and came to London, where, it is said, he soon became known to several wits of the day, as Dr. Goldsmith, Churchill, Lloyd, and Wilkes. His turn, however, was for political writing; and in 1759 he published “The conduct of a late noble commander (lord George Sackville) examined.” This was followed by a compilation, in sixpenny numbers, of “A Military Dictionary,” or an account of the most remarkable battles and sieges from the reign of Charlemagne to the year 1760. Soon after, he wrote various political letters in the Gazetteer newspaper, which he collected and published under the title of “A collection of interesting letters from the public papers.” About the same time he published “A Review of his Majesty (George II.'s) reign” and when Mr. Pitt resigned in 1761, he wrote “A Review of his Administration.” His other publications were, “A Letter to the right hon. George Grenville;” “An history of the Parliament of Great Britain, from the death of queen Anne to the death of George II.;” “An impartial history of the late War from 1749 to 1763;” “A Review of lord Bute’s administration.” When Wilkes’s infamous essay on woman was brought to light, Mr. Almon wrote an answer to Kidgell, the informer’s, narrative. In 1763, he commenced bookseller in Piccadilly, and published “A Letter concerning libels, warrants, and seizure of papers, &c.;” “A history of the Minority during the years 1762 1765;” “The Political Register,” a periodical work, and the general receptacle of all the scurrility of the writers in opposition to government; “The New Foundling Hospital for Wit,” a collection of fugitive pieces, in prose and verse, mostly of the party kind: “An Asylum,” a publication of a similar sort; “Collection of all the Treaties of Peace, Alliance, and Commerce, between Great Britain and other powers, from the revolution in 1688 to the present time;” “The Parliamentary Register,” an account of the debates in parliament; “The Remembrancer,” another monthly collection of papers in favour of the American cause; “A collection of the Protests of the House of Lords;” “Letter to the earl of Bute,” 1772; “Free Parliaments, or a vindication of the parliamentary constitution of England, in answer to certain visionary plans of modern reformers;” “A parallel between the siege of Berwick and the siege of Aquilea,” in ridicule of Home’s tragedy, the Siege of Aquilea; “A Letter to the right hon. Charles Jenkinson,” 1782. These were mostly, if not all, anonymous, and they are enumerated here for the information of those who form collections of political pamphlets.

The works which he more publicly avowed are, “Anecdotes of the Life of the Earl of Chatham,” 2 vols. 4to, and 3 vols. 8vo; “Biographical, Literary, and Political Anecdotes of several of the most eminent persons of the present age, never before printed,” 3 vols. 8vo, 1797. Both contain many curious particulars of the political characters and contests of his day, picked up from the various members of parliament who frequented his shop, and confided in him. His last publication was a collection of Mr. Wilkes’s pamphlets and letters, with a life, in which he praises that gentleman in the most extravagant manner, while he relates facts concerning his character that elsewhere might have been accounted defamation. In all his political career he was attached to the party which supported Wilkes, and opposed the measures of government in the early part of the present reign. At that time it was not surprising that many of his pamphlets were popular, or that he should be able to boast of an intimacy with men of rank in the political world. He had the hardihood to publish writings which booksellers of established reputation would have rejected, and he ran little risk, as the expence of printing was defrayed by his employers, while he had the profits of the sale. Even of those which, upon his own authority, we have given as his productions, it is highly probable he was rather the editor than the author. In those wbich more recently appeared under his name, there is very little of the ability, either argumentative or narrative, which could give consequence to a political effusion. About the year 1782, he retired from business as a bookseller; but in a tew years he married the widow of Mr. Parker, printer of a newspaper called the General Advertiser, of which he then was proprietor and editor: the speculation however injured his fortune, and he became a prisoner in the king’s bench fora libel, and was afterwards an outlaw. Extricated at length from his difficulties, he retired again into Hertfordshire, where he died December 12, 1806, leaving his widow in great distress.

, a noted presbyterian teacher in the times of the usurpation, was son of a clergyman, and descended from the Ambroses of Ambrose-hall, in Lancashire. In the beginning of the year 1621 he was admitted of Brazen-nose college in Oxford, where he took the degree of bachelor of arts. Afterwards he went into holy orders, and officiated in some little cure in his own county. Being in very low circumstances, he was often obliged to the bounty of William earl of Bedford for the relief of himself and family. Mr. Wood thinks that lord procured him to be inserted in the list of his majesty’s preachers, appointed for the county of Lancaster. Afterwards, when the times changed, in 1641, he left the church of England, and went over to the presbyterian party, took the covenant, and became a preacher at Preston, and afterwards at Garstang, in his own county. He was very zealous and very active against the clergy of the established church, especially after he was appointed assistant to the commissioners for ejecting such whom they called scandalous and ignorant ministers and school-masters. In 1&62 he was ejected for nonconformity. It was usual with him to retire every year for a month, into a little hut in a wood, when he shunned all society, and devoted himself to religious contemplation. He had, according to Calamy, a very strong impulse on, his mind of the approach of death: and took a formal leave of his friends at their own houses, a little before his departure, and the last night of his life, he sent his “Discourse concerning Angels,” to the press. Next day he shut himself up in his parlour, where, to the surprise and regret of his friends, he was found expiring. The time of his death is stated to have been in 1663-4, in the seventysecond year of his age, but at the bottom of the portrait prefixed to his works, is the inscription “aetat.5.9. 1663.” This contradiction has not been reconciled by Granger. His works were printed in a large folio volume, in 1674, 1682, and 1689, and often since. They consist of pious tracts on various subjects, and have ever been popular.

Notwithstanding this show of firmness, and his other services, Mr. Amhurst was totally neglected by his coadjutors in the Craftsman, when they made their terms with the crown; and he died soon after, of a fever, at Twickenham. His death happened April 27, 1742; and his disorder was probably occasioned, in a great measure, by the ill usage he had received. Mr. Ralph, in his “Case of Authors,” speaks with much indignation upon the subject. “Poor Amhurst, after having been the drudge of his party for the best part of twenty years together, was as much forgotten in the famous compromise of 1742, as if he had never been born! and when he died of what is called a broken heart, which happened a few months afterwards, became indebted to the charity of a bookseller for a grave; not to be traced now, because then no otherwise to be distinguished, than by the freshness of the turf, borrowed from the next common to cover it.” Mr. T. Davies the bookseller, in his character of Mr. Pulteney, expresses himself concerning the treatment of Mr. Amhurst in the following terms: “But if the earl of Bath had his list of pensioners, how comes it that Arnhurst was forgotten? The fate of this poor man is singular: He was the able associate of Bolingbroke and Pulteney, in writing the celebrated weekly paper called ‘ The Craftsman.’ His abilities were unquestionable: he had almost as much wit, learning, and various knowledge, as his two partners: and when those great masters chose not to appear in public themselves, he supplied their places so well, that his essays were often ascribed to them. Am-, hurst survived the downfall of Walpole’s power, and had reason to expect a reward for his labours. If we excuse Bolingbroke, who had only saved the shipwreck of his fortunes, we shall be at a loss to justify Pulteney, who could with ease have given this man a considerable income. The utmost of his generosity to Amhurst, that I ever heard of, was a hogshead of claret! He died, it is supposed, of a broken heart, and was buried at the charge of his honest printer, Richard Francklin.” Mr. Amhurst was, however, one of those imprudent and extravagant men, whose irregularities, in spite of their talents, bring them at length into general disesteem and neglect; although this does not excuse the conduct cf his employers. His want of purity in morals was no objection to their connection with him, when he could serve their purpose. And they might have easily provided for him, and placed him above necessity during the remainder of his days. The ingratitude of statesmen to the persons whom they make use of as the instruments of their ambition, should furnish an instruction to men of abilities in future times; and engage them to build their happiness on the foundation of their own personal integrity, discretion, and virtue.

Counsellor Amory, the grandfather of the doctor, and father of our author, was the youngest brother of Amory, or Darner, the miser, whom Pope calls the wealthy and the wise; from whom came lord Milton, &c. He married the daughter of Fitz Maurice, earl of Kerry; sir William Petty, another daughter; and the grandfather of the duke of Leinster, a third. He died at the age of 97, in 1789.

In the proceedings against those who endeavoured to set up the Geneva discipline, Anderson shewed much zeal: but in the case of Udal, a puritan minister, who was confined in 1589, and tried and condemned the year following, we find him unjustly censured by Mr. Pierce in his “Indication of the Dissenters,” and yet more unjustly by Neal, in his History of the Puritans, who asserts that Anderson tried and condemned Udal, which is a direct falsehood. Still it cannot be denied that he was severe in suoh cases, although from his conduct in other matters, it is evident that he acted conscientiously. In 1596 we have an account of his going the northern circuit, where he behaved with the same rigour; declaring in his charges, that such persons as opposed the established church, opposed her majesty’s authority, and were in that light enemies to the state and disturbers of the public peace, and he directed the grand juries to inquire, that they might be punished. He was indeed a very strict lawyer, who governed himself entirely by statutes: this he shewed on many occasions, particularly at the trial of Henry Cuffe, secretary to the earl of Essex, where the attorney-general charging the prisoner syllogistically, and Cuffe answering him in the same style, lord chief justice Anderson said, “I sit here to judge of law, and not of logic:” and directed Mr. attorney to press the statute of Edward III. on which Mr. Cuffe was indicted. He was reputed severe, and strict in the observation of what was taught in courts, and laid down as law by reports; but this is another unfounded report to his discredit, for we have his express declaration to the contrary, and that he neither expected precedents in all cases, nor would be bound by them where he saw they were not founded upon justice, but would act as if there were no such precedents. Of this we have a proof from the reports in his time, published by Mr. Goldesborough: “The case of Resceit was moved again; and Shuttleworth said, that he cannot be received, because he is named in the writ; and added, that he had searched all the books, and there is not one case where he who is named in the writ may be received. What of that? said Anderson; shall we not give judgment, because it is not adjudged in the books before? we, will give judgment according to reason; and if there be no reason in the books, I will not regard them.” His steadiness was so great, that he would not be driven from what he thought right, by any authority whatever. This appeared in the case of davendish, a creature of the earl of Leicester; who had procured, by his interest, the queen’s letters patent for making out writs of supersedeas upon exigents in the court of common pleas, aiyd a message was sent to the judges to admit him to that office: with which, as they conceived the queen had no right to grant any such patent, they did not comply. Upon this, Mr. Cavendish, by the assistance of his patron, obtained a letter from the queen to quicken them, but which did not produce what was ex pected from it. The courtier again pursued his point, and obtained another letter under the queen’s signet and sign manual; which letter was delivered in presence of the lord chancellor and the earl of Leicester, in the beginning of Easter term. The judges desired time to consider it, and then answered, that they could not comply with the letter, because it was inconsistent with their duty and their oaths of office. The queen upon this appointed the chancellor, the lord chief justice of the queen’s bench, and the master of the rolls, to hear this matter; and the queen’s serjeant having set forth her prerogative, it was shewn by the judges, that they could not grant offices by virtue of the queen’s letters, where it did not appear to them that she had a power to grant; that as the judges were bound by their oaths of office, so her majesty was restrained by her coronation-oath from such arbitrary interpositions: and with this her majesty was satisfied. He concurred also with his brethren in remonstrating boldly against several acts of power practised in Elizabeth’s reign. On the accession of king James he was continued in his office, and held it to the time of his death, which happened August 1, 1605. He was interred at Eyworth in Bedfordshire. The printed works of this great lawyer, besides his “Readings,” which are still in manuscript, are, 1. “Reports of many principal Cases argued and adjudged in the time of queen Elizabeth, in the Common Bench,” London, 1664, folio. 2. “Resolutions a-nd Judgements on, the Cases and Matters agitated in all the courts of Westminster, in the latter end of the reign of queen Elizabeth,” published by John Goldesborough, esq. prothonotary of the common pleas, London, 1653, 4to.

Chief justice Anderson married Magdalen, daughter of Nicholas Smith of Aunables in Hertfordshire, by whom he had three sons, Edward, Francis, William, and six daughters, two of which died young. Of those that survived, Elizabeth married Sir Hatton Farmer, knt. ancestor to the earl of Pontefract; Griselda espoused sir John Shefeld, knt. from whom descended the late duke of Buckinghamshire. Catherine became the wife of sir George Booth, bart. ancestor to the earls of Warrington; and Margaret, by sir Thomas Monson, bart. established the family of the lords Monson. As for the sons, Edward the eldest died without issue. Francis the second son was knighted by queen Elizabeth, and his youngest son by his second wife, sir John Anderson, of St. Ives, in the county of Huntingdon, was created baronet in 1628. William, the chief justice’s youngest son, left one son Edmond, who was created baronet by king Charles H. and his family still flourishes at Kilnwick Piercy, in the east-riding of Yorkshire. Stephen Anderson, esq. eldest son and heir of Stephen Anderson, esq. son and heir of sir Francis Anderson before mentioned, was likewise raised to the dignity of a baronet, in the sixteenth of Charles II. and his honour was lately possessed by his direct descendant, sir Stephen Anderson, of Broughton in Lincolnshire, and Eyworth in Bedfordshire, but the title is now extinct.

, an eminent divine, and bishop of Winchester in the reigns of James I. and Charles I. was born at London, in 1555, in the parish of Allhallows Barking, being descended from the ancient family of the Andrews in Suffolk. He had his education in grammarlearning, first in the Coopers’ free-school at Ratcliff under Mr. Ward, and afterwards in Merchant Taylors’ school at London, under Mr. Muleaster. Here he made such a proficiency in the learned languages, that Dr. Watts, residentiary of St. Paul’s, and archdeacon of Middlesex, who about that time had founded some scholarships at Pembroke hall in Cambridge, sent him to that college, and bestowed on him the first of those exhibitions. After he had been three years in the university, his custom was to come up to London once a year, about Easter, to visit his father and mother, with whom he usually stayed a month; during which time, with the assistance of a master, he applied himself to the attaining some language or art, to which he was before a stranger: and by this means, in a few years, he had laid the foundation of all the arts and sciences, and acquired a competent skill in most of the modern languages. Having taken the degree of bachelor of arts, he was, upon a vacancy, chosen fellow of his college, in preference upon trial to Mr. Dove, afterwards bishop of Peterborough. In the mean time Hugh Price, having founded Jesus college in Oxford, and hearing much of the fame of young Mr. Andrews, appointed him one of his, first, orhonorary fellows on that foundation. Having taken the degree of master of arts, he applied himself to the study of divinity, in the knowledge of which he so greatly excelled, that being chosen catechist in the college, and having undertaken to read a lecture on the Ten Commandments every Saturday and Sunday at three o'clock in the afternoon, great numbers out of the other colleges of the university, and even out of the country, duly resorted to Pembroke chapel, as to a divinity lecture. At the same time, he was esteemed so profound a casuist, that he was often consulted in the nicest and most difficult cases of conscience; and his reputation being established, Henry, earl of Huntington, prevailed upon him to accompany him into the North, of which he was president; where, by his diligent preaching, and private conferences, in which he used a due mixture of zeal and moderation, he converted several recusants, priests, as well as others, to the protestant religion. From that time he began to be taken notice of by sir Francis Walsingham, secretary of state to queen Elizabeth. That minister, who was unwilling so fine a genius should be buried in the obscurity of a country benefice, his intent being to make him reader of controversies in the university of Cambridge, assigned him for his maintenance the lease of the parsonage of Alton in Hampshire, and afterwards procured for him the vicarage of St. Giles’s, Cripplegate, in London. Afterwards he was chosen a prebendary and residentiary of St. Paul’s, as also prebendary of the collegiate church of Southwell. Being thus preferred to his own contentment, he distinguished himself as a diligent and excellent preacher, and read divinity lectures three times a week at St. Paul’s, in term time. Upon the death of Dr. Fulke, he was chosen master of Pembrokehall, of which he had been scholar and fellow, a place of more honour than profit, as he spent more upon it than he received from it, and was a considerable benefactor to that college. He was appointed one of the chaplains in ordinary to queen Elizabeth, who took such delight in his preaching, that she first made him a prebendary of Westminster, in the room of Dr. Richard Bancroft promoted to the see of London; and afterwards dean of that church, in the room of Dr. Gabriel Goodman deceased. But he refused to accept of any bishopric in this reign, because he would not basely submit to an alienation of the episcopal revenue . Dr. Andrews soon grew into far greater esteem with her successor king James I. who not only gave him the preference to all other divines as a preacher, but likewise made choice of him to vindicate his sovereignty against the virulent pens of his enemies. His majesty having, in his “Defence of the rights of Kings,” asserted the authority of Christian princes over causes and persons ecclesiastical, cardinal Bellarmin, under the name of Matthew Tortus, attacked him with great vehemence. The king requested bishop Andrews to answer the cardinal, which he did with great spirit and judgment, in a piece entitled “Tortura Torti: sive, ad Matthaei Torti librutn responsio, qui nuper editus contra Apologiam serenissimi potentissimique principis Jacobi, Dei gratia Magnae Britannias, Franciae, & Hiberniae Regis, pro juramento fidelitatis.” It was printed at London by Roger Barker, the king’s printer, in 1609, in quarto, containing 402 pages, and dedicated to the king. The substance of what the bishop advances in this treatise, with great strength of reason and evidence, is, that kings have power both to call synods and confirm them; and to do all other things, which the emperors heretofore diligently performed, and which the bishops of those times willingly acknowledged of rio-ht to belong to them. Casaubon gives this work the character of being written with great accuracy and research. That king next promoted him to the bishopric of Chichester, to which he was consecrated, November 3, 1605. At the same time he made him his lord almoner, in which place of great trust he behaved with singular fidelity, disposing of the royal benevolence in the most disinterested manner, and not availing himself even of those advantages that he might legally and fairly have taken. Upon the vacancy of the bishopric of Ely, he was advanced to that see, and consecrated September 22, 1609. He was also nominated one of his majesty’s privy counsellors of England; and afterwards of Scotland, when he attended the king in his journey to that kingdom. After he had sat nine years in that see, he wus advanced to the bishopric of Winchester, and deanery of the king’s chapel, February 18, 1618; which two last preferments he held till his death. This great prelate was in no less reputation and esteem with king Charles I. than he had been with his predecessors. At length he departed this life, at Winchester-house in Southwark, September 25, 1626, in the seventy-first year of his age; and was buried in the parish church of St. Saviour’s, Southwark; where his executors erected to him a very fair monument of marble and alabaster, on which is an elegant Latin inscription, written by one of his chaplains .

, dean of Edinburgh in Scotland, the son of William Annand, minister of Air, in Airshire, was born in that town in 1633. Five years after, his father was obliged to quit Scotland with his family, on account of their loyalty to the king, and adherence to the episcopal government established by law in that country. In 1651, young Annand was admitted a scholar in University -college, Oxford; and though he was put under the care of a Presbyterian tutor, yet he took all occasions to be present at the sermons preached by the loyal divines in and near Oxford. In 1656, being then bachelor of arts, he received holy orders from the hands of Dr. Thomas Fulwar, bishop of Ardfert, or Kerry in Ireland; and was appointed preacher at Weston on the Green, near Bicester, in Oxfordshire; where he met with great encouragement from sir Francis Norris, lord of that manor. After he had taken his degree of M. A. he was presented to the vicarage of Leighton-Buzzard, in Bedfordshire; where he distinguished himself by his edifying manner of preaching, till 1662, when he went into Scotland, as chaplain to John earl of Middleton, the king’s high commissioner to the church of that kingdom. In the latter end of 1663, he was instituted to the Tolbooth church, at Edinburgh; and from thence was removed some years after to the Trone church of that city, which was likewise a prebend. In April 1676, he was nominated by the king to the deanery of Edinburgh; and in 1685 he commenced D. D. in the university of St. Andrews. He died June 13, 1689, and was honourably interred in the Grey-friars church at Edinburgh. As his life was pious and devout, so his sickness and death afforded great consolation to those who attended him in his last moments.

, earl of Anglesey, and lord privy seal in the reign of Charles II. was born July 10, 1614, at Dublin, and continued in Ireland till he was ten years old, when he was sent to England. At sixteen he was entered fellow commoner at Magdalen college, Oxford, where he pursued his studies about three or four years. In 1634 he removed to Lincoln’s Inn, where he studied the law with great assiduity till his father sent him to travel. He made the tour of Europe, and continued some time at Rome, whence he returned to England in 1640, and was elected knight of the shire for the county of Radnor, in the parliament which sat at Westminster in November of the same year but the election being contested, he lost his seat by a vote of the house, that Charles Price, esq. was duly elected. In the beginning of the civil war, Mr. Annesley inclined to the royal cause, and sat in the parliament held at Oxford in 1643; but afterwards reconciled himself so effectually to the parliament, that he was taken into their confidence, and appointed to go as a commissioner to Ulster in 1645. There he managed affairs with so much dexterity and judgment, that the famous Owen Roe O'Neil was disappointed in his designs; and the popish archbishop of Tuam, who was the great support of his party, and whose counsels had been hitherto very successful, was not only taken prisoner, but his papers were seized, and his foreign correspondence discovered, wheieby vast advantages accrued to the protestant interest. The parliament had sent commissioners to the duke of Ormcnd, for the delivery of Dublin, but without success; and the state of affairs making it necessary to renew their correspondence with him, they made choice of a second committee, nd Mr. Annesley was placed at the head of this commission. The commissioners landed at Dublin the 7th of June 1647; and they proved so successful in their negotiations, that in a few days a treaty was concluded with the lord lieutenant, which was signed on the 19th of that inonth, and Dublin was put into the hands of the parliament. When the commissioners had got supreme power, they were guilty of many irregularities: Mr. Annesley disapproved of their conduct, but could not hinder them from doing many things contrary to his judgment: being therefore displeased with his situation, he returned speeuily to England, where he found all things in confusion. After the death of Cromwell, Mr. Annesley, though he doubted whether the parliament was not dissolved by the death of the king, resolved to get into the house if possible; and he behaved in many respects in such a manner as shewed what his real sentiments were, and how much he had the resettling of the constitution at heart. In the confusion which followed he had little or no share, being trusted neither by the parliament nor army. But when things began to take a different turn, by restoring the secluded members to their seats, Feb. 21, 1660, Mr. Annesley was chosen president of the council of state, having at that time opened a correspondence with Charles II. then in exile.

Soon after the restoration, Mr. Annesley was created earl of Anglesey; in the preamble of the patent notice is taken of the signal services rendered by him in the king’s restoration. He had always a considerable share in the king’s favour, and was heard with great attention both at council and in the house of lords. In 1667 he was made treasurer of the navy; and on the 4th of February 1672, his majesty in council was pleased to appoint the duke of Buckingham, the earl of Anglesey, the lord Holies, the lord Ashley Cooper, and Mr. secretary Trevor, to be a committee to peruse and revise all the papers and writings concerning the settlement of Ireland, from the first to the last; and to make an abstract thereof in writing. Accordingly, on the 12th of June 1672, they made their report at large, which was the foundation of a commission, dated the 1st of August 1672, to prince Rupert, the dukes of Buckingham and Lauderdale, earl of Anglesey, lords Ashley and Holies, sir John Trevor, and sir Thomas, Chicheley, to inspect the, settlements of Ireland, and all proceedings thereunto. In 1673, the earl of Anglesey had the office of lord privy seal conferred upon him. In October 1680, his lordship was charged by one Dangerfield in an information delivered upon oath, at the bar of the house of commons, with endeavouring to stifle evidence concerning the popish plot, and to promote the belief of a presbyterian one. The uneasiness he received from tiiis attack, did not hinder him from speaking his opinion freely of those matters in the house of lords, particularly in regard to the Irish plot. In 1680, the earl of Castlehaven wrote Memoirs concerning the affairs of Ireland, wherein he was at some pains to represent the general rebellion in livland in the lightest colours possible, as if it had been at first far from being universal, and at last rendered so by the measures pursued by such as ought to have suppressed the insurrection. The earl of Anglesey having received these memoirs from their author, thought fit to write some animadversions upon them, in a letter to the earl of Castlehaven, wherein he delivered his opinion, freely in respect to the duke of Ormond and his management in Ireland. The duke expostulated with the lord privy seal on the subject, by letter, to which the earl replied. In 1682, the earl drew up a very particular remonstrance, and presented it to king Charles II. It was very warm and loyal, yet it was far from being well received. This memorial was entitled, The account of Arthur earl of Anglesey, lord privy seal to your most excellent majesty, of the true state of your majesty’s government and kingdoms, April 27, 1682. In one part whereof he says, “the fatal cause of all our mischiefs, present or apprehended, and which may raise a fire, which may burn and consume xis to the very foundations, is the unhappy perversion of the duke of York (the next heir to the crown) in one point of religion; which naturally raises jealousy of the power, designs, and practices, of the old enemies of our religion and liberties, and undermines and emasculates the courage and constancy even of those and their posterity, who have been as faithful to, and suffered as much for the crown, as any the most pleased or contented in our impending miseries can pretend to have done.” He concludes with these words: “Though your majesty is in your own person, above the reach of the law, and sovereign of all your people, yet the law is your master and instructor how to govern; and that your subjects assure themselves you will never attempt the enervating that law by which you are king, and which you have not only by frequent declarations, but by a solemn oath upon your throne, been obliged, in a most glorious presence of your people, to the maintenance of; and that therefore you will look upon any that shall propose or advise to the contrary, as unfit persons to be near you; and on those who shall persuade you it is lawful, as sordid flatterers, and the worst and most dangerous enemies you and your kingdoms have. What I set before your majesty, I have written freely, and like a sworn faithful counsellor; perhaps not like a wise man, with regard to myself, as they stand: but I have discharged my duty, and will account it a reward, if your majesty vouchsafe to read what I durst not but write, and which I beseech God to give a blessing to.”

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

valuable of all his works was lost, or, as some say, destroyed. This was “A History of the Troubles in Ireland from 1641 to 1660.” He was one of the first English peers who distinguished himself by collecting a fine library, which he did with great care, and at a large expence. But after his decease, all his books were exposed to sale. At this sale the discovery was made of the earl’s famous memorandum, in the blank leaf of an Ejkwv Bawtfuxn; according to which, it was not Charles I. but bishop Gauden, who was author of this performance. This produced a long controversy, which will be noticed in the life of that prelate.

The earl of Anglesey has been very variously characterised; Anthony Wood represents him as an artful time-server; by principle, a Calvinist; by policy, a favourer of the Papists. Burnet paints him as a tedious and ungraceful orator, and as a grave, abandoned, and corrupt man, whom no party would trust. Our account is taken from the Biog. Bntannica, which steers an impartial course. Lord Orford, in his “Noble Authors,” is disposed to unite the severities of Wood and Burnet, but what he asserts is rather flippant than convincing.

His lordship published in his life-time the following pieces: 1. “Truth unveiled, in behalf of the Church of England; being a vindication of Mr. John Standish’s sermon, preached before the king, and published by his majesty’s command,” 1676, 4to. To which is added, “A short treatise on the subject of Transubstantiation.” 2. “A letter from a person of honour in the country, written to the earl of Castlehaven; being observations and reflections on his lordship’s memoirs concerning the Wars of Ireland,” 1681, 8vo. 3. “A true account of the whole proceedings between James duke of Ormond, and Arthur earl of Anglesey, before the king and his council, &c.” 1682, fol. 4. “A letter of remarks upon Jovian,” 1683, 4to. Besides these, he wrote many other things, some of which were published after his decease; as 5. “The Privileges of the House of Lords and Commons, argued and stated in two conferences between both houses, April 19 and 22, 1671. To which is added, A discourse, wherein the Rights of the House of Lords are truly asserted; with learned remarks on the seeming arguments and pretended precedents offered at that time again&t their lordships.” 6. “The King’s right of Indulgence in Spiritual matters, with the equity thereof, asserted,” 1688, 4to. 7. “Memoirs, intermixt with moral, political, and historical Observations, by way of discourse, in a letter to sir Peter Pett,” 1693, 8vo.

, a very eminent nonconformist minister, was the son of John Aneley, of Hareley, in Warwickshire, where his family were possessed of a good estate, and was born about the year 1620. In 1635 he was admitted a student in Queen’s college, Oxford, where he took his bachelor’s and master’s degrees. At the university he was distinguished by extreme temperance and industry. His inclination leading him to the church, he received holy orders, but it is uncertain whether from the hands of a bishop, or according to the Presbyterian way; Wood inclines to the former, and Calamy to the latter. In 1644, however, he became chaplain to the earl of Warwick, then admiral of the parliament’s fleet, and afterwards succeeded to a church at Clift'e, in Kent, by the ejectment, for loyalty, of Dr. Griffith Higges, who was much beloved by his parishioners. On July 26, 1648, he preached the fast sermon before the house of commons, which, as usual, was ordered to be printed. About this time, also, he was honoured with the title of LL. D. by the university of Oxford, or rather by the peremptory command of Philip earl of Pembroke, chancellor of the university, who acted there with boundless authority. The same year, he went to sea with the earl of Warwick, who was employed in giving chase to that part of the English navy which went over to the then prince, afterwards king Charles II. Some time after this, he resigned his Kentish living, although he had now become popular there, in consequence of a promise he made to his parishioners to “resign it when he had fitted them for the reception of a better minister.” In 1657, he was nominated by Cromwell, lecturer at St. Paul’s; and in 1658 was presented by Richard, the protector, to the vicarage of St. Giles’s, Cripplegate. But this presentation becoming soon useless, he, in 1660, procured another from the trustees for the approbation and admission of ministers of the gospel, after the Presbyterian manner. His second presentation growing out of date as the first, he obtained, in the same year, a third, of a more legal stamp, from Charles II.; but in 1662, he was ejected for nonconformity. He was offered considerable preferment, if he would conform, but refused it, and continued to preach privately during that and the following reign. He died in 1696, with a high reputation for piety, charity, and popular talents. His works, which are enumerated by Calamy, consist of occasional sermons, and some funeral sermons, with biographical memoirs. He was the principal support, if not the institutor, of the morning lecture, or course of sermons preached at seven o'clock in the morning, at various churches, during the usurpation, and afterwards at meeting-houses, by the most learned and able nonconformists. Of these several volumes have been printed, and of late years have risen very much in price. Collectors inform us that a complete set should consist of six volumes.

, archbishop of Canterbury in the reigns of William Rufus and Henry I was an Italian by birth, and born in 1033 at Aost, or Augusta, a town at the foot of the Alps, belonging to the duke of Savoy. He was descended of a considerable family: his father’s name was Gundulphus, and his mother’s Hemeberga. From early life his religious cast of mind was so prevalent, that, at the age of fifteen, he offered himself to a monastery, but was refused, lest his father should have been displeased. After, however, he had gone through a course of study, and travelled for some time in France and Burgundy, he took the monastic habit in the abbey of Bee in Normandy, of which Lanfranc, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, was then prior. This was in 1060, when he was twenty-seven years old. Three years after, when Lanfranc was made abbot of Caen, Anselm succeeded him in the priory of Bee, and on the death of the abbot, was raised to that office. About the year 1092, Anselm came over into England, by the inritation of Hugh, earl of Chester, who requested his assistance in his sickness. Soon after his arrival, William Rufus, falling sick at Gloucester, was much pressed to fill up the see of Canterbury. The king, it seems, at that time, was much influenced by one Kanulph, a clergyman, who, though a Norman and of mean extraction, had a great share in the king’s favour, and at last rose to the post of prime minister. This man, having gained the king’s ear by flattering his vices, misled him in the administration, and put him upon several arbitrary and oppressive expedients. Among others, one was, to seize the revenues of a church, upon the death of a bishop or abbot; allowing the dean and chapter, or convent, but a slender pension for maintenance. But the king now falling sick, began to be touched with remorse of conscience, and among other oppressions, was particularly afflicted for the injury he had done the church and kingdom in keeping the see of Canterbury, and some others, vacant. The bishops and other great men therefore took this opportunity to entreat the king to fill up the vacant sees; and Anselm, who then lived in the neighbourhood of Gloucester, being sent for to court, to assist the king in his illness, was considered by the king as a proper person, and accordingly nominated to the see of Canterbury, which had been four years vacant, and was formerly filled by his old friend and preceptor Lanfranc. Anselm was with much difficulty prevailed upon to accept this dignity, and evidently foresaw the difficulties of executing his duties conscientiously under such a sovereign as William Rufus. Before his consecration, however, he gained a promise from the king for the restitution of all the lands which were in the possession of that see in Lanfranc’s time. And thus having secured the temporalities of the archbishopric, and done homage to the king, he was consecrated with great solemnity on the 4th of December, 1093. Soon after his consecration, the king intending to wrest the duchy of Normandy from his brother Robert, and endeavouring to raise what money he could for that purpose, Anselm made him an offer of five hundred pounds; which the king thinking too little, refused to accept, and the archbishop thereby fell under the king’s displeasure. About that time, he had a dispute with the bishop of London, touching the right of consecrating churches in a foreign diocese. The next year, the king being ready to embark for Normandy, Anseim waited upon him, and desired his leave to convene a national synod, in which the disorders of the church and state, and the general dissolution of manners, might be remedied: but the king refused his request, and even treated him so roughly, that the archbishop and his retinue withdrew from the court, the licentious manners of which, Anselm, who was a man of inflexible piety, had censured with great freedom. Another cause of discontent between him and the archbishop, was Anselm’s desiring leave to go to Rome, to receive the pall from pope Urban II. whom the king of England did not acknowledge as pope, being more inclined to favour the party of his competitor Guibert. To put an end to this misunderstanding, a council, or convention, was held at Rockingham castle, March 11, 1095. In this assembly, Anselm, opening his cause, told them with what reluctancy he had accepted the archbishopric; that he had made an express reserve of his obedience to pope Urban; and that he was now brought under difficulties upon that score. He therefore desired their advice how to act in such a manner, as neither to fail in his allegiance to the king, nor in his duty to the holy see. The bishops were of opinion, that he ought to resign himself wholly to the king’s pleasure. They told him, there was a general complaint against him, for intrenching upon the king’s prerogative; and that it would be prudence in him to wave his regard for Urban; that bishop (for they would not call him pope) being in no condition to do him either good or harm. To this Anselm returned, that he was engaged to be no farther the king’s subject than the laws of Christianity would give him leave; that as he was willing “to render unto Cassar the things that were Caesar’s,” so he must likewise take in the other part of the precept, and “give unto God that which was God’s.” Upon this William, bishop of Durham, a court prelate, who had inflamed the difference, and managed the argument for the king, insisted, that the nomination of the pope to the subject was the principal jewel of the crown, and that by this privilege the kings of England were distinguished from the rest of the princes of Christendom. This is sound doctrine, if that had really been the question; but, whatever may be now thought of it, Anselm held an opinion in which succeeding kings and prelates acquiesced, and in the present instance, there is reason to think that William Rufus’s objection was not to the pope, but to a pope. Be this as it may, the result of this council was that the majority of the bishops, under the influence of the court, withdrew their canonical obedience, and renounced Anselm for their archbishop, and the king would have even had them to try and depose him, but this they refused. In consequence of this proceeding, Anselm desired a passport to go to the continent, which the king refused, and would permit only of a suspension of the affair from March to Whitsuntide; but long before the expiration of the term, he broke through the agreement, banished several clergymen who were Anselm’s favourites, and miserably harrassed the tenants of his see. Whitsuntide being at length come, and the bishops having in vain endeavoured to soften Anselm into a compliance, the king consented to receive him into favour upon his own terms; and, because Anselm persisted in refusing to receive the pall from the king’s hands, it was at last agreed that the pope’s nuncio, who had brought the pall into England, should carry it clown to Canterbury, and lay it upon the altar of the cathedral, from whence Anselm was to receive it, as if it had been put into his hands by St. Peter himself.

On the 12th of July 1749, his lordship was made viceadmiral of Great Britain, an appointment that is more of a civil than a military nature; but which, nevertheless, is always given to a military man. On the 12th of June 1751, he was preferred to be first commissioner of the admiralty, in the room of the earl of Sandwich; and in the years 1752 and 1755, he was one of the lords justices of the kingdom, during his majesty’s absence. The affair of Minorca occasioned him to be much blamed by the party writers of the time, in his character of first lord of the admiralty; but when this was inquired into, the resolutions of the House of Commons acquitted him and his colleagues of any neglect of duty. On the 16th of November 1756, upon a change of administration, he resigned his office in the admiralty; but, having been in the interval made an admiral, he was again placed at the head of the board, where he continued during the remainder of his life. He came in with his old friends, the duke of Newcastle and the earl of Hardwicke, and in the most honourable manner; for he resumed his seat with the concurrence of every individual in the ministry, Mr. Pitt resuming the seals as secretary of state, and with the particular approbation of king George II. All the rest of his conduct, as first commissioner of the admiralty, was crowned with success, under the most glorious administration which this country ever saw. The last time that he commanded at sea, was in 1758, to cover the expedition against the coast of France. Being then admiral of the white, and having hoisted his flag on board the Royal George, of 100 guns, he sailed from Spithead, on the first of June, with a formidable fleet, sir Edward Hawke serving under him; and by cruizing continually before Brest, he protected the descents which were made that summer at St. Malo’s, Cherbourg, &c. The French fleet not venturing to come out, he kept his own squadron and seamen in constant exercise; a thing which he thought had been too much disregarded. On the 30th of July 1761, his lordship was raised to the dignity of admiral and commander in chief of the fleet; and in a few days he sailed from Harwich, in the Charlotte yacht, to convoy her present majesty to England, in 1762, he went to Portsmouth, to accompany the queen’s brother, prince Charles of Mecklenburgh, and to show him the arsenal, and the fleet which was then upon the point of sailing, under the command of sir George Pocock, for the Havannah. In attending the prince, however, he caught a violent cold, that was accompanied with a gouty disorder, under which he languished two or three months. This cold, at length, settled upon his lungs, andrwas the immediate occasion of his death. He died, at his seat at Moor Park, in Hertfordshire, on the 6th of June 1762, and was buried in the family vault at Colwich. His character may be justly estimated from the particulars we have given. In his official department, he acted with great judgment, and was a steady friend to merit. Of his private virtues, it is a sufficient test that he was never the object of slander or blame. It has, indeed, been asserted that he was addicted to gaming; but the author of the life we have followed in this account denies the charge, admitting only that he played for amusement. He left his fortune to his brother Thomas Anson, esq. who was member of parliament for Lichfield, a gentleman well known for his liberal patronage of, and his exquisite skill in, the fine arts. On his decease, the united fortunes of the family devolved to his nephew, by his eldest sister, George Adams, esq. who assumed the name of Anson.

, a learned heraldic writer, was of a Cornish family, seated at St. Neot’s, being son of John Anstis of that place, esq. by Mary, daughter and coheir of George Smith. He was born September 28th or 29th, 1669, admitted at Exeter College in Oxford in 1685, and three years afterwards entered of the Middle Temple. As a gentleman of good fortune, he became well known in his county, and the borough of St. Germain returned him one of their members in the first parliament called by queen Anne. Opposing what was called the Whig interest, he distinguished himself by his voting against the bill for occasional conformity: for which his name appeared amongst the “Tackers” in the prints of that time. He was appointed in 1703 deputy-general to the auditors of imprest, but he never executed this office; and in the second year of queen Anne’s reign, one of the principal commissioners of prizes. His love of, and great knowledge in the science of arms so strongly recommended him, that April 2, 1714, the queen gave him a reversionary patent for the place of Garter. Probably this passage in a ms letter to the lord treasurer, dated March 14, 1711-12, relates to his having the grant. He says, “I have a certain information it would be ended forthwith, if the lord treasurer would honour me by speaking to her majesty at this time, which, in behalf of the duke of Norfolk, I most earnestly desire, and humbly beg your lordship’s assistance therein. If it be delayed for some days, I shall then be back as far as the delivery of my petition. I am obliged to attend this morning at the exchequer, about the tin affair, and thereby prevented from waiting upon your lordship.” If it does relate to the reversionary patent, it is evident that he long wished, and with difficulty obtained it. In the last parliament of Anne he was returned a member for Dunheved, or Launceston, and he sat in the first parliament of George I. He fell under the suspicion of government, as favouring a design to restore the Stuarts, was imprisoned, and at this critical time Garter’s place became vacant, by the death of the venerable sir Henry St. George. He immediately claimed the office, but his grant was disregarded; and, October 26,1715, sir John Vanbrugh, Clarenceux, had the appointment. Unawed by power, fearless of danger, and confident in innocence, he first freed himself from all criminality in having conspired against the succession of the illustrious house of Brunswick, and then prosecuted his claim to the office of garter, pleading the right of the late queen to give him the place. It was argued, that in a contest about the right of nomination in the reign of Charles II. the sovereign gave it up, only retaining the confirmation of the earl marshal’s choice: Mr. Anstis urged, that Charles only waved his claim. The matter came to a hearing April 4, 1717, and the competitors claimed under their different grants; but the controversy did not end until April 20, 1718, when the right being acknowledged to be in Mr. Anstis, he was created Garter. He had, for some time previous to this decision in his favour, resided in the college, and by degrees gained the good opinion and favour of the government. He even obtained a patent under the great seal, giving the office of garter to him, and his son John Anstis junior, esq. and to the survivor of them: this passed June 8, 1727, only two days before the death of George I. He died at his seat, at Mortlake in Surrey, on Sunday, March 4, 1744-5, and was buried the 23d of that month, in a vault in the parish church of Dulo in Cornwall. In him, it is said, were joined the learning of Camden and the industry, without the inaccuracy, of sir William Dugdale. He was certainly a most indefatigable and able officer at arms; and though he lived to the age of seventy-six, yet there is room to wonder at the extent of his productions, especially as he was a person of great consequence, and busied with many avocations out of the college. In 1706, he published a “Letter concerning the honour of Earl Marshal,” 8vo. “The form of the Installation of the Garter” 1720, 8vo. “The Register of the most noble Order of the Garter, usually called the Black-Book, with a specimen of the Lives of the Knights Companions,” 1724, 2 vols. folio. “Observations introductory to an historical Essay on the Knighthood of the Bath,” 1725, 4to, intended as an introduction to the history of that order, for which it is there said the Society of Antiquaries had begun to collect materials. His “Aspilogia,” a discourse on seals in England, with beautiful draughts, nearly fit for publication, from which Mr. Drake read an abstract to the Society in 1735-6, and two folip volumes of Sepulchral Monuments, Stone Circles, Crosses, and Castles, in the three kingdoms, from which there are extracts in the Archa?ologia, vol. XIII. were purchased, with many other curious papers, at the sale of Mr. Anstis’s library of Mss. in 1768, by Thomas Astle, esq. F. R. and A. S. Besides these he left five large folio volumes on the “Office, &c. of Garter King at Arms, of Heralds and Pursuivants, in this and other kingdoms, both royal, princely, and such as belonged to our nobility,” now in the pos session of George Nayler, esq. York herald, and genealogist of the Order of the Bath, &c. “Memoirs of the Families of Talbot, Carew, Granvile, and Courtney.” “The Antiquities of Cornwall.” “Collections, relative to the parish of Coliton, in Devonshire,” respecting the tithes, owing to a dispute which his son, the Rev. George Anstis, the vicar, then had with the parishioners, in the court of exchequer in 1742. The late Dr. Ducarel possessed it. “Collections relative, to All Souls’ college, in Oxford.” These were very considerable, and purchased by the colllege. Sixty-four pages of his Latin Answer to “the Case of Founders’ Kinsmen,” were printed in 4to, with many coats of arms. His “Curia Militaris, or treatise on the Court of Chivalry, in three books:” it is supposed that no more than the preface and contents were ever published. Mr. Reed had those parts; the whole, however, was printed in 1702, 8vo; probably only for private friends. Mr. Prior mentions this Garter in an epigram:

In the picture gallery at Oxford is a portrait of him; there is another in the hall of the College at Arms. In the copy of his letters concerning the honour of the Earl Marshal, purchased by George Harrison, esq. Norroy, for 1l. 2s. at the sale of George Scott, of Woolston hall, esq. were many ms letters of Mr. Anstis to Dr. Derham. In Gutch’s Coll. Curiosa is a curious history of visitation books, under the title of “Nomenclator Fecialium qui Angliæ et Walliac Comitatus visitarunt, quo anno et ubi autographa, seu apographa reperiuntur, per Johannem Anstis, Garter, principal. Regem armorum Anglicanorum,” taken from a ms. in the library of All Souls’ college in Oxford. He married Elizabeth, daughter and heir of Mr. Richard Cudlipp, of Tavistock in Devonshire, by whom he had, 1. John Anstis, jun. esq. who succeeded him as garter; 2. the Rev. George Anstis, vicar of Coliton, in Devon, who became heir to his eldest brother; 3. the Rev. Philip Anstis, born in the college, and the same day, December 15, 1717, baptized and registered at St. Bennet’s Church, Paul’s Wharf; 4. Mary; 5. Catherine; and 6. Rachael, born in the college, May 17, and baptized June 11, 1721, at St. Bennet’s.

, an English writer of the sixteenth century, descended from an ancient and honourable family in Wales. He was educated at Oxford, but in what hall or college is uncertain: probablyin the ancient hotel, now Pembroke college, in which several of his name were educated about the same period. In 1534, he was admitted bachelor of civil law. Patronised by William earl of Pembroke, he pursued his studies with alacrity, and became eminently learned, particularly in the history and antiquities of his own country. Wood says, that in 1046-7 he was knighted, with many others, by Edward, lord protector of England, and that he died in the reign of queen Mary. Pitts gives him the character of a learned and elegant writer. He wrote, 1. “Fides historiae Britannia, contra Polyd. Virgilium,” a manuscript in the Cotton library. 2. “Defensio regis Arthuri.” 3. “Historic Brifanniae defensio,” 1,573. 4. “Cambria? descriptio,” corrected and augmented by Humph. Lhuyd, and translated into English by David Powel, Oxon. 1663, 4to. 5. De Variis antiquitatibus Tractatum de Eucharistia of the restitution of the Coin, written in 1553, all in manuscript in New College library.

, commonly called the lady Arabella, was so often talked of for a queen, that custom seems to have given her a right to an article in this manner under her Christian name, as that by which our historians distinguish her. She was the daughter of Charles Stuart, earl oY Lenox, who was younger brother to Henry lord Darnley, father to king James VI. of Scotland, and First of England, by Elizabeth, daughter of sir William Cavendisu, km. She was born, as near as can be computed, in 1577, and educated at London, under the eye of the eld countess of Lenox, her grand-mother. She was far from being either beautiful in her person, or from being distinguished by any extraordinary qualities of mind; and yet she met with many admirers, on account of her royal descent and near relation to the crown of England. Her father dviug in 1579, and leaving her thereby sole heiress, as some understood, of the house of Lenox, several matches were projected for her at home and abroad. Her cousin, king James, inclined to have married her to lord Esme Stuart, whom he had created duke of Lenox, and whom before his marriage he considered as his heir; but this match was prevented by queen Elizabeth, though it was certainly a very fit one in all respects. As the English succession was at this time very problematical, the great powers on the Continent speculated on many husbands for the lady Arabella, such as the duke of Savoy, a prince of the house of Farnese, and others. In the mean time, this lady had some thoughts of marrying herself at home, as Thuanus relates, to a son of the earl of Northumberland, but it is not credible that this took effect, though he says it did privately. The very attempt procured her queen Elizabeth’s displeasure, who confined her for it. In the mean time her title to the crown, such as it was, became the subject, amongst many others, of father Persons’ s famous book, wherein are all the arguments for and against her, and which served to divulge her name and descent all over Europe; and yet this book was not very favourable to her interest. On the death of the queen, some malcontents framed an odd design of disturbing the public peace, and amongst other branches of their dark scheme, one was to seize the lady Arabella, and to cover their proceedings by the sanction of her title, intending also to have married her to some English nobleman, the more to increase their interest, and the better to please the people. But this conspiracy was fatal to none but its authors, and those who conversed with them; being speedily defeated, many taken, and some executed. As for the lady Arabella, it does not appear that she had any knowledge of this engagement in her behalf, whatever it was; for domestic writers are perplexed, and foreign historians ruu into absurdities, when they endeadeavour to explain it. She continued at liberty, and in apparent favour at court, though her circumstances were narrow till the latter end of the year 1608, when by some means she drew upon her king James’s displeasure. However, at Christmas, when mirth and good-humour prevailed at court, she was again taken into favour, had a service of plate presented to her of the value of two hundred pounds, a thousand marks given her to pay her debts, and some addition made to her annual income. This seems to have been done, in order to have gained her to the interest of the court, and to put the notions of marriage she had entertained out of her head; all which, however, proved ineffectual; for in the beginning of the month of February 1609, she was detected in an intrigue with Mr. William Seymour, son to the lord Beauchamp, and grandson to the earl of Hertford, to whom, notwithstanding, she was. privately married some time afterwards. Upon this discovery, they were both carried before the council, and severely reprimanded, and then dismissed. In the summer of 1610, the marriage broke out, on which the lady was sent into close custody, at the house of sir Thomas Parry, in Lambeth; and Mr. Seymour was committed to the Tower for his contempt, in marrying a lady of the royal family without the king’s leave. It does not appear that this confinement was attended with any great severity to either; for the lady was allowed the use of sir Thomas Parry’s house and gardensj and the like gentleness, in regard to his high quality, was shewn to Mr. Seymour. Some intercourse they had by letters, which after a time was discovered, and a resolution taken thereupon to send the lady to Durham, a resolution which threw her into deep affliction. Upon this, by the interposition of friends, she and her husband concerted a scheme for their escape, which was successfully executed in the beginning, though it ended unluckily. The lady, under the care of sir James Crofts, was at the house of Mr. Conyers, at Highgate, from whence she was to have gone the next day to Durham, on which she put a fair countenance now, notwithstanding the trouble she had before shewn. This made her keepers the more easy, and gave her an opportunity of disguising herself, which she did on Monday the 3d of June, 1611, by drawing over her petticoats a pair of large French-fashioned hose, putting on a man’s doublet, a peruke which covered her hair, a hat, black cloak, russet boots with red tops, and a rapier by her side. Thus equipped, she walked out between three and four with Mr. Markham. They went a mile and half to a little inn, where a person attended with their horses. The lady, by that time she came thither, was so weak and faint, that the hostler, who held the stirrup when she mounted, said that gentleman would hardly hold out to London. Riding, however, so raised her spirits, that by the time she came to Blackwall, she was pretty well recovered. There they found waiting for them two men, a gentlewoman, and a chambermaid, with one boat full of Mr. Seymour’s and her trunks, and another boat for their persons, in which they hasted from thence towards Woolwich. Being come so far, they bade the watermen row on to Gravesend. There the poor fellows were desirous to land, but for a double freight were contented to go on to Lee, yet being almost tired by the way, they were forced to lie still at Tilbury, whilst the rowers went on shore to refresh themselves; then they proceeded to Lee, and by that time the day appeared, and they discovered a ship at anchor a mile beyond them, which was the French bark that waited for them. Here the lady would have lain at anchor, expecting Mr. Seymour, but through the importunity of her followers, they forthwith hoisted sail and put to sea. In the mean time Mr. Seymour, with a peruke and beard of black hair, and in a tawny cloth suit, walked alone without suspicion, from his lodging out at the great west door of the Tower, following a cart that had brought him billets. From thence he walked along by the Towerwharf, by the warders of the south gate, and so to the iron gate, where one Rodney was ready with a pair of oars to receive him. When they came to Lee, and found that the French ship was gone, the billows rising high, they hired a fisherman for twenty shillings, to put them on board a certain ship that they saw under sail. That ship they found not to be it they looked for, so they made forwards to the next under sail, which was a ship from Newcastle. This with much ado they hired for forty pounds, to carry them to Calais, and the master performed his bargain, by which means Mr. Seymour escaped, and continued in Flanders. On Tuesday in the afternoon, my lord treasurer being advertised that the lady Arabella had made an escape, sent immediately to the lieutenant of the Tower to set strict guard over Mr. Seymour, which he promised, after his yxrt manner, “he would thoroughly do, that he would;” but, coming to the prisoner’s lodgings-, he found, to his great amazement, that he was gone from thence one whole day before. A pink being dispatched from the Downs into Calais road, seized the French bark, and brought back the lady and those with her; but, before this was known, the proclamation issued for apprehending them. As soon as she was brought to town, she was, after examination, committed to the Tower, declaring that she was not so sorry for her own restraint, as she should be glad if Mr. Seymour escaped, for whose welfare, she affirmed, she was more concerned than for her own. Her aunt, the countess of Shrewsbury, was likewise committed, on suspicion of having prompted the lady Arabella, not only to her escape, but to other things, it being known that she had amassed upwards of twenty thousand pounds in ready money. The earl of Shrewsbury was confined to his house, and the old earl of Hertford sent for from his seat. By degrees things grew cooler, and though it was known that Mr. Seymour continued in the Netherlands, yet the court made no farther applications to the archduke about him. In the beginning of 1612, a new storm began to break out; for the lady Arabella, either pressed at an examination, or of her own free will, made some extraordinary discoveries, upon which some quick steps would have been taken, had it not shortly after appeared, that her misfortunes had turned her head, and that, consequently, no use could be made of her evidence. However, the countess of Shrewsbury, who before had leave to attend her husband in his sickness, was, very closely shut up, and the court was amused with abundance of strange stories, which wore out by degrees, and the poor lady Arabella languished in her confinement till the 27th of September, 1615, when her life and sorrows ended together. Even in her grave this poor lady was not at peace, a report being spread that she was poisoned, because she happened to die within two years of sir Thomas Overbury. Sir Bull. Whitlocke has put this circumstance in much too strong a light; for it was a suspicion at most, and never had the support of the least colour of proof. As for her husband, sir William Seymour, he soon after her decease, procured leave to return, distinguished himself by loyally adhering to the king during the civil wars, and, surviving to the time of the Restoration, was restored to his great-grandfather’s title of duke of Somerset, by an act of parliament, which entirely cancelled his attainder and on the giving his royal assent to this act, king Charles II. was pleased to say in full parliament, what perhaps was as honourable for the family as the title to which they are restored, flis words were these: “As this is an act of an extraordinary nature, so it is in favour of a person of no ordinary merit: he has deserved of my father, and of myself, as much as any subject possibly could do; and I hope this will stir no man’s envy, because in doing it I do no more than' what a good master should do for such a servant.” By his lady Arabella, this noble person had no issue: but that he still preserved a warm affection for her memory, appears from hence, that he called one of his daughters by his second wife, Frances, daughter and coheiress of Robert Devereux, earl of Essex, Arabella Seymour.

, principal of the university of Aberdeen, was the son of the baron of Arbuthnot, and was born in the year 1538. He studied philosophy and the classics in the university of Aberdeen, and civil law in France, where he was five years under the care of the famous Cujacius. Having taken the degree of licentiate, he returned home in 1563, and appeared very warmly in support of the reformed religion. At this time queen Mary was resident in her kingdom; but the earl of Murray having the supreme direction of all things, the reformed church of Scotland was in a very flourishing condition. The friends of Mr. Arbuthnot prevailed upon him to take orders, but whether he received them from a bishop or from presbyters is uncertain. In 1568, he assisted as a member of the general assembly, which was held in the month of July at Edinburgh. By this assembly he was intrusted with the care of revising a book which had given offence, entitled “The Fail of the Roman Church,” printed by one Thomas Bassenden, in Edinburgh. The exception taken to it was, that the king had the style of the supreme head of the church: at the s,ame time there was another complaint against this Bassenden, for printing a lewd song at the end of the Psalm book. On these matters an order was made, forbidding the printer to vend any more of his books till the offensive title was altered, and the lewd song omitted. The assembly also made an order, that no book should be published for the future, till licensed by commissioners of their appointment.

There have been various editions of the existing writings of Archimedes. The whole of these works, together with the commentary of Eutocius, were found in their original Greek language, on the taking of Constantinople, from whence they were brought into Italy; and here they were foundry that excellent mathematician John Muller, otherwise called Regiomontanus, who brought them into Germany; where they were, with that commentary, published long after, viz. in 1544, at Basil, most beautifully printed in folio, Gr. & Lat. by Hervagius, under the care of Thomas Gechauff Venatorius. A Latin translation was published at Paris, 1557, by Pascalius Hamellius. Another edition of the whole, in Greek and Latin, was published at Paris, 1615, fol. by David Rivaltus, illustrated with new demonstrations and commentaries; a life of the author is prefixed: and at the end of the volume is added some account, by way of restoration, of the author’s other works, which have been lost. In 1675, Dr. Isaac Barrow published a neat edition of the works, in Latin, at London, 4to; illustrated, and succinctly demonstrated in a new method. But the most complete of any, is the magnificent edition, in folio, printed at the Clarendon press, in Oxford, in 1792. This edition was prepared ready for the press by the learned Joseph Torelli, of Verona, who was discouraged by the prospect of the expence that was likely to attend the publication. He had finished it some time before his death; and, while he was demurring in regard to the mode of publishing it, he was induced by the advice and recommendation of the late earl Stanhope, whose zeal in the cause of science reflects distinguished honour on his name and memory, to commence a treaty with the curators of the Clarendon press at Oxford. Torelli, unwilling to give up the charge of superintending the publication, still hesitated, and died before the transaction was completed. The treaty was again renewed by Alberto Albertini, the executor of the learned editor’s will, who entrusted the work to the university of Oxford. Ah th papers which Torelli had prepared with a view to. this edition, Alhertini presented to the university, and transmitted, at the original cost, all the engravings of figures that were necessary for the completion of it. John Strange, esq. the British resident at Venice, was very active in conducting and terminating the business. The arrangement of the papers, the correction of the press, and the whole superintewdance of the edition, were committed by the university to Mr. (now Dr.) Abraham Robertson, of Christ church, a gentleman in every respect qualified for the trust reposed in him. The Latin translation of this edition is a new one. Torelli also wrote a preface, a commentary on some of the pieces, and notes on the whole. An account of the life and writings of Torelli is prefixed by Clement Sibiliati; of this a sketch will be given in its proper place. At the end a large appendix is added, in two parts: the first being a commentary on Archimedes’s paper upon “Bodies that flow on fluids,” by Dr. Robertson; and the latter is a large collection of various readings in the ms works of Archimedes, found in the library of the last king of France, and of another at Florence, as collated with the Basil edition above mentioned.

was descended of a most ancient and honourable family, seated at Parkhall, in Warwickshire. He was born' in 1532, and his father dying when he was an infant of two years old, he became, before he inherited the estate of the family, the ward of sir George Throkmorton, of Coughton, whose daughter Mary he afterwards married. In all probability, it was his engagement with this family, and being bred in it, that made him so firm a papist as he was. However, succeeding his grandfather, Thomas Arden, esq. in 1562, in the familyestate, he married Mary (Throkmorton), and settled in the country, his religion impeding his preferment, and his temper inclining him to a retired life. His being a near neighbour to the great earl of Leicester, occasioned his having some altercations with him, who affected to rule all things in that county, and some persons, though of good families, and possessed of considerable estates, thought it no discredit to wear that nobleman’s livery, which Mr. Arden disdained. In the course of this fatal quarrel, excessive insolence on one side produced some warm expressions on the other; insomuch that Mr. Arden npenly taxed the earl with his conversing criminally with the countess of Essex in that earl’s lite-time; and also inveighed against his pride, as a thing more inexcusable in a nobleman newly created. These taunts having exasperated that minister, he projected, or at least forwarded, his destruction. Mr. Arden had married one of his daughters to John Somerville, esq. a young gentleman of an old family and good fortune, in the same county, but who was a man of a hot rash temper, and by many thought a little insane. He was drawn in a strange manner to plot (if it may be so called) against the queen’s life; and thus the treason is alleged to have been transacted. In the Whitsun-holidays, 1583, he with his wife was at Mr. Arden’s, where Hugh Hall, his father-in-law’s priest, persuaded him that queen Elizabeth being an incorrigible heretic, and growing daily from bad to worse, it would be doing God and his country good service to take her life away. When the holidays were over, he returned to his own house with his wife, where he grew melancholy and irresolute. Upon this his wife wrote to Hall, her father’s priest, to come and strengthen his purpose. Hall excused his coming, but wrote at large, to encourage Somerville to prosecute what he had undertaken. This letter induced Somerville to set out for London, but he proceeded no farther than Warwick, where, drawing his sword and wounding some protestaats, he was instantly seized. While he was going to Warwick, his wife went over to her father’s, and shewed him and her mother Hall’s treasonable letter, which her father threw into the fire; so that only the hearsay of this letter could be alleged against him and his wife, by Hall who wrote it, who was tried and condemned with them. On Somerville’s apprehension, he said somewhat of his father and mother-in-law, and immediately orders were sent into Warwickshire for their being seized and imprisoned. October 30, 1583, Mr. Somerville was committed to the Tower for high-treason. November 4, Hall, the priest, was committed also; and on the seventh of the same month, Mr. Arden. On the sixteenth, Mary the wife of Mr. Arden, Margaret their daughter, wife to Mr. Somerville, and Elizabeth, the sister of Mr. Somerville, were committed. On the twenty-third Mr. Arden was racked in the Tower, and the next day Hugh Hall the priest was tortured likewise. By these methods some kind of evidence being brought out, on the sixteenth of December Edward Arden, esq. and Mary his wife, John Somerville, esq. and Hugh Hall the priest, were tried and convicted of high-treason at Guildhall, London; chiefly on Hall’s confession, who yet received sentence with the rest. On the nineteenth of December, Mr. Arden and his son-in-law, Somerville, were removed from the Tower to Newgate, for a night’s time only. In this space Somerville was strangled by his own hands, as it was given out; but, as the world believed, by such as desired to remove him silently. The next day, being December 20, 1583, Edward Arden was executed at Smithfield with the general pity of all spectators. He died with the same high spirit he had shewn throughout his life. After professing his innocence, he owned himself a papist, and one who died for his religion, and want of flexibility, though under colour of conspiring against the state. He strenuously insisted, that Somerville was murdered, to prevent his shaming his prosecutors; and having thus extenuated things to such as heard him, he patiently submitted to an ignominious death. His execution was according to the rigour of the law, his head being set (as Somerville’s also was) upon London-bridge, and his quarters upon the city gates; but the body of his son-in-law was interred in Moornelds. Mrs. Arden was pardoned; but the queen gave the estate which fell to her, by her and her husband’s attainder, to Mr. Darcy. Hugh Hall, the priest, likewise was pardoned; but Leicester, doubting his secrecy, would have engaged chancellor Hatton to send him abroad; which he refusing, new rumours, little to that proud earl’s honour, flew about. Holinshed, Stowe, and other writers, treat Mr. Arden as a traitor fairly convicted; but Camden. was too honest to write thus, and it may be probable, that he died for being a firm Englishman, rather than a bad subject. His son and heir Robert Arden, esq. being bred in one of the inns of court, proved a very wise and fortunate person: insomuch that by various suits he wrung from Edward Darcy, esq. the grantee, most of his father’s estates, and by marrying Elizabeth, daughter of Reginald Corbet, esq. one of the justices of the king’s bench, he restored the credit and splendour of this ancient family, and was so happy as to see Henry Arden, esq. his eldest son, knighted by king James, and married to Dorothy the daughter of Basil Fielding of Kewnham, esq. whose son became earl of Denbigh. On this account, the last editor of the Biographia Britannica remarks, that the conduct of lord Burleigh in Mr. Arden’s fate is somewhat equivocal. If that great man. was convinced of Mr. Arden’s innocence, it was totally unworthy of his character to charge him with having been a traitor. It is more 'honourable, therefore, to lord Burleigh’s reputation, and more agreeable to probability, to suppose that he believed Mr. Arden to be guilty, at least in a certain degree, of evil designs against the queen. Indeed, Arden was so bigoted a papist, that it is not unlikely but that by some imprudent words, if not by actions, he might furnish a pretence for the accusations brought against him. We can scarcely otherwise imagine how it would have been possible for the government to have proceeded to such extremities. We do not mean, by these remarks, to vindicate the severity with which this unfortunate gentleman was treated; and are sensible that, during queen Elizabeth’s reign, there was solid foundation for the jealousy and dread which were entertained of the Roman catholics.

, an English divine and writer, was born at or near Newcastle- upon Tyne, March 29, 1602. He was admitted of St. John’s college, in Cambridge, in 1616, and took his first two degrees from thence in 1619 and 1623. In this last year he was chosen fellow of Katherine hall, where he is supposed to have resided some years, probably engaged in the tuition of youth; but in 1631 he married, and removed to Lynn in Norfolk. He continued in this town, very much esteemed, for about ten or twelve years, being first assistant or curate, and afterwards minister in his own right, of St. Nicholas chapel there. He was afterwards called up to assist in the assembly of divines had a parish in London, and is named with Tuckney, Hill, and others, in the list of Triers, as they were called i. e. persons appointed to examine and report the integrity and abilities of candidates for the eldership in London, and ministry at large. When Dr. Beale, master of St. John’s college, was turned out by the earl of Manchester, Mr. Arrowsmith, who had taken the degree of B. D. from Katherine hall eleven years before, was put into his place; and also into the royal divinity chair, from which the old professor Collins was removed and after about nine years possession of these honours, to which he added that of a doctor’s degree in divinity, in 1649, he was farther promoted, on Dr. Hill’s death, to the mastership of Trinity college, with which he kept his professor’s place only two years his health being considerably impaired. He died in Feb. 1658-9.

, 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.

, a Puritan minister, first settled in Staffordshire, where he became known to Hildersham, Dod, Ball, Langley, and other nonconformists of that time, was educated at Emanuel college, Cambridge, under Dr. Stooker. He exercised his ministry in London twenty-three years. In the time of the civil wars, he was chaplain to the earl of Warwick. As he was a man of fortune and character, his influence was great among the presbyterians. He was some time chaplain to the earl of Manchester, and fell under the displeasure of Cromwell’s party, whom he had disobliged by his violent opposition to the engagement. He had a very considerable hand in restoring Charles II. and went to congratulate his majesty at Breda. Dr. Calamy speaks of him as a man of real sanctity, and a non- conformist of the old stamp. He died in 1662, and was buried the eve of Bartholomew day. Dr. Walker censures him for his zeal against the characters of the clergy in general, in which he shares with many of his brethren. He published several sermons preached before the parliament, or the magistrates, on public occasions, and funeral sermons for Jeremy Whitaker, Ralph Robinson, Robert Strange, Thomas Gataker, Richard Vines, and the countess of Manchester, a treatise on “the power of Godliness,” and prefaces to the works of John Ball, and others.

, an eminent philosopher, chemist, and antiquary, of the seventeenth century, and founder of the noble museum at Oxford, which still bears his name, was the only son of Mr. Simon Ashmole, of the city of Litchfield, in Staffordshire, sadler, by Anne, the daughter of Mr. Anthony Boyer, of Coventry, in Warwickshire, woollen-draper. He was born May 23, 1617, and during his early r education in grammar, was taught music, in which he made such proficiency as to become a chorister in the cathedral at Litchfield. When he had attained the age of sixteen he was taken into the family of James Paget, esq. a baron of the exchequer, who had married his mother’s sister, and as his father died in 1634, leaving little provision for him, he continued for some years in the Paget family, during which time he made considerable progress in the law, and spent his leisure hours in perfecting himself in music and other polite accomplishments. In March 1638, he married Eleanor, daughter of Mr. Peter Manwaring, of Smallwood, in the county Palatine of Chester, and in Michaelmas term the same year, became a solicitor in Chancery. On February 11, 1641, he was sworn an attorney of the court of common pleas, and on December 5th, in the same year, his wife died suddenly, of whom he has left us a very natural and affectionate memorial. The rebellion coming on, he retired from London, being always a zealous and steady loyalist, and on May 9, 1645, became one of the gentlemen of the ordnance in the garrison at Oxford, whence he removed to Worcester, where he was commissioner, receiver, and register of the excise, and soon after captain in the lord Ashley’s regiment, and comptroller of the ordnance. In the midst of all this business he entered himself of Brazen-Nose college, in Oxford, and applied himself vigorously to the sciences, but especially natural philosophy, mathematics, and astronomy; and his intimate acquaintance with Mr. (afterwards sir George) Wharton, seduced him into the absurd mysteries of astrology, which was in those days in great credit. In the month of July, 1646, he lost his mother, who had always been a kind parent to him, and for whom he had a very pious regard. On October 16th, the same year, be was elected a brother of the ancient and honourable society of Free and Accepted Masons, which he looked upon as a high honour, and has therefore given us a particular account of the lodge established at Warrington in Lancashire and in some of his manuscripts, there are very valuable collections relating to the history of the free masons. The king’s affairs being now grown desperate, Mr. Ashmole withdrew himself, after the surrender of the garrison of Worcester, into Cheshire, where he continued till the end of October, and then came up to London, where he became acquainted with Mr. (afterwards sir Jonas) Moore, William Lilly, and John Booker, esteemed the greatest astrologers in 'the world, by whom he was caressed, instructed, and received into their fraternity, which then made a very considerable figure, as appeared by the great resort of persons of distinction to their annual feast, of which Mr. Ashmole was afterwards elected steward. Jn 1647 he retired to Englefield, in Berkshire, where he pursued his studies very closely, and having so fair an opportunity, and the advantage of some very able masters, he cultivated the science of botany. Here, as appears from his own remarks, he enjoyed in privacy the sweetest moments of his life, the sensation of which perhaps was quickened, by his just idea of the melancholy state of the times. It was in this retreat that he became acquainted with Mary, sole daughter of sir William Forster, of Aldermarston, in the county of Berks, bart. who was first married to sir Edward Stafford, then to one Mr. Hamlyn, and lastly to sir Thomas Mainwaring, knt recorder of Reading, and one of the masters in chancery and an attachment took place but Mr. Humphrey Stafford, her second son, had such a dislike to the measure, that when Mr. Ashmole happened to be very ill, he broke into his chamber, and if not prevented, would have murdered him. In the latter end of 1648, lady Mainwaring conveyed to him her estate at Bradfield, which was soon after sequestered on account of Mr. Ashmole’s loyalty but the interest he had with William Lilly, and some others of that party, enabled him to get that sequestration taken off. On the sixteenth of November, 1649, he married lady Mainwaring, and settled in London, where his house became the receptacle of the most learned and ingenious persons that flourished at that time. It was by their conversation, that Mr. Ashmole, who hud been more fortunate in worldly affairs than most scholars are, and who had been always a curious collector of manuscripts, was induced to publish a treatise written by Dr. Arthur Dee, relating to the Philosopher’s stone, together with another tract on the same subject, by an unknown author. These accordingly appeared in the year following but Mr. Ashmole was so cautious, or rather modest, as to publish them by a fictitious name. He at the same time addressed himself to a work of greater consequence, a complete collection of the works of such English chemists, as had till then remained in ms. which cost him a great deal of labour, and for the embellishment of which he spared no expence, causing the cuts that were necessary, to be engraved at his own house in Black-Friars, by Mr. Vaughan, who was then the most eminent artist in that department in England. He imbibed this affection for chemistry from his intimate acquaintance with Mr. William Backhouse, of Swallowfield in the county of Berks, who was reputed an adept, and whom, from his free communication of chemical secrets, Mr. Ashmole was wont to call father, agreeably to the custom which had long prevailed among the lovers of that art, improperly, however, called chemistry for it really was the old superstition of alchemy. He likewise employed a part of his time in acquiring the art of engraving seuls, casting in sand, and the mystery of a working goldsmith. But all this time, his great work of publishing the ancient English writers in chemistry went on and finding that a competent knowlege of the Hebrew was absolutely necessary for understanding and explaining such authors as had written on the Hermetic science, he had recourse to rabbi Solomon Frank, by whom he was taught the rudiments of Hebrew, which he found very useful to him in his studies. At length, towards the close of the year 1652, his “Theatrum Chymicum Britannicum” appeared, which gained him great reputation in the learned world, as it shewed him to be a man of a most studious disposition, indefatigable application, and of wonderful accuracy in his compositions. It served also to extend his acquaintance considerably, and among others the celebrated Mr. Seiden took notice of him in the year 1653, encouraged his studies, and lived in great friendship with him to the day of his death. He was likewise very intimate with Mr. Oughtred, the mathematician, and with Dr. Wharton, a physician of great racter and experience. His marriage with lady -Main-waring, however, involved him in abundance of law-suits with other people, and at last produced a dispute between themselves, which came to a hearing on October 8, 1657, in the court of chancery, where serjeant Maynard having observed, that in eight hundred sheets of depositions taken on the part of the lady, there was not so much as a bad word proved against Mr. Ashrnole, her bill was dismissed, and she delivered back to her husband. He had now for some time addicted himself to the study of antiquity and records, which recommended him to the intimate acquaintance of Mr. (afterwards sir William) Dugdale, whom about this time he attended in his survey of the Fens, and was very useful to him in 'that excellent undertaking. Mr. Ashmole himself soon after took the pains to trace the Roman road, which in Antoninus’s Itinerary is called Bennevanna, from Weeden to Litchfield, of which he gave Mr. Dugdale an account, in a letter addressed to him upon that subject. It is very probable, that after his studies had thus taken a new turn, he lost somewhat of his relish for chemistry, since he discontinued the Theatrum Chemicum, which, according to his first design, was to have consisted of several volumes yet he still retained such a remembrance of it, as induced him to part civilly with the sons of art, by publishing a treatise in prose on the philosopher’s stone, to which he prefixed an admirable preface, in which he wishes to apologize for taking leave of these fooleries. In the spring of the year 1658, our author began to collect materials for his history of the order of the garter, which he afterwards lived to finish, and thereby rendered both the order and himself immortal, the just reward of the prodigious pains he took in searching records in the Tower, and elsewhere, comparing them with each other, and obtaining such lights as were requisite to render so perplexed a subject clear, and to reduce all the circumstances of such a vast body of history into their proper order. In September following he made a journey to Oxford, where he was extremely well received, and where he undertook to make a full and distinct description of the coins given to the public library by archbishop Laud, which was of great use to him in the works which he afterwards composed. He had lodged and boarded sometimes at a house in South Lambeth, kept by Mr. John Tradescant, whose father and himself hud been physic-gardeners there for many years, and had collected avast number of curiosities, which, after mature deliberation, Mr. Tradescant and his wife determined to bestow on Mr. Ashmole, and accordingly sealed and delivered a deed of gift for that purpose, on December 16, 1659. On the restoration of king Charles II. Mr. Ashmole was Dearly introduced into the presence and favour of his majesty, and on June 18, 1660, which was the second time he had the honour of discoursing with the king, he graciously bestowed upon him the place of Windsor herald. A few days after, he was appointed by the king to make a description of his medals, and had them delivered into his hands, and king Henry VHIth’s closet assigned for his use, being also allowed his diet at court. On August 21st, in the same year, he presented the three books which he had published, to his majesty, who, as he both loved and understood chemistry, received them very graciously. On September 3, he had a warrant signed for the office of commissioner of the excise, in consequence of a letter written by his majesty’s express command, to the earl of Southampton, then lord high-treasurer, by Mr. Se^ cretary Morris. About this time, a commission was granted to him as incidental to the care of the king’s medals, to examine the famous, or rather infamous, Hugh Peters, about the contents of the royal library which had fallen into his hands, and which was very carefully and punctually executed, but to very little purpose. On November 2d, he was called to the bar in Middle-Temple hall, and January 15, 1661, he was admitted a fellow of the Royal Society. On February 9th following, the king signed a warrant for constituting him secretary of Surinam in the West Indies. In the beginning of the year 1662, he was appointed one of the commissioners for recovering the king’s goods, and about the same time he sent a set of services and anthems to the cathedral church of Litchfield, in memory of his having been once a chorister there, and he gave afterwards twenty pounds towards repairing the cathedral. On June 27, 1664, the White Office was opened, of which he was appointed a commissioner. On Feb. 17, 1665, sir Edward By she sealed his deputation for visiting Berkshire, which visitation he began on the llth of March following, and on June 9, 1668, he was appointed by the lords commissioners of the treasury, accomptant-general, and country accomptant in the excise. His second wife, lady Main waring, dying, April 1, in the same year, he soon after married Mrs. Elizabeth Dugdale, daughter to his good friend sir William Dugdale, kht. garter king at arms, in Lincoln’s-inn chapel, on Novembers. The university of Oxford, in consideration of the many favours they had received from Mr. Ashmole, created him doctor of physic by diploma, July 19, 1669, which was presented to him on the 3d of November following, by Dr. Yates, principal of Brazen-Nose college, in the name of the university. He was now courted and esteemed by the greatest people in the kingdom, both in point of title and merit, who frequently did him the honour to visit him at his chambers in the Temple, and whenever he went his summer progress, he had the same respect paid him in the country, especially at his 'native town of Litchfield, to which when he came, he was splendidly entertained by the corporation. On May 8, 1672, he presented his laborious work on the most noble order of the garter, to his most gracious master king Charles II. who not only received it with great civility and kindness, but soon after granted to our author, as a mark of his approbation of the work, and of his personal esteem for him, a privy seal for 400 pounds out of the custom of paper. This was his greatest undertaking, and had he published nothing else, would have preserved his memory, as it certainly is in its kind one of the most valuable books in our language. On January 29, 1675, he resigned his office of Windsor herald, which by his procurement, was bestowed on his brother Dugdale, It was with great reluctancy that the earl marshal parted with him, and it was not long after, that he bestowed on him the character of being the best officer in his office. On the death of sir Edward Walker, garter king at arms, Feb_ 20, 1677, the king and the duke of Norfolk, as earl marshal, contested the right of disposing of his place, on which Mr. Ashmole was consulted, who declared in favour of the king, but with so much prudence and discretion as not to give any umbrage to the earl marshal. He afterwards himself refused this high office, which was conferred on his father-in-law sir -William Dugdale, for whom he employed his utmost interest. About the close of 1677, a proposal was made to Mr. Ashmole to become a candidate for the city of Litchfield, but finding himself poorly supported by the very persons who would have encouraged him to stand, he withdrew his pretensions. On the 26th of January, 1679, about ten in the morning, a fire began in the Middle Temple, in the next chambers to Mr. Aslimole’s,- by which he lost a library he had been collecting thirty-three years; but his Mss. escaped, by their being at his house in South Lambeth. He likewise lost a collection of 9000 coins, ancient and modern but his more valuable collection of gold medals were likewise preserved by being at Lambeth his vast repository of seals, charters, and other antiquities and curiosities, perished also in the flames. In 1683, the university of Oxford having finished a noble repository near the theatre, Mr. Ashmole sent thither that great collection of rarities which he had received from the Tradescants before-mentioned, together with such additions as he had made to them; and to this valuable benefaction he afterwards added that of his Mss. and library, which still remain a monument of his generous love to learning in general, and to the university of Oxford in particular. In the beginning of the year 1685, he was invited by the magistrates, and by the dean of Litchfield, to represent that corporation in parliament but upon king James’s intimating to him, by the lord Dartmouth, that he would take it kindly if he would resign his interest to Mr. Levvson, he instantly complied.

2. “Theatrum Chemicum Britannicum, containing several poetical pieces of our famous English philosophers, who have written the Hermetique mysteries, in their own ancient language. Faithfully collected into one volume, with annotations thereon, by Elias Ashmole, esq. qui est Mercuriophilus Anglicus,” London, 1652, 4to. The authors published in this collection are, Thomas Norton’s ordinal of Alchemic~ George Rrpley’s compound of Alchemic; Pater Sapientice, i.e. the father of wisdom, by an anonymous writer; Hermes’ s Bird, written originally in Latin, by Raymund Lully, and done into English verse by Abbot Cremer, of Westminster; Sir Geoffrey Chaucer’s Chanons Yeoman’s tale Dastin’s Dream, which seems to be a version of the Latin poem of John Dastm, entitled his Vision Pearce, the black monk, on the Elixir Richard Carpenter’s work, which some think, and not without reason, ought rather to be ascribed to John Carpenter, bishop of Worcester, who was one of the best chemists of his time Hunting of the Green Lion, by Abraham Andrews but there is also a spurious piece with the same title Breviary of Natural Philosophy, by Thomas* Charnock Ænigmas, by the same person Bloomfield' s Blossoms, which is likewise entitled the Camp of Philosophy, by William Bloomfield Sir Edward Kelle’s work his letter to G. S. Gent. (It is somewhat strange that this gentleman’s name, even by Mr. Ashmole, is written Keiley, though sir Edward himself wrote it Kelle.) Dr. John Dee’s Testament, which appears to be an epistle to one John Gwin, written A. D. 1568, and a third letter, the first two being wanting; Thomas Robinson, of the Philosopher’s Stone Experience and Philosophy, by an anonymous author the Magistery, by W. B. i. e. William Bloomfield John Gower, on the Philosopher’s Stone George Ripley’s Vision verses belonging to Ripley’s Scrowle Mystery of Alchymists preface to the Medulla of George Ripley; Secreta Secretorum, by John Lydgate Hermit’s Tale, anonymous description of the Stone the Standing of the Glass, for the time of the putrefaction and congelation of the medicine Ænigma Philosophicum, by William Bedman Fragments by various authors. 3. “The Way to Bliss, in three books, made public by Elias Ashmole, esq; qui est Mercuriophilus Anglicus,” London, 1658, 4to. This was the work in which he took his leave of the astrologers and aichymists, and bestowed his attention on the studies which produced, 4. “The Institution, Laws, and Ceremonies of the most noble Order of the Garter. Collected and digested into one body by Elias Ashmole, of the Middle Temple, esq. Windesore herald at arms. A work furnished with variety of matter relating to honour and noblesse” London, 1672, folio. He was not only so happy as to receive those extraordinary marks of the sovereign’s favour, mentioned above, but was complimented in an obliging manner by his royal highness the duke of York; who, though then at sea against the Dutch, sent for his book by the earl of Peterborough, and afterwards told our author he was extremely pleased with it. The rest of the knights-companions of the most noble order received him and his book with much respect and civility, and the regard shown him abroad was more singular. It was reposited, by the then pope, in the library of the Vatican. King Christie of Denmark, sent him, in 1674, a gold chain and- medal, which, with the king’s leave, he wore on certain high festivals. FredericWilliam, elector of Brandenburg!), sent him the like present, and ordered his boot to be translated into High Dutch. He was afterwards visited by the elector Palatine’s, the grand duke of Tuscany’s, and other foreign princes’ ministers, to return him thanks for this book, which he took care should be presented them, and thereby spread the fame of the garter, the nation, and himself, all over Europe. Yet it does not appear that this laborious and exquisite performance advanced at all the design he had formed some years before, of being appointed historiographer to the order, to which proposal some objections were made, and by our author fully answered, although we find no mention of this circumstance in any memoirs of Mr. Ashmole hitherto extant. 5, “The Arms, Epitaphs,. Feuestral Inscriptions, with the draughts of the Tombs, &c. in all the churches in Berkshire.” It was penned in 1666, and the original visitation taken in the two preceding years, in virtue of his deputatien from sir Edward Byshe, elariencieux king at arms, and published under the title of “The Antiquities of Berkshire,” 3 vols. 8vo, 1717, 1723, and at Reading in 1736, fol. 6. “Familiarum iilustrium Imperatorumque Romanorum Numismata Oxonire in Bodleianae Bibliotbecoe Archivis descripta et explanata.” This work was finished by the author in 1659, and given by him to the public library in Oxford, in 1666, in 3 vols, folio, as it was fitted for the press. 7. “A description and explanation of the Coins and Medals belonging to king Charles II.” a folio ms. in the king’s cabinet. 8. “A brief ceremonial of the Feast of St. George, held at Whitehall 1661, with other papers relating to the Order.” 9. “Remarkable Passages in the year 1660, set down by Mr. Elias Ashmole.” 10. “An account of the Coronation of our Kings, transcribed from a ms. in the king’s private closet.” 11 “The proceedings on the day of the Coronation of king Charles II.” mentioned by Anthony Wood, as printed in 1672, but he owns he never saw it. 12. “The Arms, Epitaphs, &c. in some churches and houses in Staffordshire,” taken when he accompanied sir William Dugdale in his visitation. 13. “The Arms, Epitaphs, Inscriptions, &c. in Cheshire, Shropshire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, &c.” taken at the same time. Bishop Nicolson mentions his intention to write the history and antiquities of his native town of Litchfield. 14. “Answers to the objections urged.against Mr. Ashmole’s being made historiographer to the order of the Garter,” A. D. 1662. 15. “A Translation of John Francis Spina’s book of th Catastrophe of the World; to which was subjoined, Ambrose Merlin’s Prophecy.” It is doubtful whether this was ever published. What, indeed, he printed, was but a very small part of what he wrote, there being scarcely any branch of our English history and antiquities, on which he has not left us something valuable, of his own composing, in that vast repository of papers, which make several folios in his collection of Mss. under the title of, 16. CoU lections, Remarks, Notes on Books, and Mss. a wonderful proof of industry and application. 17. “The Diary of his Life,” written by himself, which was published at London, 1717, in 12mo, with the following title “Memoirs of the life of that learned antiquary, Elias Ashmole, esq. drawn up by himself by way of diary, with an appendix of original letters. Published by Charles Burman, esquire.” The copy from whence these papers were published, was in the hand-writing of Dr. Robert Plott, chief keeper of the Ashmolean museum at Oxford, and secretary of the Royal Society, and was transcribed by him for the use of a near relation of Mr. Ashmole’s, a private gentleman in Staffordshire. They had been collated a few years before, by David Perry, M. A. of Jesus’ college in Oxford. The appendix* contains a letter of thanks, dated January 26, 1666, from the corporation at Litchfield, upon the receipt of a silver bowl presented to them by Mr. Ashmole a preface to the catalogue of archbishop Laud’s medals, drawn up by Mr. Ashmole, and preserved in the public library at Oxford a letter from Dr. Thomas Barlow, afterwards bishop of Lincoln, to Mr. Ashmole, dated December 23, 1668, on the present of his books, describing archbishop Laud’s cabinet of medals a letter from John Evelyn, esq. to recommend Dr. Plott to him for reader in natural philosophy, and another from Mr. Joshua Barnes, dated from Emanuel college, Cambridge, October 15, 1688, wherein he desires Mr. Ashmole’s pardon, for having reflected upon his Order of the Garter, in his own history of king Edward III. with Mr. Ashmole’s answer to that letter, dated October 23 following. It is from this diary, which abounds in whimsical and absurd memoranda, that the dates and facts in his life have been principally taken.

, one of the most learned critics of his age, was a native of Derbyshire, where he was born about 1665. He was admitted of Queen’s college, Cambridge, May 18, 1682, and having taken his degree of B. A. was elected fellow of that college, April 30, 1687, to be admitted to profits upon a future vacancy, which did not happen till April 9, 1690. He became chaplain to bishop Patrick, by whom he was presented to the rectory of Rattenden in Essex, March 10, 1698-9, which living he exchanged, in June following, for a chaplainship of Chelseacollege or hospital and that preferment also he soon after quitted, on being collated by his patron to a prebendal stall in the cathedral of Ely, July 3, 1701, and the next day to the mastership of Jesus’ college, Cambridge, both vacant by the death of Dr. Say well the same year he proceeded to his degree of D. D. and was elected vice-chancellor of the university in 1702. His mastership and prebend (both of which he was in possession of above fifty years) were the only preferments he held afterwards, not choosing to accept of any parochial benefice, but leading a very retired and studious life in his college, except when statutable residence, and attendance at chapters, required his presence at Ely, on which occasions he seldom or never failed to be present, till the latter part of his life. He died in March 1752, in the eighty-seventh year of his age, and was buried in Jesus’ college chapel. He had great knowledge in most branches of literature, but particularly in ecclesiastical antiquities and in chronology. In the classics he was critically skilled. Dr. Taylor always spoke with rapture of his correction of the inscription to Jupiter Urios, which he considered as uncommonly felicitous anct Mr. Chishull on the same occasion calls him “Aristarchus Cantabrigiensis summe eruditus.” There were many valuable pieces of his published in his life-time, but without his name, among which are “Locus Justini Martyris emendatus in Apol. I. p. 11. ed. Thirlby,” in the Bibliotheca Literaria, published by the learned Mr. Wasse of Aynho, Northamptonshire, 1744, No. VIII. “Tully and Hirtius reconciled as to the time of Caesar’s going to the African war, with an account of the old Roman year made by Ceesar,” ib. No. III. p. 29. “Origen de Oratione,” 4to, published by the Rev. Mr. Reading, keeper of Sion college library“and he is also supposed to have contributed notes to Reading’s edition of the Ecclesiastical Historians, 3 vols. fol.” Hierpclis in Aurea Carmina Pythagorea Comment." Lond. 1742, 8vo, published with a preface by Dr. Richard Warren, archdeacon of Suffolk. Dr. Harwood pronounces this to be the best edition of a most excellent work that abounds with moral and devotional sentiments. After his death a correct edition of Justin Martyr’s Apologies was published from his Mss. by the Rev. Mr. Keller, fellow of Jesus’ college, Cambridge, and rector of Kelshali in Herefordshire. It is too honourable for the parties not to be mentioned, that it used to be observed, that all the other colleges, where the fellows chuse their master, could not show three such heads, as the only three colleges where the masters are put in upon them: viz. Bentley of Trinity, by the crown; Ashton of Jesus, by the bishop of Ely; and Waterland of Magdalen, by the earl of Suffolk.

, an English divine, the son of Dr, Ashton, usher of the grammar school at Lancaster (a place of only thirty-two pounds per annum, which he held for near fifty years), was born in 1716, educated at Eton, and elected thence to King’s college, Cambridge, 1733. He was the person to whom Mr. Horace Walpole addressed his epistle from Florence, in 1740, under the title of “Thomas Ashton, esq. tutor to the earl of Plymouth.” About that time, or soon after, he was presented to the rectory of Aldingham in Lancashire, which he resigned in March 1749; and on the 3d of May following was presented by the provost and fellows of Eton to the rectory of Sturminster Marshall in Dorsetshire. He was then M. A. and had been chosen a fellow of Eton in December 1745. In 1752 he was collated to the rectory of St. Botolph, Bishopsgate; in 1759 took the degree of D. D. and in May 1762, was elected preacher at Lincoln’s Inn, which he resigned in 1764. In 1770 he published, in 8vo, a volume of sermons on several occasions to which was prefixed an excellent metzotinto by Spilgbury, from an original by sir Joshua Reynolds, and this motto, “Insto pnepositis, oblitus praeteritorum.” Dr. Ashton died March 1, 1775, at the age of fifty-nine, after having for some years survived a severe attack of the palsy. His discourses, in a style of greater elegance than purity, were rendered still more striking by the excellence of his delivery. Hence he was frequently prevailed on to preach on public and popular occasions. He printed a sermon on the rebellion in 1745, 4to, and a thanksgiving sermon on the close of it in 1746, 4to. la 1756, he preached before the governors of the Middlesex hospital, at St. Anne’s, Westminster a commencement sermon at Cambridge in 1759; a sermon at the annual meeting of the chanty schools in 1760; one before the House of Commons on the 30th of January 1762; and a spital sermon at St. Bride’s on the Easter Wednesday in that year. All these, with several others preached at Eton, Lincoln’s inn, Bishopsgate, &c. were collected by himself in the volume above mentioned, which is closed by a “Clerum habita Cantabrigige in templo beatae Mariae, 1759, pro gradu Doctoratus in sacra theologii.” His other publications were, 1. “A dissertation on 2 Peter i. 19,” 1750, 8vo. 2. In 1754, the Rev. Mr. Jones of St. Saviour’s, delivered a sermon at Bishopsgate-churcb, which being offensive to Dr. Ashton, he preached against it; and an altercation happening between the two divines, some pamphlets were published on the occasion, one of which, entitled “A letter to the Rev. Mr. Thomas Jones, intended as a rational and candid answer to his sermon preached at St. Botolph, Bishopsgate,” 4to, was probably by Dr. Ashton. 3. “An extract from the case of the obligation of the electors of Eton college to supply all vacancies in that society with those who are or have been fellows of King’s college, Cambridge, so long as persons properly qualified are to be had within that description,” London, 1771, 4to, proving that aliens have no right at all to Eton fellowships, either by the foundation, statutes, or archbishop Laud’s determination in 1636. This is further proved in, 4. “A letter to the Rev. Dr. M. (Morell) on the question of electing aliens into the vacant places in Eton college. By the author of the Extract,” 1771, 4to. 5. “A second letter to Dr. M.” The three last were soon after re-published under the title of “The election of aliens into the vacancies in Eton college an unwarrantable practice. To which are now added, two letters to the Rev. Dr. Morell, in which the cavils of a writer in the General Evening Post, and others, are considered and refuted. Part I. By a late fellow of King’s college, Cambridge.” London, 1771, 4to. Part II. was never published. He lived long in habits of intimacy with Horace Walpole, afterwards earl of Orford, who, Mr. Cole informs us, procured him the Eton fellowship but a rupture separated them. Mr. Cole adds, what we have some difficulty in believing, that the “Sermon on Painting,” in lord Orford’s works, was preached by Dr. Ashton at Houghton, before the earl of Orford (sir Robert Walpole) in 1742.

, an officer of note in king Charles I-.'s army, was son of sir Arthur Aston of Fulham in Middlesex, who was the second son of sir Thomas Aston, of Aston, of Bucklow-hundred in Cheshire; “an ancient and knightly family of that county.” He was a great traveller, and made several campaigns in foreign countries. Being returned into England about the beginning of the grand rebellion, with as many soldiers of note as he could bring with him, he took part with the king against the parliament. He commanded the dragoons in the battle of Edge- hill, and with them did his majesty considerable service. The king, having a great opinion of his valour and conduct, made him governor of the garrison of Reading in Berkshire, and commissary-general of the horse in which post he three times repulsed the earl of Essex, who, at the head of the parliament army, laid siege to that place. But sir Arthur being dangerously wounded, the command was devolved on colonel Richard Fielding, the eldest colonel in the garrison. Sir Arthur was suspected of taking this opportunity to get rid of a dangerous command. Some time after, he was appointed governor of the garrison of Oxford, in the room of sir William Pennyman deceased. In September following, he had the misfortune to break his leg by a fall from his horse, and was obliged to have it cut off, and on the twenty-fifth of December, he was discharged from his command, which was conferred on colonel Gage. After the king’s death, sir Arthur was employed in the service of king Charles IL and went with the flower of the English veterans into Ireland, where he was appointed, governor of Drogheda, commonly called Tredagk; “at which time (Mr. Wood tells us) he laid an excellent plot to tire and break the English army.” But at length Cromwell having taken the town, about the tenth of August 1649, and put the inhabitants to the sword, sir Arthur the governor was cut to pieces, and his brains beaten out with his wooden-leg. Wood says, that he was created doctor of physic, May 1,

In 1700, a still larger field of activity opened, in which Atterbury was engaged four years with Dr. Wake (afterwards archbishop of Canterbury) and others, concerning the rights, powers, and privileges of convocations in which he displayed so much learning and ingenuity, as well as zeal for the interests of his order, that the lower house of convocation returned him their thanks; and in consequence of this vote a letter was sent to the university of Oxford, expressing, that, “whereas Mr. Francis Atterbury, late of Christ Church, had so happily asserted the rights and privileges of an English convocation, as to merit the solemn thanks of the lower house for his learned pains upon that subject; it might be hoped, that the university would be no less forward in taking some public notice of so great a piece of service to the church and that the most proper and seasonable mark of respect to him, would be to confer on him the degree of doctor in divinity by diploma, without doing exercise, or paying fees.” The university approved the contents of this letter, and accordingly created Mr. AtterburyD.D. Out author’s work was entitled, “The Rights, Powers, and Privileges of an English Convocation stated and vindicated, in answer to a late book of Dr. Wake’s, entitled ‘ The Authority of Christian Princes over their Ecclesiastical Synods asserted,’ &c. and several other pieces,” 8vo. The fame of this work was very great; but it was censured by Burnet, and in November the judges had a serious consultation on it, as being supposed to affect the royal prerogative. Holt, then chief justice, was strongly of that opinion, and the same idea was encouraged by archbishop Tenison, Dr. Wake, and others. Endeavours were made to prejudice king William against him, but his majesty remained indifferent; and on the other hand, Atterbury gained the steady patronage of sir Jonathan Trelawny, bishop of Exeter, of Lawrence earl of Rochester, and of bishop Sprat. In December 1700, he published a second edition of “The Rights,” considerably enlarged, and with his name, and a dedication to the two archbishops. This was immediately answered by Drs. Kennet, Hody, and Wake. Another controversy of some importance was at this time also ably agitated by Atterbury, the execution of the prtemunienles, a privilege enjoyed by the several bishops of issuing writs to summon the inferior clergy to convocation. Bishops Compton, Sprat, and Trelawny, were his strenuous supporters on this occasion, and by the latter he was presented to the archdeaconry of Totness, in which he was installed Jan. 29, 1700-1. His attendance in convocation was regular, and his exertions great. In placing Dr. Hooper in the prolocutor’s chair, as the successor of Dr. Jane in the examination of obnoxious books in the controversy between the lower and upper houses in considering the methods of promoting the propagation of religion in foreign parts and in preparing an address to the king, his zeal distinguished itself. About this time he was engaged, with some other learned divines, in revising an intended edition of the Greek Testament, with Greek Scholia, collected chiefly from the fathers, by Mr. archdeacon Gregory. On the 29th of May he preached before the House of Commons; and on Aug. 16, published “The power of the Lower House of Convocation to adjourn itself,” which was a sort of analysis of the whole controversy. He also published “A letter to a clergyman in the country, concerning the Choice of Members, &c.” Nov. 17, 1701; a second, with a similar title, Dec. 10, 1701; and a third, in defence of the two former, Jan. 8, 1701-2. In October he published “The parliamentary origin and rights of the Lower House of Convocation, cleared, &c.” At this period he was popular as preacher at the Rolls Chapel, an office which had been conferred on him by sir John Trevor, a great discerner of abilities, in 1698, when he resigned JBridewell, which he had obtained in 1693. Upon the accession of queen Anne, in 1702, Dr. Atterbury was appointed one of her majesty’s chaplains in ordinary and, in July 1704, was advanced to the deanery of Carlisle but, owing to the obstacles thrown in his way by bishop Nicolson, he was not instituted tintil Oct. 12, and the same year Sir Jonathan Trelawny bestowed on him a canonry of Exeter. About two years after this, he was engaged in a dispute with Mr. Hoadly, concerning the advantages of virtue with regard to the present life, occasioned by his sermon, preached August 30, 1706, at the funeral of Mr. Thomas Bennet, a bookseller. The doctrine of this sermon Mr. Hoadly examined, in “A letter to Dr. Francis Atterbury, concerning Virtue and Vice,” published in 1706.; in which he undertakes to shew, that Dr. Atterbury has extremely mistaken the sense of his text. Dr. Atterbury, in a volume of Sermons published by himself, prefixed a long preface to the sermon at Mr. Bennet’s funeral in which he replies to Mr. Hoadly’s arguments, and produces the concurrent testimonies of expositors, and the authorities of the best writers, especially our English divines, in confirmation of the doctrine he had advanced. In answer to this “Preface,” Mr. Hoadly published in 170&, “Asecond letter,” &c. and in the Preface to his “Tracts,” tells us, these two letters against Dr. Atterbury were designed to vindicate and establish the tendency of virtue and morality to the present happiness of such a creature as man is which he esteems a point of the utmost importance to the Gospel itself. In Jan. 1707-8 he published a volume of Sermons, 8vo, and in the same year “Reflections on a late scandalous report about the repeal of the Test Act.” In 1709, he was engaged in a fresh dispute with Mr, Hoadly, concerning Passive Obedience, occasioned by his Latin sermon, entitled “Concio ad Clerum Londinensem, habita in Ecclesia S. Elphegi.” Atterbury, in his pamphlet entitled “Some proceedings in Convocation, A. D. 1705, faithfully represented,” had charged Mr. Hoadly (whom he sneeringly calls “the modest and moderate Mr. Hoadly”) with treating the body of the established clergy with language more disdainful and reviling than it would have become him to have used towards his Presbyterian antagonist, upon any provocation, charging them with rebellion in the church, whilst he himself was preaching it up in the state.“This induced Mr. Hoadly to set about a particular examination of Dr. Atterbury' s Latin Sermon; which he did in a piece, entitled” A large Answer to Dr. Atterbury’s Charge of Rebellion, &c. London a 1710,“wherein he endeavours to lay open the doctor’s artful management of the controversy, and to let the reader into his true meaning and design which, in an” Appendix“to the” Answer,“he represents to be” The carrying on two different causes, upon two sets of contradictory principles“in order to” gain himself applause amongst the same persons at the same time, by standing up for and against liberty; by depressing the prerogative, and exalting it by lessening the executive power, and magnifying it by loading some with all infamy, for pleading for submission to it in one particular which he supposeth an mcroachment, and by loading others with the same infamy for pleading against submission to it, in cases that touch the happiness of the whole community.“” This,“he tells us,” is a method of controversy so peculiar to one person (Dr. Atterbury) as that he knows not that it hath ever been practised, or attempted by any other writer.“Mr. Hoadly has likewise transcribed, in this Appendix, some remarkable passages out of our author’s” Rights, Powers, and Privileges, &c." which he confronts with others, from his Latin Sermon.

, 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.

, widow of the count d'Aunoy, and niece of the celebrated madame Desloges, died in 1705, She wrote with ease, though negligently, in the department of romance. Readers of a frivolous taste still peruse with pleasure her “Tales of the Fairies,” 4 vols. 12mo, and especially her “Adventures of Hippolytus earl of Douglas,” in 12mo. a piece containing much warmth and nature in the style, and abundance of the marvellous in the adventures. Her “Memoires historiques de ce qui s’est passe de plus remarquable en Europe depuis 1672, jusqu'en 1679,” are a medley of truth and falsehood. Her “Memoirs of the court of Spain,” where she had lived with her mother, in 2 vols. present us with no favourable idea of the Spanish nation, which she undoubtedly treats with two much severity, iter “History of John, de Bourbon, prince de Carency,” 1692j 3 vols. 12mo, is one of those historical romances that are the offspring of slender parts, in conjunction with alluring effusions of gallantry. Her husband, the count d' Annoy, being accused of high treason by three Normans, very narrowly escaped with his head. One of his accusers, struck with remorse of conscience, declared the whole charge to be groundless.

, an eminent poet of the fourth century, was the son of a physician, and born at Itourdeaux. Great care was taken of his eJucation, the whole family interesting themselves in it, either because his genius was very promising, or that the scheme of his nativity, which had been cast by his grandfather on the mother’s side, led them to imagine that he would rise to great honour. Whatever their motive, it is allowed that he made an uncommon progress in classical learning, and at the age of thirty was chosen to teach grammar at Bourdeaux, He was promoted some time after to be professor of rhetoric, in which office he acquired so great a reputation, that he ivas sent for to court to be preceptor to Gratian the emperor Valentinian’s son. The rewards and honours conferred on him for the faithful discharge of his office remind us of Juvenal’s maxim, that when fortune pleases she can liaise a man from a rhetorician to a consul. He was actually appointed consul by the emperor Gratian, in the year 379, after having filled other considerable posts; for, besides the dignity of questor, to which he had been nominated by Valentinian, he was made prefect of the pnetorium in Italy and Gaul after that prince’s death. His speech returning thanks to Gratian on his promotion to the consulship is highly commended. The time of his death is uncertain he was living in 392, and lived to a great age. He hud several children by his wife, who died young. The emperor Thcodosius had a great esteem for Ausonius, and pressed him to publish his poems. There is a great inequality in his productions; and in his style there is a harshness, which was perhaps rather the defect of the times Le lived in, than of his genius. Had he lived in Augustus’s reign, his verses, according to good judges, would have equalled the most finished of that age. He is generally supposed to have been a Christian some ingenious authors indeed have thought otherwise, and the indecency of many of his poems make us not very anxious to claim him. The editio princeps of his works was published at Venice, 1472, fol. of which there are four copies in this country, in the libraries of his majesty, the museum, earl Spencer, and Mr. Wodhull. De Bure was not able to find one in France. The two best editions, the first yery uncommon, are those of Amsterdam, 1671, 8yo, and Bipont, 1785, 8vo.

, a patron of learning, was the second son of William Aylesbury by his wife Anne, daughter of John Poole, esq. and was born in London in 1576. He was educated at Westminster school, and, in 1598, became a student of Christ church, Oxford where he distinguished himself by his assiduous application to his studies, especially the mathematics. In June 1605, he took his degree of M. A. After he quitted the university, he was employed as secretary to Charles earl of Nottingham, then lord high admiral of England, in which post he had an opportunity of improving his mathematical knowledge, as well as of giving many proofs of it. On this account when George Villiers, duke of Buckingham, succeeded the earl of Nottingham as high admiral, Mr. Aylesbury not onlv kept his employment, but was also, by the favour of that‘powerful duke, created a baronet, April 19, 1627, having been before made master of requests, and master of the mint. These lucrative employments furnished him with the means of expressing his regard for learned men. He not only made all men of science welcome at his table, and afforded them all the countenance he could but likewise gave to such of them as were in narrow circumstances, regular pensions out of his own fortune, and entertained them at his house in Windsor-park, where he usually spent the summer. Walter Warner, who, at his request, wrote a treatise on coins and coinage, and the famous Mr. Thomas Harriot, were among the persons to whom he extended his patronage, and Harriot left him (in conjunction with Robert Sidney and viscount Lisle) all his writings and all the Mss. he had collected. Mr. Thomas Allen of Oxford, likewise, whom he had recommended to the duke of Buckingham, confided his manuscripts to sir Thomas, who is said to have been one of the most acute and candid critics ef his time. By this means he accumulated a valuable library of scarce books and Mss. which were either lost at home during the civil wars, or sold abroad to relieve his distresses; for in 1642 his adherence to the king, occasioned his being turned out of his places, and plundered of his estates. This he bore with some fortitude, but the murder of his sovereign gave him a distaste of his country, and retiring with his family to Flanders, he lived for some time at Brussels, and afterwards at Breda, where in 1657 he died. He left a son William, who, at the request of Charles I. undertook to translate D’Avila’s History of the Civil Wars of France, which appeared in 1647 but in the second edition, published in 1678, the merit of the whole translation is given to sir Charles Cotterel, except a few passages in the first four books. The calamities of his country affected this gentleman too, and in 1657, when Cromwell fitted out a fleet to go on an expedition to the West Indies, and to carry a supply to the island of Jamaica, Mr. Aylesbury, from pure necessity, engaged himself as secretary to the governor, and died on the island soon after. His surviving sister, the countess of Clarendon, became heiress of what could be recovered of the family estate.

sel, with a partition in the middle other. pen in the performance of a duty incumbent upon him, as a Christian divine, and a good subject. His piece was entitled, “An Harborowe for faithfull and trewe subjects, against the late blowne Blaste, concerning the government of Women. Wherein bee confuted al such reasons as a straunger of late made in that behalfe. With a briefe Exhortation to obedience.” Strasbourg, April 26, 1559, dedicated to the earl of Bedford, and lord Robert Dudley (afterwards earl of Leicester, then) master of the queen’s horse. This book is written with great vivacity, and at the same time discovers its author’s deep and general learning. It contains, however, some sentiments rather more in favour of the Puritan* than he afterwards held, a circumstance which was objected to him by some of that party, when in discharge of his episcopal duty he found it necessary to repress their endeavours to assimilate the church of England with that of Geneva.

, an eminent English admiral in the last century, descended from a very good family in Lincolnshire, and entered early into the sea-service, where he obtained the character of an able and experienced officer, and the honour of knighthood from king Charles I. This, however, did not hinder him from adhering to the parliament, when by a very singular intrigue he got possession of the fleet, and so zealous he was in the service of his masters, that when in 1648, the greatest part of the navy went over to the prince of Wales, he, who then commanded the Lion, secured that ship for the parliament, which was by them esteemed an action of great importance. As this was a sufficient proof of his fidelity, he had the command given him in a squadron, that was employed to watch the motions of the prince of Wales and accordingly sailed to the coast of Ireland, where he prevented his highness from landing, and drew many of the seamen to that service from which they had deserted. The parliament next year sent him with a considerable number of ships, and the title of admiral, to the coast of Ireland, which commission he discharged with such vigour, that the parliament continued him in his command for another year, and ordered an immediate provision to be made for the payment of his arrears, and presented him with one hundred pounds. After the war was finished in Ireland, sir George Ayscue had orders to sail with a small squadron, to reduce the island of Barbadoes but his orders were countermanded, as the parliament received information, that the Dutch were treating with sir John Grenville, in order to have the isles of Scilly put into their hands, and therefore it was thought necessary to reduce these islands first. Blake and Ayscue were employed in this expedition, in the spring of 1651, and performed it with honour and success, sir John Grenville entering into a treaty with them, who used him very honourably, and gave him fair conditions, after which Blake returned to England, and Ayscue proceeded on his voyage to Barbadoes. The parliament were at first pleased, but when the conditions were known, Blake and Ayscue were accused of being too liberal. Blake resented this, and threatened to lay down his commission, which he said he was sure Ayscue would also do. Upon this, the articles were honourably complied with, and sir George received orders to sail immediately to the West Indies. Sir George continued his voyage, and arrived at Barbadoes October 26, 1651. He then found his enterprize would be attended with great difficulties, and such as had not been foreseen at home. The lord Willoughby, of Parham, commanded there for the king, and had assembled a body of 5,Ooo men for the defence of the island. He was a nobleman of great parts and greater probity, one who had been extremely reverenced by the parliament, before he quitted their party, and was Dow extremely popular on the island. Sir George, however, shewed no signs of concern, but boldly forced his passage into the harbour, and made himself master of twelve sail of Dutch merchantmen that lay there, and next morning he sent a summons to the lord Willoughby, requiring him to submit to the authority of the parliament of England, to which his lordship answered, that he knew no such authority, that he had a commission from king Charles II. to be governor of that island, and that he would keep it for his majesty’s service at the hazard of his life. On this, sir George thought it not prudent to land the few troops he had, and thereby discover his weakness to so cautious an enemy. In the mean time, he receivect a letter by an advice-boat from England, with the news of the king’s being defeated at Worcester, and one intercepted from lady Willoughby, containing a very particular account of that unhappy affair. He now summoned lord Willoughby a second time, and accompanied his summons with lady Willoughby’s letter, but his lordship continued firm in his resolution. All this time, sir George anchored in Speights bay, and stayed there till December, when the Virginia merchant fleet arriving, he made as if they were a reinforcement that had been sent him, but in fact, he had not above 2000 men, and the sight of the little army on shore made him cautious of venturing his men, till he thought the inhabitants had conceived a great idea of his strength. The Virginia ships were welcomed at their coming in, as a supply of men of war, and he presently ordered his men on shore: 159 Scotch servants aboard that fleet, were added to a regiment of 700 men, and some seamen, to make their number look more formidable. One colonel Allen landed with them on the 17th of December, and found lord Willoughby’s forces well entrenched, near a fort they had upon the sea- coast. They attacked him, however, and, in a sharp dispute, wherein about sixty men were killed on both sides, had so much the advantage, that they drove them to the fort, notwithstanding that colonel Allen, their commander, was killed by a musket shot, as he attempted to land. After other attempts, sir George procured colonel Moddiford, who was one of the most leading men on the place, to enter into a treaty with him, and this negociation succeeded so well, that Moddiford declared publicly for a peace, and joined with sir George to bring lord Willoughby, the. governor, to reason, as they phrased it but lord Willoughby never would have consented if an accident had not happened, which put most of the gentlemen about him into such confusion, that he could no longer depend upon their advice or assistance. He had called together his officers, and while they were sitting in council, a cannon-ball beat open the door of the room, and took off the head of the centinel posted before it, which so frighted all the gentlemen of the island, that they not only compelled their governor to lay aside his former design, but to retire to a. place two miles farther from the harbour. Sir George Ayscue, taking advantage of this unexpected good fortune, immediately ordered all his forces on shore, as if he intended to have attacked them in their entrenchments, which struck such a terror into some of the principal persons about the governor, that, after rhature deliberation on his own circumstances, and their disposition, he began to alter his mind, and thereupon, to avoid the effusion of blood, both parties appointed commissaries to treat. Sir George named captain Peck, Mr. Searl, colonel Thomas Moddiforcl, and James Colliton, esq. the lord Willoughby, sir Richard Peers, Charles Pirn, esq. colonel Ellice, and major Byham, who on the 17th of January agreed on articles of rendition, which were alike comprehensive and honourable. The lord Willoughby had what he most desired, indemnity, and freedom of estate and person, upon which, soon after, he returned to England. The islands of Nevis, Antigua, and St. Christopher, were, by the same capitulation, surrendered to the parliament. After this, sir George, considering that he had fully executed his commission, returned with the squadron under his command to England, and arriving at Plymouth on the 25th of May, 1652, was received with all imaginable testimonies of joy and satisfaction by the people there, to whom he was well known before, as his late success also served not a little to raise and heighten his reputation. It was not long after his arrival, before he found himself again obliged to enter upon action for the Dutch war which broke out in his absence, was then become extremely warm, and he was forced to take a share in it, though his ships were so extremely foul, that they were much fitter to be laid up, than to be employed in any farther service. On the 21st of June, 1652, he came to Dover, with his squadron of eleven sail, and there joined his old friend admiral Blake, but Blake having received orders to sail northward, and destroy the Dutch herring fishery, sir George Ayscue was left to command the fleet in the Downs. Within a few days after Blake’s departure he took five sail of Dutch merchantmen, and had scarcely brought them in before he received advice that a fleet of forty sail had been seen not far from the coast, upon which he gave chace, fell in amongst them, took seven, sunk four, and ran twenty-four upon the French shore, all the rest being separated from their convoy. The Dutch admiral, Van Tromp, who was at sea- with a great fleet, having information of sir George Ayscue’s situation, resolved to take advantage of him, and with no“less than one hundred sail, clapped iji between him and the river, and resolved to surprize such ships as should attempt to go out or, if that design failed, to go in and sink sir George and his squadron. The English admiral soon discovered their intention, and causing a signal to be made from Dover castle, for all ships to keep to sea, he thereby defeated the first part of their project. However, Van Tromp attempted the second part of his scheme, in hopes of better success, and on the 8th of July, when it was ebb, be began to sail towards the English fleet but, the wind dying away, he was obliged to come to an anchor about a league off, in order to expect the next ebb. Sir George, in the mean time, caused a strong platform to be raised between Deal and Sandown castles, well furnished with artillery, so pointed, as to bear directly upon the Dutch as they came in the militia of the county of Kent were also ordered down to the sea-shore notwithstanding which preparation, the Dutch admiral did not recede from his point, but at the next ebb weighed anchor, and would have stood intothe port but the wind coming about south-west, and blowing directly in his teeth, constrained him to keep out, and being straightened for time, he was obliged to sail away, and leave sir George safe in the harbour, with the small squadron he commanded. He was soon after ordered to Plymouth, to bring in under his convoy five East- India ships, which he did in the latter end of July and in the first week of August, brought in four French and Dutch prizes, for which activity and vigilance in his command he was universally commended. In a few days after this, intelligence was received, that Van Tromp’s fleet was seen off the back of the isle of Wight, and it was thereupon resolved, that sir George with his fleet of forty men of war, most of them hired merchantmen, except flag ships, should stretch over to the coast of France to meet them. Accordingly, on the 16th of August, between one and two o'clock at noon, they got sight of the enemy, who quitted their merchantmen, being fifty in number. About four the fight began, the English Admiral with nine others charging through their fleet; his ships received most damage in the shrouds, masts, sails, and rigging, which was repaid the Dutch in their hulls. Sir George having thus passed through them, got the weather-gage, and charged them again, but all his fleet not coming up, and the night already entered, they parted with a drawn battle. Captain Peck, the rear-admiral, lost his leg, of which, soon after, he died. Several captains were wounded, but no ship lost. Of the Dutch, not one was said to be lost, though many were shot through and through, but so that they were able to proceed on their voyage, and anchored the next day after, being followed by the English to the isle of Bassa; but no farther attempt was made by our fleet, on account, as it was pretended, of the danger of the French coasts, from whence they returned to Plymouth- Sound to repair. The truth of the matter was, some of sir George’s captains were a little bashful in this affair, and the fleet was in so indifferent a condition, that it was absolutely necessary to refit before they proceeded again to action. He proceeded next to join Blake in the northern seas, where he continued during the best part of the month of September, and took several prizes and towards the latter end of that month he returned with general Blake into the Downs, with one hundred and twenty sail of men of war. On the 27th of that mojith a great Dutch fleet appeared, after which, Blake with his fleet sailed, and sir George Ayscue, pursuant to the orders he had received, returned to Chatham with his own ship, and sent the rest of his squadron into several ports to be careened. Towards the end of November, 1652, general Blake lying at the mouth of our river, began to think that the season of the year left no room to expect farther action, for which reason he detached twenty of his ships to bring up a fleet of colliers from Newcastle, twelve more he had sent to Plymouth, and our admiral, as before observed, with fifteen sail, had proceeded up the river in order to their being careened. Such was the situation of things, when Van Tromp appeared with a fleet of eighty- five sail. Upon this Blake sent for the most experienced officers on board his own ship, where, after a long consultation, it was agreed, that he should wait for, and fight the enemy, though he had but thirtyseven sail of men of war, and a few small ships. Accordingly, on the 29th of November, a general engagement ensued, which lasted with great fury from one in the afternoon till it was dark. Blake in the Triumph, with his seconds the Victory and the Vanguard, engaged for a considerable time near twenty sail of Dutch men of war, and they were in the utmost danger of being oppressed and destrdyed by so unequal a force. This, however, did not hinder Blake from forcing his way into a throng of enemies, to relieve the Garland and Bonadventure, in doing which he was attacked by many of their stoutest ships, which likewise boarded him, but after several times beating them off, he at last found an opportunity to rejoin his fleet. The loss sustained by the English consisted in five ships, either taken or sunk, and several others disabled. The Dutch confess, that one of their men of war was burnt towards the end of the fight, and the captain and most of his men drowned, and also that the ships of Tromp and Evertson were much disabled. At last, night having parted the two fleets, Blake supposing he had sufficiently secured the nation’s honour and his own, by waiting the attack of an enemy, so much superior, and seeing no prospect of advantage by renewing the fight, retired up the river but sir George Ayscue, who inclined to the bolder but less prudent counsel, was so disgusted at this retreat, that he laid down his commission. The services this great man had rendered his country, were none of them more acceptable to the parliament, than this act of laying down his command. They had long wished and waited for an opportunity of dismissing him from their service, and were therefore extremely pleased that he had saved them this trouble however, to shew their gratitude for past services, and to prevent his falling into absolute discontent, they voted him a present of three hundred pounds in money, and likewise bestowed upon him three hundred pounds per annum in Ireland. There is good reason to believe, that Cromwell and his faction were as well pleased with this gentleman’s quitting the sea-service for as they were then meditating, what they soon afterwards put in execution, the turning the parliament out of doors, it could not but be agreeable to them, to see an officer who had so great credit in the navy, and who was so generally esteemed by the nation, laid aside in such a manner, both as it gave them an opportunity of insinuating the ingratitude of that assembly to so worthy a person, and as it freed them from the apprehension of his disturbing their measures, in case he had continued in the fleet; which it is highly probable might have come to pass, considering that Blake was far enough from being of their party, and only submitted to serve the protector, because he saw no other way left to serve his country, and did not think he had interest enough to preserve the fleet, after the defection of the army, which perhaps might not have been the case, if sir George Ayscue had continued in his command. This is so much the more probable, as it is very certain that he never entered into the protector’s service, or shewed himself at all willing to concur in his measures though there is no doubt that Cromwell would have been extremely glad of so experienced an officer in his Spanish war. He retired after this to his country-seat in the county of Surrey, and lived there in great honour and splendor, visiting, and being visited by persons of the greatest distinction, both natives and foreigners, and passing in the general opinion of both, for one of the ablest sea-captains of that age. Yet there is some reason to believe that he had a particular correspondence with the protector’s second son, Henry; since there is still a letter in being from him to secretary Thurloe, which shews that he had very just notions of the worth of this gentleman, and of the expediency of consulting him in all such matters as had a relation to maritime power. The protector, towards the latter end of his life, began to grow dissatisfied with the Dutch, and resolved to destroy their system without entering immediately into a war with them. It was with this view, that he encouraged the Swedes to cultivate, with the utmost diligence, a maritime force, promising in due time to assist them with a sufficient number of able and experienced officers, and with an admiral to command them, who, in point of reputation, was not inferior to any then living. For this reason, he prevailed on sir George, by the intervention of the Swedish ambassador and of Whitelock, and sir George from that time began to entertain favourable thoughts of the design, and brought himself by degrees to think of accepting the offer made him, and of going over for that purpose to Sweden and although he had not absolutely complied during the life of the protector, he closed at last with the proposals made him from Sweden, and putting every thing in order for his journey, towards the latter end of the year 1658, and as soon as he had seen the officers embarked, and had dispatched some private business of his own, he prosecuted his voyage, though in the very depth of winter. This exposed him to great hardships, but on his arrival in Sweden, he was received with all imaginable demonstrations of civility and respect by the king, who might very probably have made good his promise, of promoting him to the rank of high-admiral of Sweden, if he had not been taken off by an unexpected death. This put an end to his hopes in that country, and disposed sir George Ayscue to return home, where a great change had been working in his absence, which was that of restoring king CharJes It. It does not at all appear, that sir George had any concern in this great affair but the contrary may be rather presumed, from his former attachment to the parliament, and his making it his choice to have remained in Sweden, if the death of the monarch, who invited him thither, had not prevented him. On his return, however, he not only submitted to the government then established, but gave the strongest assurances to the administration, that he should be at all times ready to serve the public, if ever there should be occasion, which was very kindly taken, and he had the honour to be” introduced to his majesty, and to kiss his hand. It was not long before he was called to the performance of his promise for the Dutch war breaking out in 1664, he was immediately put into commission by the direction of the duke of York, who then commanded the English fleet. In the spring of the year 1665, he hoisted his flag as rear-admiral of the blue, under the earl of Sandwich, and in the great battle that was fought the third of June in the same year, that squadron had the honour to break through the centre of the Dutch fleet, and thereby made way for one of the most glorious victories ever obtained by this nation at sea. For in this battle, the Dutch had ten of their largest ships sunk or burned, besides their admiral Opdam’s, that blew up in the midst of the engagement, by which the admiral himself, and upwards of five hundred men perished. Eighteen men of war were taken, four fire-ships destroyed, thirteen captains, and two thousand and fifty private men made prisoners and this with so inconsiderable loss, as that of one ship only, nnd three hundred private men. The fleet being again in a condition to put to sea, was ordered to rendezvous in Southwold-bay, from whence, to the number of sixty sail, they weighed on the fifth of July, and stood over for the coast of Holland. The standard was borne by the gallant earl of Sandwich, to whom was viceadmiral sir George Ayscue, and sir Thomas Tyddiman rear-admiral, sir William Perm was admiral of the white, sir William Berkley vice-admiral, and sir Joseph Jordan rear-admiral. The blue flag was carried by sir Thomas ^Vllen, whose vice and rear, were sir Christopher Minims, and sir John Harman. The design was, to intercept de Ruyter in his return, or, at least, to take and burn the Turkey and East-India fleets, of which they had certain intelligence, but they succeeded in neither of these schemes; de Ruyter arrived safely in Holland, and the Turkey and India fleets took shelter in the port of Bergen in Norway. The earl of Sandwich having detached sir Thomas Tyddiman to attack them there, returned home, and in his passage took eight Dutch men of war, which served as convoys to their East and West India fleets, and several merchantmen richly laden, which finished the triumphs of that year. ^The plain superiority of the English over the Dutch at sea, engaged the French, in order to keep up the war between the maritime powers, and make them do their business by destroying each other, to declare on the side of theweakest, as did the king of Denmark also, which, nevertheless, had no effect upon the English, who determined to carry on the war against the allies, with the same spirit they had done against the Dutch alone. In the spring, therefore, of the year 1666, the fleet was very early at sea, under the command of the joint admirals for a resolution having been taken at Court, not to expose the person of the duke of York any more, and the earl of Sandwich being then in Spain, with the character of ambassador-extraordinary, prince Rupert, and old general Monk, now duke of Albemarle, were appointed to command the fleet; having under them as gallant and prudent officers as ever distinguished themselves in the English navy, and, amongst these, sir William Berkley commanded the blue, and sir George Ayscue the white squadron. Prince Rupert, and the duke of Albemarle, went on board the fleet, the twenty-third of April, 1666, and sailed in the beginning of May. Towards the latter end of that month, the court was informed, that the French fleet, under the command of the duke of Beaufort, were coming out to the assistance of the Dutch, and upon receiving this news, the court sent orders to prince Rupert to sail with the white squadron, the admirals excepted, to look out and fight the French, which command that brave prince obeyed, but found it a mere bravado, intended to raise the courage of their new allies, and thereby bring them into the greater danger. At the same time prince Rupert sailed from the Downs, fthe Dutch put out to sea, the wind at north-east, and a fresh gale. This brought the Dutch fleet on the coast of Dunkirk, and carried his highness towards the Isle of Wight but the wind suddenly shifting to the south-west, and blowing hard, brought both the Dutch and the duke to an anchor. Captain Bacon, in the Bristol, first discovered the enemy, and by firing his guns, gave notice of it to the English fleet. Upon this a council of war was called, wherein it was resolved to fight the enemy, notwithstanding their great superiority. After the departure of prince Rupert, the duke had with him only the red and blue squadrons, making about sixty sail, whereas the Dutch fleet consisted of ninety-one men of war, carrying 4716 guns, and 22,460 men. It was the first of June when they were discerned, and the duke was so warm for engaging, that he attacked the enemy before they had time to weigh anchor, and, as de Ruyter himself says in his letter, they were obliged to cut their cables and in the same letter he owns, that to the last the English were the aggressors, notwithstanding their inferiority and other disadvantages. This day’s fight was very fierce and bloody for the Dutch, confiding in their numbers, pressed furiously upon the English fleet, while the English officers, being men of determined resolution, fought with such courage and constancy, that they not only repulsed the Dutch, but renewed the attack, and forced the enemy to maintain the fight longer than they were inclined to do, so that it was ten in the evening before their cannon were silent. The following night was spent in repairing the damages suffered on both sides, and next morning the fight was renewed by the English with fresh vigour. Admiral Van Tromp, with vice-admiral Vander Hulst, being on board one ship, rashly engaged among the English, and were in the utmost danger, either of being taken or burnt. The Dutch affairs, according to their own account, were now in a desperate condition but admiral de Ruyter at last disengaged them, though not till his ship was disabled, and vice-admiral Vander Hulst killed. This only changed the scene for de Ruyter was now as hard pushed as Tromp had been before; but a reinforcement arriving, preserved him also, and so the second day’s fight ended earlier than the first. The duke finding that the Dutch had received a reinforcement, and that his small fleet, on the contrary, was much weakened, through the damages sustained by some, and the Joss and absence of others of his ships, took, towards the evening, the resolution to retire, and endeavour to join prince Rupert, who was coming to his assistance. The retreat was performed in good order, twenty- six or twentyeight men of war that had suffered least, brought up the rear, interposing between the enemy and the disabled ships, three of which, being very much shattered, were burnt by the English themselves, and the men taken on board the other ships. The Dutch fleet followed, but at a distance. As they thus sailed on, it happened on the third day that sir George Ayscue, admiral of the white, who commanded the Royal Prince (being the largest and heaviest ship of the whole fleet) unfortunately struck upon the sand called the Galloper, where being threatened by the enemy’s fire-ships, and hopeless of assistance from his friends (whose timely return, the near approach of the enemy, and the contrary tide, had absolutely rendered impossible), he was forced to surrender. The Dutch admiral de Ruyter, in his letter to the States-general, says, in few words, that sir George Ayscue, admiral of the white, having run upon a sand -bank, fell into their hands, and that after taking out the commanders, and the men that were left, they set the s’mp on fire. But the large relation, collected by order of the States out of all the letters written to them upon that occasion, informs us, that sir George Ayscue, in the Royal Prince, ran upon the Galloper, an unhappy accident, says that relation, for an officer who had behaved very gallantly during the whole engagement, and who only retired in obedience to his admiral’s orders. The unfortunate admiral made signals for assistance but the English fleet continued their route so that he was left quite alone, and without hope of succour in which situation he was attacked by two Dutch fire-ships, by which, without doubt, he had been burnt, if lieutenant-admiral Tromp, who was on board the ship of rear-admiral Sweers, had not made a signal to call off the fire-ships, perceiving that his flag was already struck, and a signal made for quarter, upon which rear-admiral Sweers, by order of Tromp, went on board the English ship, and brought off sir George Ayscue, his officers, and some of his men, on board his own vessel, and the next morning sir George was sent to the Dutch coast, in order to go to the Hague in a galliot, by order of general de Ruyter. The English ship was afterwards got off the sands, notwithstanding which, general de Ruyter ordered the rest of the crew to be taken out, and the vessel set on fire, that his fleet might he the less embarrassed, which was accordingly done. But in the French relation, published by order of that court, we have another circumstance, which the Dutch have thought fit to omit, and it is this, that the crew gave np the ship against the admiral’s will, who had given orders /or setting her on fire. There were some circumstances which made the loss of this ship, in this manner, very disagreeable to the English court, and perhaps this may be the reason that so little is said of it in our own relations. In all probability general de Ruyter took the opportunity of sending sir George Ayscue to the Dutch coast the next morning, from an apprehension that he might be retaken in. the next day’s fight. On his arrival at the Hague he was very civilly treated but to raise the spirits of their people, and to make the most of this dubious kind of victory, the states ordered sir George to be carried as it were in triumph, through the several towns of Holland, and then confined him in the castle of Louvestein, so famous in the Dutch histories for having been the prison of some of their most eminent patriots, and from whence the party which opposed the prince of Orange were styled the Louvestein faction. As soon as sir George Ayscue came to this castle, he wrote a letter to king Charles II. to acquaint him with the condition he was in, which letter is still preserved in the life of the Dutch admiral, de Ruyter. How long he remained there, or whether he continued a prisoner to the end of the war, is uncertain, but it is said that he afterwards returned to England, and spent the remainder of his days in peace. Granger observes very justly, that it is scarcely possible to give a higher character of the courage of this brave admiral, than to say that he was a match for Van Tromp or de Ruyter.

, a learned English prelate in the end of the sixteenth and beginning of the seventeenth century, was born in Nottinghamshire, according to Fuller, but in Devonshire, according to Izacke and Prince. After having received the first rudiments of learning, he was sent to Trinity college, Cambridge, of which he became fellow. On the 15th of July, 1578, he was incorporated M.A. at Oxford, as he stood in his own university. After studying other branches of learning, he applied to divinity, and became a favourite preacher in Cambridge, the place of his residence. When he was D. D. he was made domestic chaplain to Henry earl of Pembroke, president of the council in the marches of Wales, and is supposed to have assisted lady Mary Sidney, countess of Pembroke, in her version of the psalms into English metre. By his lordship’s interest, however, he was constituted treasurer of the church of Landaff, and in 1588 was installed into the prebend of Wellington, in the cathedral of Hereford. Through his patron’s further interest, he was advanced to the bishopric of Landaff, and was consecrated Aug. 29, 1591. In Feb. 1594, he was translated to the see of Exeter, to which he did an irreparable injury by alienating from it the rich manor of Crediton in Devonshire. In 1597 he was translated to Worcester, and was likewise made one of the queen’s council for the marches of Wales. To the library of Worcester cathedral he was a very great benefactor, for he not only fitted and repaired the edifice, but also bequeathed to it all his books. After having continued bishop of Worcester near thirteen years, he died of the jaundice, May 17, 1610, and was buried in the cathedral of Worcester, without any monument.

His progress in his professional studies, however, was rterer interrupted, and his practice became considerable. In 1588, he discharged the office of reader at Gray’s Inn, and such was his fame, that the queen honoured him by appointing him her counsel learned in the law extraordinary, but whatever reputation he derived from this appointment, and to a young man of only twenty-eight years of age, it must have been of great importance, it is said he derived from her majesty very little accession of fortune. As a candidate for court-preferment, and a lawyer already distinguished by acknowledged talents, it might be expected that the road to advancement would have been easy, especially if we consider his family interest, as the son of a lordkeeper, and nephew to William lord Burleigh, and first cousin to sir Robert Cecil, principal secretary of state. But it appears that his merit rendered his court-patrons somewhat jealous, and that his interest, clashing with that of the two 'Cecils, and the earls of Leicester and Essex, who formed the two principal parties in queen Elizabeth’s reign, was rather an obstruction to him, as he forsook its natural channel in the Cecils, and attached himself and his brother Anthony to the earl of Essex. Sir Robert Cecil is consequently represented as preventing his attaining any very high appointment, although, that he might not seem to slight so near a relation, he procured him the reversion of the place of register of the court of Star-chamber, which, however, he did not enjoy until the next reign, nearly twenty years after. This made him say, with some pleasantry, that “it was like another man’s ground buttalling upon his house, which might mend his prospect, but did not fill his barn.” It was in gratitude for obtaining for him thb reversion that, in 1592, he published “Certain observations upon a libel entitled A Declaration of the true causes of the great Troubles,” in which he warmly vindicates the lord treasurer particularly, and his own father; and the rest of queen Elizabeth’s ministers occasionally. This is thought to have been his first political production.

His other patron, Robert earl of Essex, proved a warm, steady, and indefatigable friend, and earnestly strove to make him queen’s solicitor, in 1594, although unsuccessfully, from the superior influence of the Cecils. He endeavoured, however, to make him amends for his disappointment out of his own fortune. This, it might be supposed, demanded on the part of Mr. Bacon, a high sense of obligation, and. such he probably felt at the time but it is much to be lamented, that he afterwards sullied his character by taking a most forward and active part in bringing that unfortunate nobleman to the block for he not only appeared against him as a lawyer for the crown, but after his death, endeavoured to perpetuate the shame of it, by drawing a declaration of the treasons of the earl of Essex, which was calculated to justify the government in a very unpopular measure, and to turn the public censure from those who had ruined the earl of Essex, and had never done Mr. Bacon any good. It is but fair, however, that we should give the outline of the apology which he found it necessary to make for his conduct. It amounts to this, that he had given the earl good advice, which he did not follow that upon this a coldness ensued, which kept them at a greater distance than formerly that, however, he continued to give his advice to the earl, and laboured all he could to serve him with the queen that in respect to his last unfortunate act, which was, in truth, no better than an act of madness, he had no knowledge or notice whatever that he did no more than he was in duty bound to do for the service of the queen, in the way of his profession and that the declaration was put upon him altered, after he had drawn it, both by Uie ministers and the queen herself. Such an apology, however, did not satisfy the public at that time, and the utmost investigation of the affair since has only tended to soften some parts of his conduct, without amounting to a complete justification.

On the accession of king James I. Mr. Bacon appears to have paid court to him, by the intervention of some of his English and some of his Scotch friends, and by drawing up the form of a proclamation, which, though it was not used, was considered as an instance of his duty and attachment. Accordingly, on July 23, 1603, he was introduced to the king at Whitehall, and received the honour of knighthood. He was also continued in the same office he held under the queen, but a representation respecting the grievous exactions of purveyors, which the house of commons employed him to draw up, attracted the king’s more particular attention, and on Aug. 25, 1604, his majesty constituted him, by patent, one of his counsel learned in the law, with a fee of forty pounds a year, which is said to have been the first act of royal power of that nature. He granted him the same day, by another patent, a pension of sixty pounds a year, for special services received from his brother Anthony Bacon and himself. His farther promotion, however, was still retarded by his old antagonist, sir Robert Cecil, now created earl of Salisbury, and by sir Edward Coke, the attorney-general, who affected to undervalue his talents, and who certainly had reason to fear his reputation. To these, however, he contrived to carry himself with decent respect, although not without occasional expostulations with both,

Such, indeed, was the weight of his character, that he stood in no need of support from the king’s ministers the earl of Salisbury was now dead, and it does not appear that he had any dependance on the earl of Somerset, the reigning favourite, but kept at a distance from him when he was in his highest power. Matters, however, were so mismanaged by Somerset, that the attorney-general had much difficulty and less success in preserving the king’s interest in the house of commons, where an opposition arose to his majesty’s measures so violent, that the parliament was dissolved, and not called again for a considerable time. Voluntary subscriptions were set on foot to supply the wants of government; and this being in some instances; resisted, the attorney-general had to prosecute a Mr. Oliver St. John, who was among the most refractory. But these are circumstances which properly belong to the history of this reign.

In the mean time, Somerset was falling in the king’s estimation, and his place was supplied by Mr. George Villiers, afterwards the duke of Buckingham. The rise of this favourite was rapid and surprizing and sir Francis Bacon is said to have conceived a good opinion of him, became his friend, and certainly gave him very salutary advice. His promotion was followed % by the trial of the earl and countess of Somerset, for being accessary to the murder of sir Thomas Overbury. In this affair, sir Francis appears to have acted an impartial part in the discharge of his duty as attorney-general. The king who appeared deeply interested in bringing these offenders to justice, was as eager afterwards to grant them a pardon but sir Francis interfered in neither case farther than the duties of his office required.

In consequence of this pardon, his lordship was summoned to the second parliament in the succeeding reign of Charles I. but his infirmities did not allow him to take his seat. He foresaw that his end was drawing near, although he escaped the great plague, in the spring of 1625. Having sufficiently established the fame of his learning and abilities, by his writings published by himself, he committed, by his will, several of his Latin and philosophical compositions, to the care of sir William Bos well, his majesty’s agent in Holland, where they were afterwards published by Gruter. His orations and letters he commended to sir Humphrey May, chancellor of the Duchy, and the bishop of Lincoln (Williams), who succeeded him as lord keeper, and acknowledged the honour of that trust, which letters he enjoined to be preserved, but not to be divulged, as touching too much on persons and matters of state. By this judicious care of his, most of his papers were preserved, and the greatest part of them at different times have been printed and published. The severe winter which followed the infectious summer of 1625, brought him very low; but the spring reviving his spirits, he made a little excursion into the country, in order to try some experiments in natural philosophy; in which journey he was taken so ill, that he was obliged to stop at the earl of Arundel’s house at Highgate, about a week, and there he expired, April y, 1626, and was privately buried in the chapel of St. Michael’s church, within the precincts of Old Verulam where a monument was erected to his memory by sir Thomas Meautys, his faithful friend and indefatigable servant in all his troubles.

In 1773, he presented to the Society forthe encouragement of arts, two statues in plaster, which by a vote of that society, were directed to be placed in their great room, and he received on the same occasion their gold medal. His first work in sculpture is in Christ Church college, already mentioned the first figures he executed in marble, are at the duke of Richmond’s at Goodwood and his first monument was that of Mrs. Withers, in St. Mary’s, Worcester. In 1777, he was employed to prepare a model of a monument to be erected in Guy’s hospital, South wark, to the memory of the founder. It was this work that chiefly recommended him to the execution of lord Chatham’s monument in Guildhall. His other works, about this period, were the monument of Mrs. Draper; a marble statue of Mars, for lord Yarborough two groupes for the top of Somerset-house the monument of lord Halifax in Westminster abbey the statue of judge Blackstone for All Souls college, Oxford, and that of Henry VI. for the Anti-chapel at Eton. It is not our intention, however, nor would our limits permit, to enumerate all the works executed by this artist, within twenty years after he attained his just and high fame. There are few of our cathedrals or puhlic edifices without some specimen of his skill, but it would be unpardonable to omit one of his grandest efforts, the monument of lord Chatham, in Westminster abbey, which was begun in 1778, and finished in 1783. It is alone a proof of the excellence he had attained, without the aid of foreign travel and observation and how various that excellence was, may be further proved from the bronze gfoupe in the square in Somersetplace the monuments of lady Miller at Bath of lord Rodney at Jamaica of lord Heathfield at Buckland of the earl and countess of Effingham at Jamaica of Howard and Johnson in St. Paul’s, &c. c.

, 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.”

, a learned English monk of the Franciscan order, who flourished in the thirteenth century, was born near Ilchester in Somersetshire, in 1214, and was descended of a very ancient and honourable family. He received the first tincture of letters at Oxford, where having gone through grammar and logic, the dawnings of his genius gained him the favour and patronage of the greatest lovers of learning, and such as were equally distinguished by their high rank, and the excellence of their knowledge. It is not very clear, says the Biographia Britannica, whether he was of Merton college, or of Brazen-nose hall, and perhaps he studied at neither, but spent his time at the public schools. The latter is indeed more probable than that he studied at Merton college, which did not then exist. It appears, however, that he went early over to Paris, where he made still greater progress in all parts of learning, and was looked upon as the glory of that university, and an honour to his country. In those days such as desired to distinguish themselves by an early and effectual application to their studies, resorted to Paris, where not only many of the greatest men in Europe resided and taught, but many of the English nation, by whom Bacon was encouraged and caressed. At Paris he did not confine his studies to any particular branch of literature, but endeavoured to comprehend the sciences in general, fully and perfectly, by a right method and constant application. When he had attained the degree of doctor, he returned again, to his own country, and, as some say, took the habit of the Franciscan order in 1240, when he was about twenty-six years of age but others assert that he became a monk before he left France. After his return to Oxford, he was considered, by the greatest men of that university, as one of the ablest and most indefati^ gable inquirers after knowledge that the world had ever produced and therefore they not only shewed him all due respect, but likewise conceiving the greatest hopes from his improvements in the method of study, they generously contributed to his expences, so that he was enabled to lay out, within the compass of twenty years, no less than two thousand pounds in collecting curious authors, making trials of various kinds, and in the construction of different instruments, for the improvement of useful knowledge. But if this assiduous application to his studies, and the stupendous progress he made in them, raised his credit with the better part of mankind, it excited the envy of some, and afforded plausible pretences for the malicious designs of others. It is very easy to conceive, that the experiments he made in all parts of natural philosophy and the mathematics, must have made a great noise in an ignorant age, when scarcely two or three men in a whole nation were tolerably acquainted with those studies, and when all the pretenders to knowledge affected to cover their own ignorance, by throwing the most scandalous aspersions on those branches of science, which they either wanted genius to understand, or which demanded greater application to acquire, than they were willing to bestow. They gave out, therefore, that mathematical studies were in some measure allied to those magical arts which the church had condemned,and thereby brought suspicions upon men of superior learning. It was owing to this suspicion that Bacon was restrained from reading lectures to the young students in the university, and at length closely confined and almost starved, the monks being afraid lest his writings should extend beyond the limits of his convent, and be seen by any besides themselves and the pope. But there is great reason to believe, that though his application to the occult; sciences was their pretence, the true cause of his ill-usage was, the freedom with which he had treated the clergy in, his writings, in which he spared neither their ignorance nor their want of morals. But notwithstanding this harsh feature in the character of the times, his reputation continued to spread over the whole Christian world, and even pope Clement IV. wrote him a letter, desiring that he would send him all his works. This was in 1266, when our author was in the flower of his 4 age, and to gratify his holiness, collected together, greatly enlarged and ranged in some order, the several pieces he had written before that time, and sent them the next year by his favourite disciple John of London, or rather of Paris, to the pope. This collection, which is the same that himself entitled Opus Majus, or his great work, is yet extant, and was published by Dr. Jebb, in 1773. Dr. Jebb had proposed to have published all his works about three years before his edition of the Opus Majus, but while he was engaged in that design, he was informed by letters from his brother at Dublin, that there was a“manuscript in the college library there, which contained a great many treatises generally ascribed to Bacon, and disposed in such order, that they seemed to form one complete work, but the title was wanting, which l,iad been carelessly torn off from the rest of the manuscript. The doctor soon found that it was a collection of those tracts which Bacon had written for the use of pope Clement IV. and to which he had given the title of Opus Majus, since it appeared, that what he said of that work in his Opus Tertium, addressed to the same pope, exactly suited with this; which contained an account of almost all the new discoveries and improvements that he had made in the sciences,. Upon this account Dr. Jebb laid aside his former design, and resolved to publish only an edition of this Opus Majus. The manuscripts which he made use of to complete this edition, are, 1. ms. in the Cotton library, inscribed^” Jul. D. V.“which contains the first part of the Opus Majus, under the title of a treatise” Jl)e utijitate Scientiarnii). “2. Another ms. in the same library, marked” Tib. C. V." containing the fourth part of the Opus Majus, in which is shewn the use of the mathematics in the sciences and affairs of the world in the ms. it is erroneously called the fifth part. 3. A ms. in the library belonging to Corpus Christi in Cambridge, containing that portion of the fourth part which treats of geography. 4. A ms. of the fifth part, containing a treatise upon perspective, in the earl of Oxford’s library. 5. A ms. in the library of Magdalen college, Cambridge, comprehending the same treatise of perspective. 6. Two Mss. in the king’s library, communicated to the editor by Dr. Richard Bentley, one of which contains the fourth part of Opus Majus, and the other the fifth part. It is said that this learned book of his procured him the favour of Clement IV. and also some encouragement in the prosecution of his studies but this could not have lasted long, as that pope died soon after, and then we find our author under fresh embarrassments from the same causes as before; but he became in more danger, as the general of his order, Jerom de Ascoli, having heard his cause, ordered him to be imprisoned. This is said to have happened in 1278, and to prevent his appealing to pope Nicholas III. the general procured a confirmation of his sentence from Rome immediately, but it is not very easy to say upon what pretences. Yet we are told by others, that he was imprisoned by Reymundus Galfredus, who was general of his order, on account of some alchemistical treatise which he had written, and that Galfredus afterwards set him at liberty, and became his scholar. However obscure these circumstances may be, it is certain that his sufferings for many years must have brought him low, since he was sixty-four years of age when he was first put in prison, and deprived of the opportunity of prosecuting his studies, at least in the way of experiment. That he was still indulged in the use of his books, appears very clearly from the great use he made of them in the learned works he composed.

, who, as founder of Clare-hall, Cambridge, is justly entitled to a place among the benefactors of learning, was descended from a knightly family, seated at Great Badew, or Badow, near Chelmsford, in the county of Essex. From this place, they took their surname and here, probably, Richard de Badew was born. In 1326, he was chancellor of the university of Cambridge and having purchased two tenements in Miln-street, of Nigel Thornton, a physician, he laid there, in the year abovementioned, the foundation of a building, to which was given the name of University hall. Stow differs from this account, in asserting that the twq houses of old belonged to the chancellor and university. Badew, however, placed a principal in this hall, who was to take care of th pensioners that came to live there at their own expence or, as others say, at the charge of the university for, as yet, it was not endowed, and this, it must be confessed, suits rather better with the term pensioner. University hail continued in this condition for the space of sixteen years, and then by an accidental fire Was burnt down. Richard de Badew being unable to rebuild it, it lay for a few years in ruins. But one of the late pensioners having a great interest with Elizabeth, daughter of sir Gilbert de Clare, earl of Gloucester, and third sister and co-heir of sir Gilbert de Clare, the last earl of Gloucester and Hertford, of that name and family, he prevailed upon her to undertake what de Badew was not able to perform. Accordingly this lady, after the resignation of Walter Thaxted the principal, and with the consent of Richard de Badew, rebuilt that hall, and endowed it, in the year 1347, with revenues for one master, ten fellows, and ten scholars, and at the same time named it Clare hall. When she founded it, king Edward III. gave licence of mortmain to the master and scholars to take lands and tenements, to the value of forty pounds a year. The revenues of this hall have been augmented since by several benefactors. It was again rebuilt in 1638, and the magnificent chapel in 1763. It contains a master, ten senior fellows, fifteen juniors, and three lay- fellows.

, an English prelate, son of sir Walter Bagot, bart. and brother to the first lord Bagot, was born Jan. 1, 1740. He was educated at Westminster school, and chosen thence student of Christ-church, took the degree of M.A. May 23, 1764, and LL.D. Feb. 29, 1772. In In 1771 he was made canon of Christ-church in the room of Dr. Moore, the late archbishop of Canterbury, and the same year he married Miss M. Hay, niece to the earl of Kinnoul. He was installed dean of Christ- church, Jan. 25, 1777, on the translation of Dr. Markham to the see of York, about which time he resigned the livings of Jevington and Eastbourne in Sussex, in favour of his nephew, the Rev. Ralph Sneyd. In 1782 he was promoted to the see of Bristol, translated to Norwich the year following, and thence to St. Asaph in 1790, where he rebuilt the palace on an uncommon plan, but necessary for the situation, where, among the mountains, and in the vicinity of the sea, storms are often violent. The palace, therefore, is low; and being on the assent of a hill, the vestibule, dining-room, and drawing-room, which occupy the whole front of the building, are on a level with the first floor in the other apartments, two of which, on the ground-floor, are a neat domestic chapel and a library.

, son of the preceding, was born at Broughton in Northamptonshire, in 1629, educated at Westminster school, and elected student of Christ-church in 1646, where, according to Wood, his conduct for some time was turbulent and disorderly. Having finished his studies, however, he was in 1656 appointed to officiate as second master of Westminster school, and in 1657 was confirmed in the office. Behaving improperly to the celebrated Busby, he was, in 1658, turned out of this place; but soon after he became vicar of Ambrosden in Oxfordshire, having taken orders from Brownrig, bishop of Exeter. After the Restoration, Arthur earl of Anglesey appointed him his chaplain, on which Mr. Bagshaw left Ambrosden, in hopes of farther promotion, which, however, he never attained, having written and preached doctrines against the church and state, for which he was committed prisoner, first to the Gatehouse in Westminster, next to the Tower, and thence to South Sea castle, Hampshire, in 1664. After his release he returned to London, and fell tinder fresh suspicions, and having refused the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, was committed to Newgate, where he continued twenty-two weeks. He appears to have been again released, as he died at a house in Tothill-street, Westminster, Dec. 28, 1671, and was buried in Bunhillfields cemetery, with an altar monument, and an inscription written by the celebrated Dr. Owen, implying that he had been persecuted for his adherence to the gospel, and had now taken sanctuary “from the reproaches of pretended friends, and the persecutions of professed adversaries.” Baxter’s account is less favourable he records him as an anabaptist, fifth-monarchy man, and a separatist, a man of an extraordinary vehement spirit, but he allows that he had been exasperated by many years “hard and grievous imprisonment.” Wood has a long list of his writings, mostly controversial with Baxter, L'Estrange, and others, and probably forgotten. All his biographers, however, allow him to have been a man of abilities.

, an eminent Presbyterian divine of the seventeenth century, was born at Glasgow in the year 1599. His father, Mr. Thomas Baillie, was a citizen of that place, and son to Baillie of Jerviston. Our Robert Baillie was educated in the university of his native city where, having taken his degrees in arts, he turned his thoughts to the study of divinity and, receiving orders from archbishop Law, he was chosen regent of philosophy at Glasgow. While he was in this station, he had, for some years, the care of the education of Lord Montgomery, who, at length, carried him with him to Kilwinning; to which church he was presented by the earl of Eglintoun. Here he lived in the strictest friendship with that noble family, and the people connected with it; as he did also with his ordinary the archbishop of Glasgow, with whom he kept up an epistolary correspondence. In 1633, he declined, from modesty, the offer of a church in Edinburgh. Being requested in 1637, by his friend the archbishop, to preach a sermon before the assembly at Edinburgh, in recommendation of the canon and service book, he refused to do it; and wrote a handsome letter to the archbishop, assigning the reasons of his refusal. In 1638 he was chosen by the presbytery of Irvine, a member of the famous assembly at Glasgow, which was a prelude to the civil war. Though Mr. Baillie is said to have behaved in this assembly with great moderation, it is evident that he was by no means deficient in his zeal against prelacy and Arminianism. In 1640 he was sent by the covenanting lords to London, to draw up an accusation against archbishop Laud, for his obtrusions on the church of Scotland. While he was in England, he wrote the presbytery a regular account of public affairs, with a journal of the trial of the earl of Strafford. Not long after, on his return, he was appointed joint professor of divinity with Mr. David Dickson, in the university of Glasgow, and his reputation was become so great, that he had before this received invitations from the other three universities, all of which he refused. He continued in his professorship till the Restoration but his discharge of the duties of it was interrupted for a considerable time, by his residence in England for, in 1643, he was chosen one of the commissioners of the church of Scotland to the assembly of divines at Westminster. Though he never spoke in the debates of the assembly, he appears to have been an useful member, and entirely concurred in the principles and views of its leaders. Mr. Baillie returned again to his own country in the latter end of 1646. When, after the execution of Charles I. Charles II. was proclaimed in Scotland, our professor was one of the divines appointed by the general assembly to wait on the king at the Hague; upon which occasion, March 27, 1649, he made a speech in the royal presence, expressing in the strongest terms his abhorrence of the murder of the late king and, in his sentiments upon this event, it appears that the Presbyterian divines of that period, both at home and abroad, almost universally agreed. After the restoration of Charles II. Mr. Baillie, Jan. 23, 1661, by the interest of the earl of Lauderdale, with whom he was a great favourite, was made principal of the university of Glasgow, upon the removal of Mr. Patrick Gillespie, who had been patronised by Cromwell. It is said by several writers, that Mr. Baillie had the offer of a bishopric, which he absolutely refused. Though he was very loyal, and most sincerely rejoiced in his majesty’s restoration, he began, a little before his death, to be extremely anxious for the fate of Presbytery. His health failed him in the spring of 1662. During his illness he was visited by the new-made archbishop of Glasgow, to whom he is said to have addressed himself in the following words “Mr, Andrews (I will not call you my lord), king Charles would have made me one of these lords but I do not find in the New Testament, that Christ has any lords in his house.” Notwithstanding this common-place objection to the hierarchy, he treated the archbishop very courteously. Mr. Baillie died in July 1662, being 63 years f age. By his first wife, who was Lilias Fleming, of the family of Cardarroch, in the parish of Cadder, near Glasgow, he had many children, five of whom survived him, viz. one son, and four daughters. The posterity of his son, Mr. Henry Baillie, who was a preacher, but never accepted of any charge, still inherit the estate of Carnbrae, in the county of Lanerk, an ancient seat of the Baillies. Mr. Baillie’s character ha% been drawn to great advantage, not only by Mr. Woodrow, but by an historian of the opposite party. His works, which were very learned, and acquired him reputation in his own time, are 1. “Opus Historicum et Chronologicum,” Amsterdam, 1668, fol. 2. “A Defence of the Reformation of the Church of Scotland, against Mr. Maxwell, bishop of Ross.” 3. “A Parallel betwixt the Scottish Service-Book and the Romish Missal, Breviary,” &c. 4. “The Canterburian Self-Conviction.” 5. “Queries anent the Service-Book.” 6. “Antidote against Arminianism.” 7. “A treatise on Scottish Episcopacy.” 8. “Laudensium.” 9. “Dissuasive against the Errors of the Times, with a Supplement.” 10. “A Reply to the Modest Enquirer,” with some other tracts, and several sermons upon public occasions but his “Opus Historicum et Chronologicum,” was his capital production. The rest of his writings, being chiefly on controversial and temporary subjects, can, at present, be of little or no value. But his memory is perhaps yet more preserved by a very recent publication, “Letters and Journals, carefully transcribed by Robert Aiken containing an impartial account of public transactions, civil, ecclesiastical, and military, both in England and Scotland, from 1637 to 1662 a period, perhaps, the most remarkable that is to be met with in the British History. With an Account of the Author’s life, prefixed and a Glossary annexed,” Edinburgh, 1775, 2 vols. 8vo. The chief correspondents of Mr. Baillie were, Mr. William Spang, minister first to the Scotch Staple at Campvere, and afterwards to the English Congregation in- Middleburgh in Zealand, who was his cousin -german Mr. David Dickson, professor of Divinity, first at Glasgow, then at Edinburgh and Messrs, Robert Ramsay and George Young, who were ministers in Glasgow. There are, in this collection, letters to several other persons but Mr. Spang was the gentleman with whom Mr. Baillie principally corresponded. The journals contain a history of the general assembly at Glasgow, in 1638; an account of the earl of Stafford’s trial the transactions of the general assembly and parliament, in 1641 and the proceedings of thegeneral assembly, in 1643.

, an ingenious and diligent naturalist, the son of William Baker, a clerk in Chancery, was born in Chancery-lane, London, May 8, 1698. He was placed in 1713 with John Parker, whom he left in 1720, to reside for a few weeks with Mr. John Forster an attorney. Mr. Forster had a daughter of eight years old, who was born deaf and dumb. Mr. Baker, possessed with the idea that he could instruct her in reading, writing, and understanding what was spoken, made the attempt, and was so successful that her father retained him in his house for some years, during which he succeeded equally well with a second daughter who laboured under the same privation. He afterwards made this the employment of his life. In the prosecution of so valuable and difficult an undertaking, he was very successful. Among his pupils were the hon. Lewis Erskine, son of the late earl of Buchaii lady Mary, and lady Anne O'Brien, daughters of the earl of Inchiquin the earl of Sussex and his brother Mr. Yelverton the earl of Haddington, the earl of Londonderry, and many others. At the end of his instructions, he is said to have taken a bond for lOOl. of each scholar not to divulge his method, an instance of narrowness of mind which we wish we could contradict.

Mr. Baker likewise gave the college lOOl. for the consideration of six pounds a-year (then legal interest) for his life and to the library several choice books, both printed and ms. medals, and coins besides what he left to it by his will which were “all such books, printed and ms. as he had, and were wanting there.” All that Mr. Baker printed was, 1. “Reflections on Learning, shewing the insufficiency thereof in its several particulars, in order to evince the usefulness and necessity of Revelation, London, 1710,” which went through eight editions; and Mr. Boswell, in his “Method of Study,” ranks it among the English classics for purity of style; a character perhaps too high, yet it is a very ingenious work, and was at one time one of the most popular books in our language. Its principal fault is, that the author has too much depreciated human learning, and is not always conclusive in his arguments. 2. “The preface to bishop Fisher’s funeral sermon for Margaret countess of Richmond and Derby, 1708” both without his name. Dr. Grey had the original ms. of both in his own hands. The latter piece is a sufficient specimen of the editor’s skill in antiquities to make us regret that he did not live to publish his “History of St. John’s college, from the foundation of old St. John’s house to the present time; with some occasional and incidental account of the affairs of the university, and of such private colleges as held communication or intercourse with the old house or college collected principally from Mss. and carlied on through a succession of masters to the end of bishop Gunning’s mastership, 1670.” The original, fit for the press, is among the Harleian Mss. No. 7028. His ms collections relative to the history and antiquities of the university of Cambridge, amounting to thirty-nine volumes in folio, and three in 4to, are divided between the British Museum and thfe public library at Cambridge the former possesses twenty-three volumes, which he bequeathed to the earl of Oxford, his friend and patron the latter sixteen, in folio, and three in 4to, which he bequeathed to the university. Dr. Knight styles him “the greatest master of the antiquities of this our university;” and Hearne says, “Optandum est ut sua quoqn^ collectanea de antiquitatibus Cantabrigiensibus juris taciat publici cl. Bakerus, quippe qui eruditione summa judicioque acri et subacto polleat.” Mr. Baker intended something like an Athenae Cantabrigienses on the plan oLthe Athenae Oxonienses. Had he lived to have completed his design, it would have far exceeded that work. With the application and industry of Mr. Wood, Mr. Baker united a penetrating judgment and a great correctness of style, and these improvements of the mind were crowned with those amiable qualities of the heart, candour and integrity. He is very frequently mentioned by the writers of his time, and always with high respect. Although firm in his principles, he corresponded with and assisted men of opposite ways of thinking, and with the utmost readiness made them welcome to his collections. Among his contemporaries who distinguished themselves in the same walk with himself, and derived assistance from him, may be reckoned Mr. Hearne, Dr. Knight, Dr. John Smith, Hilkiah Bedford, Browne Willis, Mr. Strype, Mr. Peck, Mr. Ames, Dr. Middleton, and professor Ward. Two large volumes of his letters to the first of these antiquaries are in the Bodleian library. There is an indifferent print of him by Simon from a xnemoriter picture but a very good likeness of him by C. Bridges. Vertue was privately engaged to draw his picture by stealth. Dr. Grey had his picture, of which Mr. Burton had a copy by Mr. Ilitz. The Society of Antiquaries have another portrait of him. It was his custom, in every book he had, or read, to write observations and an account of the author. Of these a considerable number are at St. John’s college, and several in the Bodleian library, among Dr. Rawiinson’s bequests. A fair transcript of his select ms observations on Dr. Drake’s edition of archbishop Parker, 1729, was some time ago in the hands of Mr. Nichols. Dr. John Bedford of Durham had Mr. Baker’s copy of the “Hereditary Right,” greatly enriched by him. Dr. Grey, who was advised with about the disposal of the books, had his copy of Spelman’s Glossary. Mr. Crow married a sister of Mr. Baker’s nephew, Burton; and, on Burton’s death intestate in the autumn after his uncle, became possessed of every thing. What few papers of Mr. Baker’s were among them, he let Mr. Smith of Burnhall see and they being thought of no account, were destroyed, excepting the deed concerning the exhibitions at St. John’s, his own copy of the historyof the college, notes on the foundress’s funeral sermon, and the deed drawn for creating him chaplain to bishop Crew, in the month and year of the revolution, the day left blank, and the deed unsubscribed by the bishop, as if rejected by him.

, according to Wood, was born in the west of England, and spent several years at Oxford in the study of logic and philosophy there he supposes him to have been the same William Baldwin, who supplicated the congregation of regents for a master’s degree in 1532, but it does not appear by the register that it was granted. He afterwards became a schoolmaster and a minister, and was one of those scholars who followed printing, in order to promote the reformation. In this character, we find him employed by Edward Whitchurch, probably as the corrector of the press, though he modestly styles himself “seruaunt with Edwarde Whitchurche.” This, however, seems to have been his employment at first, and chiefly: yet he afterwards appears to have qualified himself for a compositor. As an author, Bale and Pits ascribe some comedies to him, which were probably mysteries or moralities now unknown, but he compiled “A treatise of moral Philosophy,” which was printed by Edw. Whitchurch, in 1547, and in 1550, and without date. This was afterwards enlarged by Thomas Paifryman, and went through several editions. His next performance was “The Canticles or Balades of Solomon, phraselyke declared in English metres,” printed by himself, 1549, 4to. He wrote also “The Funeralles of king Edward VI.” in verse, printed in 1560, 4to. But he is perhaps best known now by the share he had in the publication of “The Mirror of Magistrates,” originally projected by Thomas Sackville, first lord Buckhurst, and afterwards earl, of Dorset, who wrote the poetical preface, and the legend of Henry Stafford, duke of Buckingham, and recommended the completion of the whole to our William Baldwin and George Ferrers. The time of his death is not specified, but he appears to have lived some years after the accession of queen Elizabeth.

It has been said that Bales was engaged in the earl of Essex’s treasons in 1600, but he appears to have been entrapped by one John Danyell of Deresburie, esq. who, resolving out of the distresses of his lord to raise a considerable addition to his own substance, induced Bales to imitate some of that earl’s letters; but Danyell was sentenced in the Star-chamber, upon the evidence of Bales and other witnesses, in June 1601, to pay a fine of 3000l. for which his whole effects were extented, also to be exposed on the pillory, and endure perpetual imprisonment besides, for his forgery, fraud, and extortion. Bales was, indeed, for a short time, under some confinement, that they might be certain of his evidence at the trial and we find also that he wrote a large declaration to the countess of Essex, and, it seems, at her request or command, in which he set forth the whole manner of his engagement, and the justification of his conduct in this business. We have little more of Bales after this, except that he is supposed to have died about 1610.

, an English physician, the son of Henry Baley of Warnweli in Dorsetshire, was born in 1529, at Portsham in that county, educated at Winchester school, and admitted perpetual fellow of New college in Oxford, in 1550, after having served two years of probation. Having taken the degrees of B. A. and M. A. he studied physic, and was admitted to practise in that faculty in 1558, being at that time proctor of the university, and prebendary of Dultingcote or Dulcot in the church of Wells, which preferment he resigned in 1579. In 1561, he was appointed the queen’s professor of physic in the university of Oxford. Two years after he took the degree of doctor in that faculty, and at last was appointed physician in ordinary to her majesty. He was esteemed to be very skilful in theory and successful in practice. He died March 3, 1592, at sixty-three years of age, and was buried in the inner chapel of New college, Oxford. His posterity, Mr. Wood tells us, subsisted at Ducklington near Whitney in Oxfordshire, and some of them had been justices of the peace for the said county. His works were, 1. “A discourse of three kinds of Pepper in common use,” 1558, 8vo. 2. “A brief treatise of the preservation of the Eye-sight,” printed in queen Elizabeth’s reign in 12mo, and at Oxford in 1616 and 1654, 8vo. In the edition of 1616 there is added another “Treatise of the Eye-sight,” collected from Fernelius and lliolanus, but by what hand we are not told. They both pass under Dr. Baley’s name. 3. “Directions for Health, natural and artificial, with medicines for all diseases of the Eye,” 1626, 4to. 4. “Explicatio Galeni de potu convalescentium et senum, et praecipue de nostree alae et biriae paratione,” &c. in ms. 4to, in the library of Robert earl of Aylesbury.

, founder of Balliol college in Oxford, was the son of Hugh de Balliol of Bernard’s castle in the diocese of Durham. He was a person very eminent for power and riches, being possessed of thirty knights’ fees, about 12,000l. a considerable estate in those times. But he received a great addition thereto, by his marriage with Dervorgille, one of the three daughters and coheiresses of Alan of Galloway (a great baron in Scotland), by Margaret the eldest sister of John Scott, the last earl of Chester, and one of the heirs to David, some time earl of Huntingdon. From 1248 to 1254 he was sheriff of the county of Cumberland and in 1248 was constituted governor of the castle of Carlisle. Upon the marriage of Margaret daughter of king Henry 111. to Alexander III. king of Scotland, the guardianship of them both, and of that kingdom, was committed to our sir John de Balliol, and to another lord but, about three years after, they were accused of abusing their trust, and the king inarched towards Scotland with an army, to chastise them. However, in consideration of the many important services performed, in the most difficult times, to K. John the king’s father, by Hugh, our John BallioPs father and especially by a sum of money, he soon made his peace. In the year 1258, he had orders to attend the king at Chester, with horse and arms, to oppose the incursions of Lhewelyn prince of Wales. And two years after, in recompence of his service to king Henry, as well in France as in England, he had a grant of two hundred marks for discharging which, the king gave him the wardship of William de Wassingle. In part of the years 1260, 1261> 1262, 1263, and 1264, he was sheriff for the counties of Nottingham and Derby; and in 1261, was appointed keeper of the honour of Peverell. In 1263, he began the foundation and endowment of Balliol college in Oxford > which was perfected afterwards by his widow. Duririg the contests and war between ^king Henry III. and his barons > he firmly adhered to the king on which account his lands were seized and detained by the barons, but restored again through one of his sons’ interposition. In 1264, he attended the king at the battle of Northampton, wherein the barons were defeated but, the year following, he was taken prisoner, with many others, after the king’s fatal overthrow at Lewes. It appears that he soon after made his escape^ and endeavoured to keep the northern parts of England in king Henry’s -obedience, and having obtained authority from prince Edward, he joined with other of the northern barons, and raised all the force he could to rescue the king from his confinement. He died a little before Whitsuntide, in the year 1269, or as Savage, the historian of Balliol college, thinks, in 1266; leaving, three sons behind him, Hugh, and Alexander, who both died without issue and John, afterwards chosen king of Scotland.

, one of the promoters of the reformation in Scotland, was born at Kircaldy, in the county of Fife, in the reign of James V. and educated at the university of St. Andrew’s. He afterwards went to France, in order to complete his studies and, returning to Scotland, was admitted into the family of the earl of Arran, who at that time governed the kingdom; but in the year 1542 the earl dismissed him, for having embraced the Protestant religion. In 1546 he joined the murderers of cardinal Beaton, although without having been concerned in that act, yet for this he was declared a traitor, and excommunicated. Whilst that party were besieged in the castle of St. Andrew’s, they sent Balnaves lo England, who returned with a considerable supply of provisions and money but, being at last obliged to surrender to the French, he was sent, with the rest of the garrison, to France. He returned to Scotland about the year 1559, and having joined the congregation, he was appointed one of the commissioners to treat with the duke of Norfolk on the part of queen Elizabeth. In 1563 he was made one of the lords of session, and appointed by the general assembly, with other learned men, to revise the book of discipline. The celebrated reformer Knox, his contemporary, gives him the character of a very learned and pious divine, and we learn from Calderwood’s ms history, and from Sadler’s State Papers, that he raised himself by his talents and probity, from an obscure station to the first honours of the state, and was justly regarded as one of the principal supporters of the reformed cause in Scotland. It is added, that when a boy, he travelled to the continent, and hearing of a free school at Cologne, procured admission to it, and received a liberal education. He died at Edinburgh in 1579. It was during his confinement at Rouen in France that he wrote a treatise on justification, and the works and conversation of a justified man, which was revised hy Knox, who added a recommendatory dedication, and desired it might he printed. The ms. however, was not discovered until after Knox’s death, when it was published in 1584, 8vo, with the title of “Confession of Faith, &c. by Henry Balnaves, of Halhill, one of the lords of council, and lords of session.” According to Irvine, it was printed at Edinburgh, but M'Rie speaks of a London edition of the same date. Mackenzie erroneously divides it into two works, one “A treatise concerning Justification,” Edin. 1550, and the other, “A Catechism or Confession of Faith,” ib. 1584, From a poem subscribed Balnaves, having appeared in Ramsay’s collection, he has been ranked among the minor poets of Scotland.

, archbishop of Canterbury in, the reign of king James I. the son of John Bancroft, gentleman, and Mary daughter of Mr. John Curvvyn, brother of Dr. Hugh Curvvyn, archbishop of Dublin, was born at Farnworth in Lancashire, in September 1544. After being taught grammar, he became a student of Christ college, Cambridge, where, in 1566-7, he took the degree of B. A. and thence he removed to Jesus’ college, where, in 1570, he commenced M. A. Soon after, he was made chaplain to Dr. Cox, bishop of Ely, who, in 1575, gave him the rectory of Teversham in Cambridgeshire. The year following he was licensed one of the university preachers, and in 1580 was admitted B. D. September 14th, 1584, he was instituted to the rectory of St. Andrew, Holborn, at the presentation of the executors of Henry earl of Southampton. In 1585 he commenced D. D. and the same year was made treasurer of St. Paul’s cathedral in London. The year following he became rector of Cottingham in Northamptonshire, at the presentation of sir Christopher Hatton, lord chancellor, whose chaplain he then was. Feb. 25th, 1589, he was made a prebendary of St. Paul’s, in 1592 advanced to the same dignity in the collegiate church of Westminster, and in 1594 promoted to a stall in the cathedral of Canterbury. Not long before, he had distinguished his zeal for the church of England by a learned and argumentative sermon against the ambition of the Puritans, preached at St. Paul’s cross. In 1597, Dr. Bancroft, being then chaplain to the archbishop of Canterbury, Whitgift, was advanced to the see of London, in the room of Dr. Richard Fletcher, and consecrated at Lambeth the 8th of May. From this time he had, in effect, the archiepiscopal power: for the archbishop, being declined in years, and unfit for business, committed the sole management of ecclesiastical affairs to bishop Bancroft. Soon after his being made bishop, he expended one thousand marks in the repair of his house in London. In 1600, he, with others, was sent by queen Elizabeth to Embden, to put an end to a difference between the English and Danes but the embassy had no effect. This prelate interposed in the disputes between the secular priests and the Jesuits, and furnished some of the former with materials to write against their adversaries. In the beginning of king James’s reign^ he was present at the conference held at Hampton court, between the bishops and the Presbyterian ministers. The same year, 1603, he was appointed one of the commissioners for regulating the affairs of the church, and for perusing and suppressing books, printed in England, or brought into the realm without public authority. A convocation being summoned to meet, March 20, 1603-4, and archbishop Whitgift dying in the mean time, Bancroft was. by the king’s writ, appointed president of that assembly. October 9tb, 1604, he was nominated to succeed the archbishop in that high dignity, to which he was elected by the dean and chapter, Nov. 17, and confirmedin Lambeth chapel, Dec. 10. Sept. 5, 1605, he was sworn one of his majesty’s most honourable privy council. This year, in Michaelmas term, he exhibited certain articles, to the lords of the council, against the judges. This was a complaint of encroachment, and a contest for jurisdiction between the temporal and ecclesiastical judges, and as Collier has well observed, ought to be decided by neither side but the decision was against him. In 1608 he was elected chancellor of the university of Oxford, in the room of the earl of Dorset. In ] 6 10 thisarchbishop offered to the parliament a project for the better providing a maintenance for the clergy, but without success. One of our historians pretends, that archbishop Bancroft set on foot the building a college near Chelsea, for the reception of students, who should answer all Popish and other controversial writings against the church of England. This prelate died Nov. 2, 1610, of the stone, in his palace at Lambeth. By his will he ordered his body to be interred in the chancel of Lambeth church, and besides other legacies, left all the books in his library to the archbishops his successors for ever. He was a rigid disciplinarian, a learned controversialist, an excellent preacher, a great statesman, and a vigilant governor of the church, and filled the see of Canterbury with great reputation but as he was most rigid in his treatment of the Puritans, it is not surprising that the nonconformist writers and their successors have spoken of him with much severity; but whatever may be thought of his general temper and character, his abilities appear to have been very considerable. In his famous sermon against the Puritans, there is a clearness, freedom, and manliness of style, which shew him to have been a great master of composition. It was printed with a, tract of his, entitled “Survey of the pretended Holy Discipline.” He wrote also another tract, entitled “Dangerous Positions,” and there is extant, in the Advocates’ library at Edinburgh, an original letter from him to king James I. containing an express vindication of pluralities. This letter has been printed by sir David Dalrymple, in the first volume of his Memorials. Dr. Bancroft is also the person meant as the chief overseer of the last translation of the Bible, in that paragraph of the preface to it beginning with “But it is high time to leave them,” &c. towards the end.

, lord chief justice of the common pleas, in the reign of king Charles I. was descended from a good family seated at Keswick, in Cumberland, where he was born, in A. D. 1589. The first part of his education he received at a grammar-school in his own county, whence, in 1604, he removed to Queen’s college, in Oxford, being then about fifteen, -and there, for spine time, pursued his studies. He left the university without a degree, and taking chambers in Grays inn, he applied himself to the law, in which science he quickly became eminent. His extraordinary diligence in his profession, his grave appearance, and excellent reputation, recommended him early to his sovereign, Charles I. by whom he was firsi made attorney to the prince. He was next year, 1630, lent-reader at Gray’s inn, and in 1631, treasurer of that society. In August 1634, he was knighted, and made attorney -general, in the place of Mr. Noy, deceased. He discharged this arduous employment, in those perilous times, with great reputation, till in hilary term 1640, he was made chief justice of the common pie.as, in the room of Sir Edward Littleton, now lord keeper. In this high station he acted also with universal approbation, remaining at London after the king was compelled to leave it, in order to discharge the duties of his office. But when he once understood that his continuance amongst them was looked on by some as owning the cause of the Parliamentarians, he retired to York. So just an idea the king had of this act of loyalty, that when he had thoughts of removing the lord-keeper, he at the same time was inclined to deliver the great seal to the lord chief-justice Bankes, whose integrity was generally confessed; but he was by some suspected (though wrongfully as it afterwards appeared) in point of courage. He subscribed the declaration made June 15, 1642, by the lords and gentlemen then with his majesty at York; and yet his conduct was so free from aspersion, that even the Parliament in their proposals to the king, in January 1643, desired he might be continued in his office. Beforethis, viz January 31, 1642, the university of Oxford, to manifest their high respect for him, created him LL. D. His majesty also caused him to be sworn of his privy council, and always testified a great regard for his advice. In the summer circuit he lost all his credit at Westminster, for having declared from the bench at Salisbury, that the actions of Essex, Manchester, and Waller, were treasonable, the commons voted him, and the rest of the judges in that sentiment, traitors. In the mean time, lady Bankes with her family being at Sir John’s seat, Corffe-castle, in the Isle of Purbeck, in Dorsetshire, the friends of the Parliament, who had already reduced all the sea coasts but that place, resolved tft reduce it likewise. The courageous lady Bankes, though she had about her only her children, a few servants and tenants, and little hopes of relief, yet refused to surrender the fortress. Upon this*, sir W. Earl, and Thomas Trenchard, esq. who commanded the Parliament forces, had recourse to very rough measures. Thrice they attempted the place by surprize, and as often were repulsed with loss, though the first time lady Bankes had but five men in the place, and during the whole time her garrison never exceeded forty. Then they interdicted her the markets, and at length formally besieged the house with a very considerable force, a train of artillery, and a great quantity of ammunition. This forced the little town dependant on the castle to surrender, which inclined the besiegers to be remiss, of which lady Bankes taking advantage, procured a supply of provision an-d ammunition, which enabled her still to hold out. At last, the gallant earl of Carnarvon, having with a considerable body of horse and dragoons, cleared a great part of the west, came into the neighbourhood of Purbeck, and sir W. Earl raised his siege, August 4, 1643, so precipitately, that he left his tents standing, together with his ammunition and artillery, all which fell into the hands of lady Bankes’s household. There is no question but this action was very pleasing to the king, at Oxford, where sir John continued in the discharge of his duty, as a privy counsellor, till the last day of his life, vis. December 28, 1644. But that be ever had any other preferment, much less was chief-­justice of the king’s bench, as Wood has affirmed, is certainly erroneous. He was interred with great solemnity in the cathedral of Christ-church, and a monument erected to his memory, with an inscription, signifying his titles, &c. and that he was distinguished by his knowledge, integrity, and fidelity. He left a numerous posterity, both male and female. By his will, he gave Carious sums to pious and charitable uses.

, an English dramatic writer, was bred an attorney at law, and belonged to the society of New-inn. The dry study of the law, however, not being so suitable to his Natural disposition as the more elevated flights of poetical imagination, he quitted the pursuit of riches in the inns of court, to attend on the muses in the theatre, but here he found his rewards hy no melins adequate to his deserts. His emoluments at the best were precarious, and the various successes of his pieces too feelingly convinced him of the error in his choice. Yet this did not prevent him from pursuing with cheerfulness the path he had taken his thirst of fame, and warmth of poetic enthusiasm, alleviating to his imagination many disagreeably circumstances, into which indigence, the too frequent attendant on poetical pursuits, often threw him. His turn was entirely to tragedy his merit in which is of a peculiar kind. For at the same time that his language must be confessed to be extremely unpoetical, and his numbers uncouth and inharmonious nay, even his characters, very far from being strongly marked qr distinguished, and his episodes extremely irregular yet it is impossible to avoid being deeply affected at the representation, and even at the reading of riis tragic pieces. This is owing in general to a happy choice of his subjects, which are all borrowed from history, either rpal or romantic, and most of them from circumstances in the annals of our own country, which, not only from their being familiar to our continual recollection, but even from their having some degree of relation to ourselves, we are apt to receive with a kind of partial prepossession, and a predetermination to be pleased. He has constantly chosen as the basis of his plays such tales as were, in themselves and their wellknown catastrophes, best adapted to the purposes of the drama. He has, indeed, seldom varied from the strictness of historical facts, yet he seems to have made it his constant rule to keep the scene perpetually alive, and never suffer his characters to droop. His verse is not poetry, but prose run mad, Yet will the false gem sometimes approach so near in glitter to the true one, at least in the eyes of all but the real connoisseurs, that bombast frequently passes for the true sublime and where it is rendered the vehicle of incidents in themselves affecting, and in which the heart is apt to take an interest, it will perhaps be found to have a stronger power on the human passions, than even that property to which it is in reality no more than a bare succedaneum. On this account only Mr. Banks’s writings have in general drawn more tears from the eyes, and excited more terror in the breasts even, of judicious audiences, than those of much more correct ariid more truly poetical authors. The tragedies he has left behind him are seven in number, yet few of them have been performed for some years past, excepting “The Unhappy Favourite, or Earl of Essex,” which continued till very lately a stock tragedy at both theatres. The writers on dramatic subjects have not ascertained either the year of the birth, or that of the death of this author. His last remains, however, lie interred in the church of St. James, Westminster.

In 1604, his father carried him to France, and was himself chosen professor of civil law at Angers. It is said that John attended his father’s lectures, and indeed it appears from many passages in his works, that he was conversant in that science which his father taught. In 1605, allured by some proffers of countenance and advancement, the sou returned to England, and remained there about a year. On his father’s death in 1606, he went to Paris, married Louisa Debonnaire, and soon after settled with his family in London. There he published the second part of his “Euphormion,” dedicated to that able and unpopular minister, the earl of Salisbury, in a style of gross flattery. The same writer, adds lord Haiies, who could discover no faults in Salisbury, aimed the shafts of his ridicule at Sully. Perhaps it was to conciliate favour with king James, that in this second part of “Euphormion,” he satirized tobacco and the puritans. In this year he also published a brief narrative of the gunpowder-plot, which he had composed a few weeks after the dfscovery of that treason, entitled “Series patefacti divinitus parricidii contra Maximum Regem regnumque Britanniae cogitati et instructi.” It is hard to say what could have induced him to withhold this narrative from the public, while the events which it relates were peculiarly interesting from their strange nature: and then, after so long an interval, to send it abroad without the addition of a single circumstance that was not already known throughout Europe.

Barlowe died in the year 1625. His works are as follow: 1. “The Navigator’s Supply, containing rnaiw things of principal importance belonging to Navigation, and use of diverse Instruments framed chiefly for that purpose,” Lond. 1597, 4to dedicated to Robert earl of Essex. 2. “Magnetical Advertisement, or diverse pertinent observations and improved experiments concerning the natnre and properties of the Loadstone,” Lond. 1616, 4to. 3. “A Brief Discovery of the idle animadversions of Mark Ridley, M. D. upon a treatise entitled Magnetical Advertisement,” Lond. 1618, 4to.

It. is said, that sir John Barnard was once pressed, by king George the Second, to accept the post of chancellor of the exchequer, which he refused. This was in February 1745-6, when earl Granville was again appointed secretary of state but was obliged to resign the seals in a few days, on account of a powerful combination against him.

, a learned divine and professor of Greek at Cambridge, was the son of a tradesman of London, where he was born Jan. 10, 1654. He was educated in Christ’s hospital, where he distinguished himself by his early knowledge of Greek, and by some poems in Latin and English, written before he went to the University. On Dec. 11, 1671, he was admitted a servitor in Emanuel college, Cambridge. In 1675 he published at London, his “Gerania;” and in June 1678 was elected fellow of his college. The following year, he published his “Poetical paraphrase on the History of Esther.” In 1686 he took the degree of B. D. and in 1688, published his life of Edward III. dedicated to king James II. In 1694, came out his edition of Euripides, dedicated to Charles duke of Somerset; and in 1695, he was chosen Greek professor of the university of Cambridge. In 1705, he published at Cambridge, his edition of Anacreon, dedicated to the duke of Marlborough and in 1710 his Homer, the Iliad dedicated to the earl of Pembroke, and the Odyssey to the earl of Nottingham. He died Aug. 3, 1712, and was buried at Hemingford, where there is a monument erected to him by his widow.

In 1700, he married Mrs. Mason, a widow lady of Hemingford, near St. Ives, in Huntingdonshire, with a jointure of c200 per annum. The common report is, that this lady, who was between forty and fifty, having for some time been a great admirer of Mr. Barnes, came to Cambridge, and desired leave to settle an hundred pounds a year upon him after her death which he politely refused, unless she would condescend to make him happy in her person^ which was none of the most engaging. The lady was too obliging to refuse any thing to “Joshua, for whom,” she said, “the sun stood still” and soon after they were married. This jointure was probably a help to him, but he had no church preferment, and bore a considerable part in the printing of some of his works, particularly his Homer. It appears that he was much involved with the expence of this work, and wrote two supplicating letters on the subject to the earl of Oxford, which are now in the British Museum, and weiae copied some years ago, and printed in the St. James’s Chronicle by George Steevens, esq. What the effect of them was, we know not but it is said that he at one time generously refused c2000 a year which was offered to be settled upon him. Upon the same authority we are told that a copy of verses which he wrote to prove that Solomon was the author of the Iliad, was not so much from the persuasion of his own mind, as to amuse his wife and by that means engage her to supply him with money towards defraying the expences of the edition. On his monument is a Latin inscription, and some Greek anacreontics by Dr. Savage, rather extravagant, but composed by way of pleasantry, and which his widow requested might be inscribed. The English translation, often reprinted, is professedly burlesque but one curious-fact is recorded on this monument, that he “read a small English Bible one hundred and twenty-one times at his leisure,” which, Mr. Cole remarks, is but once more than the learned duke de Montausier had read the Greek Testament. In one of the above-mentioned letters to Harley, he says, “I have lived in the university above thirty years fellow of a college, now above forty years standing, and fifty-eight years of age am bachelor of divinity, and have preached before kings.” How Mr. Barnes was neglected in church preferment cannot now be ascertained, but it seems not improbable that he did not seek it, his whole life being spent in study, and his only wants, those which arose from the expense of his publications. His pursuits were classical, and although from his constant perusal of the Bible, we may infer his piety, we know little of him as a divine. The following is a Jist of Mr. Barnes’s works, published and unpublished; and from the latter, we may at least form a very high opinion of his industry. It is unnecessary, perhaps, to add that his editions of the classics are not now in the highest reputation. Their errors were pointed out in his life-time, and superior critics have in a great measure superseded the use of them. While at Christ-church he published, 1. "Sacred Poems, in five books, viz. I. Κοσμοποὖα, or the Creation of the World. II. The Fall of Adam and the Redemption by Christ. III. An Hymn to the Holy Trinity. IV. A Pastoral Eclogue upon the Restoration of King Charles II. and an Essay upon the Royal Exchange. V. Panegyris, or the Muses, &c.“These pieces are in English, with a Latin dedication, an. 1669. 2.” The Life of Oliver Cromwell, the Tyrant,“an English poem, 1670. 3. Several dramatic pieces, viz. Xerxes, Pythias and Damon, Holofernes, &c. some in English and some in Latin; the former written entirely by himself, the latter in conjunction with others. Also some tragedies of Seneca translated into English. 4.” Upon the Fire of London and the Plague,“a Latin poem in heroic verse. 5.” A Latin Elegy upon the beheading of St. John the Baptist.“He afterwards published, 6.” Gerania, or a new discovery of a little sort of people called Pigmies," 1655, 12mo. 7. Αυλιχοχάτοπτρον, sive Esthers Historia, Poetica Paraphrasi, idque Græco carmine, cui versio Latina opponitur, exornata; una cum Scholiis, seu Annotationibus Græcis; in quibus (ad sacri textus dilucidationem) præter alia non pauca, Gentium Orientalium Antiquitates, Moresque reconditiores proferuntur. Additur Parodia Homerica de eadem hac Historia. Accessit Index rerum ac verborum copiosissimus,“1679, 8vo. 8.” The History of that most victorious monarch Edward III. king of England and France, and lord of Ireland, and first founder of the most noble order of the Garter; being a full and exact account of the Life and Death of the said King; together with that of his most renowned son, Edward Prince of Wales and Acquitain, surnamed the Black Prince; faithfully and carefully collected from the best and most ancient authors domestic and foreign, printed books, manuscripts, and records,“Cambridge, 1688, fol. a very elaborate collection of facts, but strangely intermixed with long speeches from his own imagination, which he thought was imitating Thucydides. Of his judgment as an antiquary, it may be a sufficient specimen that he traced the institution of the order of the garter to the Phenicians, following his predecessor Aylet Sammes, who derives all our customs from the same ancient people. 9. His” Euripides,“1694, fol. 10.” His Anacreon,“1705 and 1721, 8vo, which he dedicated to the duke of Marlborough, who, it has been observed, knew nothing of Anacreon, or of Greek. 11. His Homer,” 2 vols. 1711, 4to. The verses he wrote proving that Solomon wrote the Iliad, are in ms. in the library of Emanuel college.

There is subjoined to the first edition of his Anacreon at Cambridge, 1705, a catalogue of works, which Mr. Barnes had either published, or intended to publish; which is omitted in the second edition of that poet, printed after his death in 1721, though it is mentioned in the contents and the prolegomena. In this catalogue, besides the books already mentioned, we find the following 1. The Warlike Lover, or the Generous Rival; an English dramatic piece upon the war between the English and Dutch, and the death of the earl of Sandwich, an. 1672. 2. ψονθομφανεὰχ, or Joseph the Patriarch a Greek heroic poem in one book. The author designed twelve books, but finished only one. 3. Ὀρειολογία, or our Saviour’s Sermon upon the Mount, the Decalogue, the Apostles Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, the Magnificat, with other hymns from the Old and New Testament, in Greek verse. 4. Thuribuluna, or the hymns and festivals in Greek verse. 5. Miscellanies and epigrams in Latin and Greek verse. 6. Αγγλα Βελγομαχία, or the death of Edward Montague, earl of Sandwich, in Greek, Latin, and English verse. 7. Ἀγεκτρυομαχία, or a poem upon Cock-fighting, an, 1673. 8. The Song of Songs, containing an hundred Hexastics in English heroic verse, an. 1674. 9. Σῶειδηριάδος; a ludicrous poem, in Greek macaronic verse, upon a battle between a Spider and a Toad, an. 1673. 10. Φληϊάδος, or a supplement to the old ludicrous poem under that title, at Trinity-house in Cambridge, upon a battle between the Fleas and a Welshman. 11. A Poetical Lexicon, Greek and Latin to which is added a Lexicon of proper names, 1675, fol. 12. A treatise on the Greek Accents, in answer to Henry Christian Heninius and others, with a discourse upon the Points now in use. 13. Humorous Poems upon the 9th by ok of the; Iliad, and the ninth of the Odyssey, in English published in 1681. 14. Franciados an heroic poem, in Latin, upon the Black Prince. The whole was to consist of twelve books, eight of which were finished. 15. The Art of War, in four books, in English prose, 1676. 16. Hengist, or the English Valour; an heroic poem in English, in seven books. 17. Landgarth, or the Amazon Queen of Norway and Denmark an English dramatic poem in heroic verse, designed in honour of the marriage between prince George of Denmark and princess Anne. 18. An Ecclesiastical History from the beginning of the world to the ascension of our Saviour, in Latin, to I. 19. Miscellaneous Poems in English. 20. Philosophical and Divine Poems, in Latin, published at different 'times at Cambridge. 21. Poems, and sacred daily Meditations, continued for several years in English. 22. A dissertation upon Pillars, Obelisks, Pyramids, &c. in Latin, 1692. 23. A discourse upon the Sibyls, in three books, in Latin. 24. The Life of Pindar in four lectures, and thirty-two lectures upon his first Olympic Ode. 25. The Life of Theocritus, and lectures upon that poet. 26. The Lives of David, Scanderbeg, and Tamerlane. These lives, he tells us, he never actually begun, but only made considerable collections for them. 27. The Life of Edward the Black Prince. 28. The University- Calendar, or directions for young students of all degrees, with relation to their studies, and general rules of ethics, and a form of prayer, anno 1685. 29. Thirty-two lectures upon the first book of the Odyssey. 30. Above fifty lectures upon. Sophocles. 31. Lectures upon Bereshith, with an oration recommending the study of the Hebrew language. 32. Three Discourses in Jtnglish. I. The Fortunate Island, or the Inauguration of Queen Gloriana. II. The Advantage of England, or a sure way to victory. III. The Cause of the Church of England defended and explained published in 1703. 33. Concio ad Clerum, for his degree of bachelor of divinity, at St. Mary’s in Cambridge, 1686. 3*. Occasional Sermons, preached before the lord-mayor, &c. 35. An Oration, recommending the study of the Greek language, spoken in the public schools at Cambridge before the vice-chancellor, March 28, 1705. 36. A Greek Oration, addressed to the most reverend father Neophytus, archbishop of philippopolis, spoken in the Regent-house at Cambridge, September 13, 1701, 37. A Prevaricator’s Speech, spoken at the commencement at Cambridge, 1680. 38. A Congratulatory Oration in Latin, spoken at St. Mary’s, September 9, 1683, upon the escape of king Charles Ji. and the duke of York from the conspiracy. 39. Sermons, orations, declamations, problems, translations, letters, and other exercises, in English, Latin, and Greek. 40. A Satire in English verse upon the poets and critics. 41. An imitation of Plautus’s Trinummi in English. 42. Interpretations, illustrations, emendations, and corrections of many passages, which have been falsely translated, with explications upon various passages of scripture, from Genesis to Revelations. 43. Common-places in divinity, philology, poetry, and criticism and emendations of various Greek and Latin authors, with fragments of many of the poets.

, an engraver of considerable fame in this country, was a native of France, and there first learned his art. He was brought into England by Duhosc, with whom he went to law respecting the plates for the storyof Ulysses, engraven from die designs of Rubens in the collection of Dr. Meacle. Being afterwards reconciled, Baron accompanied Dubosc to Paris in 1729, and engraved a plate from Watteau, and engaged to do another from Titian in the king’s collection, for Mons. Crozat, for which he was to receive 60l. sterling. While at Paris, they both sat to Vanloo. How soon afterwards he returned to England, is not known, but he died in Panton-square, Piccadilly, Jan. 24, 1762. His manner of engraving seems to have been founded on that of Nicholas Dorigny. It is slight and coarse, 2 without any great effect; and his drawing is frequently very defective. He executed, however, a great number of works, a few portraits, and some considerable pictures after the best masters; as the family of Cornaro, at Northumberland house; Vandyke’s family of the earl of Pembroke, at Wilton; Henry VIII. giving the charter to the barber surgeons, from Holbein; the equestrian figure of Charles I. by Vandyke, at Kensington; its companion, the king, queen, and two children; and king William on horseback with emblematic figures, at Hampton-court. His last considerable work was the family of Nassau, by Vandyke. This, and his St. Cecilia from Carlo Dolce, he advertised in 1759, by subscription, at a guinea the pair.

, a classical teacher of considerable eminence, was born at Bent, in the parish of Kildwick in Craven, Yorkshire, in 1713, and was educated at the grammar school of Skipton, where he distinguished himself by his poetical compositions and classical knowledge. From thnt school he was removed to a scholarship in Universitycollege, Oxford, where he took his master’s degree, June l, 1714, and was admitted into holy orders. Soon after he quitted the university, he was nominated by the late sir V/yndham Knatchbull, hart, to the mastership of the free grammar school of Ashford in Kent, over which he presided during a very long period, and advanced the school to great reputation. He was also rector of the parishes of Pirton and Ickleford in Hertfordshire. In 1773 he was appointed, by the late earl of Thanet, to the rectory of Hothfield in Kent, where he rebuilt the parsonage house, to which he retired, and resigned the school of Ashford, to the endowment of which he was a liberal benefactor. He married Mary, the only daughter of Edward Jacob, esq. of Canterbury, and by her had an only daughter, Mary, the wife of Edward Jeremiah Curteis, esq. at whose house, at Northiam in Sussex, he died Nov. 26, 1801, in his eighty-third year.

, bishop of St.Asaph in the reign of Charles II. was the son of Isaac Barrow of Spiney Abbey irt Cambridgeshire, and uncle of the celebrated mathematician, who will form the subject of the next article. He was born in 1613, admitted July 1639 of Peterhouse, Cambridge, next year chosen scholar, and in 1631, librarian. In Dec. 1641, he was presented to the vicarage of Hin ton, by his college, of which he was a fellow, and resided there until ejected by the presbyterians in 1643. He then removed to Oxford, where his learning and abilities were well known, and where he was appointed one of the chaplains of New College, by the interest of his friend, Dr. Pink, then warden. Here he continued until the surrender of Oxford to the parliamentary army, when he was obliged to shift from place to place, and suffer with his brethren, who refused to submit to the usurping powers. At the restoration, however, he was not only replaced in his fellowship at Peterhouse, but chosen a fellow of Eton college, which he held in commendam with the bishopric of Mann. In 1660, being then D. D. he was presented by Dr. Wren, bishop of Ely, to the rectory of Downham, in the Isle of Ely; and, in 1662, resigned his fellowship of Peterhouse. In July 1663, he was consecrated bishop of Mann, in king Henry Vllth’s chapel, Westminster, on which occasion his nephew, the mathematician, preached the consecration sermon. In April 1664, he was appointed governor likewise of the Isle of Mann, by his patron, Charles earl of Derby; and executed his office with the greatest prudence and honour during all the time in which he held the diocese, and for some months after his translation to the see of St. Asaph. He was ever of a liberal, active mind; and rendered himself peculiarly conspicuous as a man of public spirit, by forming and executing good designs for the encouragement of piety and literature. The state of the diocese of Mann at this time was deplorable, as to religion. The clergy were poor, illiterate, and careless, the people grossly ignorant and dissolute. Bishop Barrow, however, introduced a very happy change in all respects, by the establishment of schools, and improving the livings of the clergy. He collected with great care and pains from pious persons about eleven hundred pounds, with which he purchased of the earl of Derby all the impropriations in the island, and settled them upon the clergy in due proportion, He obliged them all likewise to teach schools in their respective parishes, and allowed thirty pounds per annum for a free-school, and fifty pounds per annum for academical learning. He procured also from king Charles II. one hundred pounds a year (which, Mr. Wood says, had like to have been lost) to be settled upon his clergy, and gave one hundred and thirty-five pounds of his own money for a lease upon lands of twenty pounds a year, towards the maintenance of three poor scholars in the college of Dublin, that in time there might be a more learned body of clergy in the island. He gave likewise ten pounds towards the building a bridge, over a dangerous water; and did several other acts of charity and beneficence. Afterwards returning to England for the sake of his health, and lodging in a house belonging to the countess of Derby in Lancashire, called Cross-hall, he received news of his majesty having conferred on him the bishopric of St. Asaph, to which he was translated March 21, 1669, but he was permitted to hold the see of Sodor and Mann in commendam, until Oct. 167 1, in order to indemnify him for the expences of his translation. His removal, however, from Mann, was felt as a very great loss, both by the clergy at large, and the inhabitants. His venerable, although not immediate, successor, Dr. Wilson, says of him, that “his name and his good deeds will be remembered as long as any sense of piety remains among them.” His removal to St. Asaph gave him a fresh opportunity to become useful and popular. After being established here, he repaired several parts of the cathedral church, especially the north and south ailes, and new covered them with lead, and wainscotted the east part of the choir. He laid out a considerable sum of money in repairing the episcopal palace, and a mill belonging to it. In ] 678 he built an alms-house for eight poor widows, and endowed it with twelve pounds per annum for ever. The same year, he procured an act of parliament for appropriating the rectories of Llanrhaiader and Mochnant in Denbighshire and "Montgomeryshire, and of Skeiviog in the county of Flint, for repairs of the cathedral church of St. Asaph, and the better maintenance of the choir therein, and also for the uniting several rectories that were sinecures, and the vicarages of the same parishes, within the said diocese. He designed likewise to build a free-school, and endow it, but was prevented by death; but in 1687, Bishop Lloyd, who succeeded him in the see of St. Asaph, recovered of his executors two hundred pounds, towards a free-school at St. Asaph.

, usually called Giraldus Cambren­sis, or Girald of Wales, was born at the castle of Mainaper, near Pembroke, in 1146. By his mother he was descended from the princes of South Wales and his father, William Barry, was one of the chief men of that principality. Being a younger brother, and intended for the cburch, he was sent to St. David’s, and educated in the family of the bishop of that see, who was his uncle. He acknowledges in his history of his own life and actions, that in his early youth he was too negligent and playful; but his uncle and his masters remonstrated with him so sharply, that he became diligent, and soon excelled his school-fellows. When about twenty years of age, he was sent to the university of Paris, where he continued for three years, acquiring great fame by his skill in rhetoric, and on his return he entered into holy orders, and obtained several benefices in England and Wales. Finding that the Welch were very reluctant in paying tidies of wool and cheese, he applied to Richard, archbishop of Canterburv, and was appointed his legate in Wales for rectifying that disorder, and for other purposes. He executed this commission with great spirit, excommunicating all without distinction, who neglected to pay. He also informed against the old archdeacon of Brechin for being married, and procured him to be deprived of his archdeaconry, which was bestowed on this officious legate. In otherwise discharging the duties of this new office, he acted with great vigour, which involved him in many quarXels; but, according to his own account, he was always in the right, and always victorious. On his uncle’s death, he was elected by the chapter of St. David’s, bishop of that see, but he declined accepting it, owing to the informality of not applying to the king for his licence, although in reality he knew that the king, Henry II. would never have confirmed such an election, and did in fact express his displeasure at it, in consequence of which another person was chosen. Girald, however, was not reconciled to the disappointment, and determined to get rid of his chagrin by travelling, and studying for some time longer at Paris. Here he pursued the civil and canon law, and with his usual vanity he boasts what a prodigious fame he acquired, especially in the knowledge of papal constitutions, or decretals, as they are called. In 1179, he was elected professor of the canon law in the university of Paris; but rejected the honour, expecting more solid advantages in his own country. In 1180, he returned home through Flanders and England, and in his way stopped at Canterbury, where he emphatically describes (what may be well allowed him) the great luxury of the monks of that place. At length he got home, where he found the whole country in a flame, the canons and archdeacons of Menevia having joined with the inhabitants in driving out the bishop of that see, the administration of which was committed to our author, by the archbishop of Canterbury. Under this authority he governed the see of St. David’s for three or four years, and made wonderful reformations in it. The abdicated bishop, whose name was Peter, did not acquiesce in the conduct of his clergy, but by letters suspended and excommunicated the canons and archdeacons, uncited and unheard: and at length, Girald, not having power to redress them, resigned his charge to the archbishop, who absolved the excommunicated. Bishop Peter imputed his disgrace, or at least the continuance of it, to Girald; great contests arose, and appeals were made to Rome: but at length they were reconciled, and the bishop restored. About the year 1184, king Henry II. invited Girald to court, and made him his chaplain, and at times he attended the king for several years, and was very useful to him in keeping matters quiet in Wales’. Yet though the king approved of his services, and in private often coinmended his prudence and fidelity, he never could be prevailed on to promote him to any ecclesiastical benefices, on account of the relation he bore to prince Rhees, and other grandees of Wales. In 1185, the king sent him to Ireland with his son John, in quality of secretary and privy-counsellor to the young prince: but the expedition did not meet with success, because earl John made use only of youthful counsels, and shewed no favour to the old adventurers, who were men experienced in the affairs of Ireland. While Girald thus employed himself in Ireland, the two bishoprics of Ferns and Leighlin fell vacant, which earl John offered to unite, and confer on him; but he rejected the promotion, and employed himself in collecting materials for writing his Topography and history of the conquest of Ireland, which he compiled and published a few years after. In the spring of the year 1186, John Comyn, archbishop of Dublin, convened a synod of his clergy, in Christ-church of that city, at which Girald was one of the preachers, but by the account of it in his life, it appears to have been a turbulent assembly. Having obtained great fame in Ireland, as he tells us himself, between Easter and Whitsuntide 1187, he returned to Wales, and employed all his time in writing and revising his Topography, to which, when he had put, the last hand, he took a journey to Oxford, and repeated it in a public audience of the university; and as it consisted of three distinctions, he repeated one every day of three successively; and in order to captivate the people, and secure their applause, the first day he entertained all the poor of the town, the next day the doctors and scholars of fame and reputation, and the third day the scholars of the lower rank, the soldiers, townsmen, and burgesses. In the year 1188, he accompanied Baldwin, archbishop of Canterbury, in a journey through the rough and mountainous parts of Wales, in order to preach up to the people the necessity of taking the cross, and engaging in an expedition in defence of the Holy Land. Here our author shews the vast success his eloquence met with, in persuading the greatest part of the country to engage in this adventure, when the archbishop was able to do nothing. Girald himself took the cross at this time, and it afforded him the opportunity of writing his “Itinerarium Cambriae.” The same year he went over into France, in the retinue of king Henry If, which he did by the advice of the archbishop of Canterbury, and Ranulph de Glanville, chief-justice of England; but the king dying the year after, he was sent back by Richard I. to preserve the peace of Wales, and was even joined with the bishop of Ely, as one of the regents of the kingdom. After refusing one or two bishoprics, in hopes to succeed to St. David’s, which was his favourite object, this latter became vacant in 1198, and he was unanimously elected by the chapter. Yet here again he was disappointed, owing to the opposition of Hubert archbishop of Canterbury, and was involved in a contest, which lasted five years, during which he took three journies to Rome, and was at last defeated. Soon after this, he retired from the world, and spent the last seventeen years of his life in study, composing many of his writings. He was unquestionably a man of genius and learning, but as a historian, full of credulity and fable; and as a man, one of the most vain upon record. Ware, and the editor of the Biog. Britannica, have given a long list of his manuscript works, which are in the Cotton and Harleian libraries in the British museum, the archbishop’s library at Lambeth, the Bodleian, Oxford, and the public library and Bene't college library, Cambridge. Those printed are: 1. “Topographia Hibernioe,” Francfort, 1602, and in Holinshed, 2. “Historia Vaticinalis, de expugnatione Hiberniae,” Francfort, 1602, both published by Camden. 3. “Itinerarium Cambriae,” published with annotations by David Powel, 1585, 8vo. 4. “De laudibus Carnbrorum,” also published by Powel. 5. “Gemma Ecclesiastica,” Mentz, 1549, under the title of “Gemma animoe,” without the author’s name. 6. “Liber secundus de descriptione Wallise,” published by Wharton, in Anglia Sacra, part II. p, 447. Camden every where quotes Giraldus as an author of undoubted credit and reputation.

, lord Santry, descended from a Welch family, was the son of a merchant in Dublin, and educated in the profession of the law. When admitted at the bar, he practised for some years with great reputation and success. In 1629, the king conferred upon him the office of his majesty’s serjeant at law, for the kingdom of Ireland, at a yearly fee of twenty pounds ten shillings sterling, and in as full a manner as the same office was granted before to sir John Brereton, knt.; and lord Wentworth, afterwards earl of Strafford and lord deputy of Ireland, soon discovered his abilities, took him under his protection, and laid hold of the first opportunity he had to promote him. Accordingly, on the 5th of August 1634, he obtained a grant of the office of second baron of the exchequer of Ireland, to hold during pleasure, with such fees, rewards, and profits, as sir Robert Oglethorpe, sir Lawrence Parsons, sir Gerard Lowther, or any other second baron, did or ought to receive; and he soon after received the honour of knighthood. He obtained this favour, notwithstanding a powerful recommendation from England in behalf of another; and it was merely the fruit of the lord Wentworth’s friendship, of which he had occasion, soon after, of making a public acknowledgement. After the year 1640, when the parliament of Ireland were about to send over a committee of their body to England, to impeach the earl of Stratford, he joined all his weight and interest with sir James Ware, and other members of the house of commons, to oppose those measures; though the torrent was so violent, that it was fruitless, nor do we hear much of our baron during the long course of the rebellion, till a little before the restoration of king Charles II. in the year 1660, when he was appointed chairman of the convention, which voted his majesty’s restoration without any previous conditions, in which resolution, no doubt, he was instrumental, since we find his majesty took his merit into consideration a very short time after. For on the 17th of November that year, the king issued a privy seal for advancing him to the office of chief-justice in the king’s bench in Ireland, and another on the 18th of December following, in consideration of his eminent fidelity and zeal shewn in his majesty’s service, for creating him lord baron of San try, in the kingdom of Ireland, to him and the heirs male of his body; and he was soon after called to the privy council. He died in March 1672, and was buried in Christ church, Dublin. His only publication was, “The case of Tenures upon the commission of defective titles, argued by all the judges of Ireland, with the resolution, and reasons of their resolution,” Dublin, 1637, fol. and 1725, 12mo, dedicated to his patron, lord Stratford.

Soon after this event, the earl of Buchan set on foot a subscription, which amounted to about 1000l. with which his friends purchased an annuity for his life; but his oeath prevented his reaping any benefit from this design. The manner of his death is thus related by his biographer: 44 On the evening of Thurday, Feb. 6, 1806, he was seized as he entered the house where he usually dint-d, with the cold fit of a pleuritic fever, of so intense a degree, that all his faculties were suspended, and he unable to articulate or move. Some cordial was administered to him, and on his coming a little to himself, he was taken in a coach to the door of his own house, which, the keyhole being plugged with dirt and pebbles, as had been often done before, by the malice, or perhaps the roguery of boys in the neighbourhood, it was impossible to open. The night being dark, and he shivering under the progress of his disease, hisfriends thought it advisable to drive away without loss of time to the hospitable mansion of Mr. Bononni. By the kindness of that good family, a bed was procured in a neighbouring house, to which he was immediately conveyed. Here he desired to be left, and locked himself up, unfortunately, for forty hours, without the least medical assistance. What took place in the mean time, he could give but little account of, as he represented himself to be delirious, and only recollected his being tortured with a burning pain in his side, and with difficulty of breathing. In this short time was the deathblow given, which, by the prompt and timely aid of copious bleedings, might have been averted; but without this aid, such had been the re-action of the hot fit succeeding the rigours, and the violence of the inflammation on the pleura, that an effusion of lymph had ' taken place, as appeared afterwards upon dissection. In the afternoon of Saturday, Feb. 8, he rose and crawled forth to relate his complaint to the writer of this account. He was pale, breathless, and tottering, as he entered the room, with a dull pain in his side, a cough short and incessant, and a pulse quick and feeble. Succeeding remedies proved of little avail. With exacerbations and remissions of fever, he lingered to the 22d of February, when he expired." His remains, after lying in state in the great room of the society of arts, Acielphi, was interred in St. Paul’s cathedral, with solemnity, and the attendance of many of his friends and admirers, among whom was not one artist.

, an eminent English engraver, son of Isaac Basire, who was an engraver and printer, was born Oct. 6, 1730; and bred from infancy to his father’s profession, which he practised with great reputation for sixty years. He studied under the direction of Mr. Richard Dalton; was with him at Rome made several drawings from the pictures of Raphael, &c. at the time that Mr. Stuart, Mr. Brand Hollis, and sir Joshua Reynolds, were there. He was appointed engraver to the society of antiquaries about 1760; and to the royal society about 1770. As a specimen of his numerous works, it may be sufficient to refer to the beautiful plates of the “Vetusta Monumenta,” published by the society of antiquaries, and to Mr. Cough’s truly valuable “Sepulchral Monuments.” With the author of that splendid work he was most deservedly a favourite. When he had formed the plan, and hesitated on actually committing it to the press, Mr. Gough says, “Mr. Basire’s specimens of drawing and engraving gave me so much satisfaction, that it was impossible to resist the impulse of carrying such a design into execution.” The royal portraits and other beautiful plates in the “Sepulchral Monuments” fully justified the idea which the author had entertained of his engraver’s talents; and are handsomely acknowledged by Mr. Gough. The Plate of “Le Champ de Drap d'Or” was finished in 1774; a plate so large, that paper was obliged to be made on purpose, which to this time is called “antiquarian paper. Besides the numerous plates which he engraved for the societies, he was engaged in a great number of public and private works, which bear witness to the fidelity of his burin. He engraved the portraits of Fielding and Hogarth in 1762; earl Camden, in 1766, after sir Joshua Reynolds; Pylades and Orestes, 1770, from a picture by West; portraits of the Rev. John Watson, and sir George Warren’s family; portraits also of dean Swift, and Dr. Parnell, 1774; sir James Burrow, 1780; Mr. Bowyer, 1782; portraits also of Dr. Munro, Mr. Gray, Mr. Thonxpson, Lady Stanhope, Sir George Savile, Bishop Hoadly, Rev. Dr. Pegge, Mr. Price, AlgernonSydney, Andrew Marvell, William Camden, William Brereton,1790,&c. &c.; Captain Cook’s portrait, and other plates, for his First and Second Voyages a great number of plates for Stuart’s Athens (which are well drawn). In another branch of his art, the Maps for general Roy’s” Roman Antiquities in Britain“are particularly excellent. He married, first, Anne Beaupuy; and, secondly, Isabella Turner. He died Sept. 6, 1802, in his seventy-third year, and was buried in the vault under Pentonville chapel. The ingenuity and integrity of this able artist are inherited by his eldest son, of whose works it may be enough to mention only the” Cathedrals," published by the society of antiquaries, from the exquisite drawings by Mr. John Carter. A third James Basirc, born in 1796, has already given several proofs of superior excellence in the arts of drawing and engraving.

It does not at all appear in what manner he spent the remainder of his life after he came back to Scotland; but it is certain he did not survive long, since his decease happened, as those who were well acquainted with him attest, in 1568. As to his learning, we are told by those who admired it most, it lay not in languages, of which, except his mother-tongue, he knew none thoroughly, though he spoke and taught in French, but in a very incorrect manner, and wrote much worse. He had very clear notions in most parts of his writings, and was far from being a contemptible astronomer, though the commendations bestowed on him by some authors very far surpass his deserts. He was too nauch tinctured with the superstition of the times, not to intermix a vast deal of false, and even ridiculous matter in his writings, on the virtuous aspects, and influences of the planets; yet in other respects he shews much good sense and industry, which render his works worth reading, and ought to secure both them and his memory from oblivion. As to his religion, he is reported to have been a zealous Protestant; and, with regard to his political principles, he is said to have adhered to the famous earl of Murray, then struggling for that power which he afterwards obtained. The works published by our author were: 1. “Astronomia, Jacobi Bassantini Scoti, opus absolutissimum,” &c. in which the observations of the most expert mathematicians on the heavens are digested into order and method, Latin and French, Geneva, 1599, fol. 2. “Paraphrase de l‘Astrolabe, avec une amplification de l’usage de l'astrolabe,” Lyons, 1555; and again at Paris, 1617, 8vo. 3. “Super mathematica genethliaca;” i. e. of the calculation of nativities. 4. “Arithmetical” 5. “Musica secundnm Platonem.” 6. “De Mathesi in genere.” The very titles of his works, joined to the age in which he flourished, sufficiently justify his right to a place in this work; and, though he might have foibles, yet, without doubt his practical skill was great, and the pains he took contributed not a little to bring in that accuracy and correctness in observations, which have effectually exploded those superstitions to which, with other great men, he was too much addicted.

, a clergyman and poet, was born at lilandford in Dorsetshire, and educated at Winchester-r school, from whence he removed to New college, Oxford, where he was chosen perpetual fellow in 1588, and two vcars after took the degree of B. A. but indulging too much his passion for satire, he was expelled the college for a libel. Not long after, he was made chaplain to Thomas, earl of Suifolk, lord treasurer of England, through whose interest he became vicar of Bere Regis, and rector of Aimer in his native county, having some time before taken the degree of M. A. He was a person of great natural endowments, a celebrated poet, and in his latter years an excellent preacher. His conversation was witty and facetious, which made his company be courted by all ingenious men. He was thrice married, as appears from one of his epigrams. Towards the latter end of his life, being disordered in his senses, and brought into debt, he was confined in the prison of All-Hallows parish in Dorchester, where dying in a very obscure and mean condition, he was buried in the church-yard belonging to that parish, April the 19th, 1618.

His principal work is an account of the rebellion, with a narrative of the regal and parliamentary privileges, printed under the title of “Elenchus Motuum nuperorum in Anglia, simul ac Juris Regis el Parliamentarii brevis narratio,” Paris, 1649, and Frankfort, 1650, 4to. Before it went to the press, it was communicated to Dr. Peter Heylyn, who made several observations on it, greatly tending to the honour of the king and the church. The first part of the Elenchus was translated into English by an unknown hand, and printed at London in 1652, in 8vo. The second part, in which the author had the assistance of some papers communicated to him by the lord-chancellor Hyde, afterwards earl of Clarendon, was printed in Latin at London in 1661, at Amsterdam the year following in 8vo, and reprinted with the first part at London in 1663, in Bvo. With such assistance this may be supposed an impartial work; but he has been accused of leaning too much to the Puritans, among whom he appears to have lived much in the early part of his life. In 1676, a third part was added to the “Elenchus,” also in Latin, by Dr. Thomas Skinner, a physician, but is inferior to the former. In 1685, the whole was translated by A. Lovel, M. A. of Cambridge. The only answer to Dr. Bate’s work, entitled “Elenchus Elenchi,” was written by Robert Pugh, an officer in the king’s army, and printed at Paris in 1664, 8vo, to which Bate replied; but we do not find that his reply was published. Dr. Bate wrote likewise, 1. “The Royal Apology; or, the declaration of the Commons in parliament, Feb. 11, 1647,” 1648, 4to. 2. “De Rachitide, sive morbo puerili, qui vulgo the Rickets dicitur,” Lond. 1650, 8vo. Mr. Wood tells us, the doctor was assisted in this work by Francis Glisson and Ahasuerus Regemorter, doctors of physic, and fellows of the college of physicians, and that it was afterwards translated into English by Philip Armin, and printed at London, 1651, 8vo and about the same time translated by Nicolas Culpepper, who styles himself ‘ student in physic and astrology.’ 3. After Dr. Bate’s death came out a dispensatory in Latin, entitled “Pharmacopoeia Batcana; in qua octoginta circiter pharmaca plcraque omnia e praxiGeorgii Batei regi Carolo 2clo proto-medici excerpta,” Lond. 1688 and 1691. It was published by Mr.lames Shipton, apothecary, and translated into English by Dr. William Salmon, under the title of “Bate’s Dispensatory,” and was long a very popular work. There was another George Bate, who wrote the “Lives of the Regicides,” London, 1661, 8vo.

, an eminent nonconformist divine of the seventeenth century, was born in November 1625, and after a suitable school education, was sent to Cambridge, where he was admitted of Emanuel college, from which he removed to King’s, in 1644. He commenced bachelor of arts in 1647, and applying himself to the study of divinity, became a distinguished preacher among the Presbyterians. He was afterwards appointed vicar of St. Dunstan’s in the West, London; and joined with several other divines in preaching a morning exercise at Cripplegate church. At this exercise Dr. Tillotson preached, in September 1661, the first sermon which was ever printed by him. Upon the restoration of Charles II. Mr. Bates was made one of his majesty’s chaplains; and, in the November following, was admitted to the degree of doctor in divinity in the university of Cambridge, by royal mandate. The king’s letter to this purpose was dated on the 9th of that month. About the same time, he was offered the deanery of Lichfield and Coventry, which he refused; and it is said that he might afterwards have been raised to any bishopric in the kingdom, if he would have conformed to the established church. Dr. Bates was one of the commissioners at the Savoy conference in 1660, for reviewing the public liturgy, and was concerned in drawing up the exceptions against the Common Prayer. He was, likewise, chosen on the part of the Presbyterian minfoters, together with Dr. Jacomb and Mr. Baxter, to manage the dispute with Dr. Pearson, afterwards bishop of Chester, Dr. Gunning, afterwards bishop of Ely, and Dr. Sparrow, afterwards bishop of Ely. In 1665, he took the oath required of the nonconformists by the act commonly called the Five Mile Act, and which had passed in the parliament held that year at Oxford, on account of the plague being in London. When, about January 1667-8, a treaty was proposed by sir Orlando Bridgman, lord keeper of the great seal, and countenanced by the lord chief baron Hale, for a comprehension of such of the dissenters as could be brought into the communion of the church, and for a toleration of the rest, Dr. Bates was one of the divines who, on the Presbyterian side, were engaged in drawing up a scheme of the alterations and concessions desired by that party. He was concerned, likewise, in another fruitless attempt of the same kind, which was made in 1674. His good character recommended him to the esteem and acquaintance of lord keeper Bridgman, lord chancellor Finch, and his son, the earl of Nottingham. Dr. Tillotson had such an opinion of his learning and temper, that it became the ground of a friendship between them, which continued to the death of that excellent prelate, and Dr. Bates, with great liberality, used his interest with the archbishop, in procuring a pardon for Nathaniel lord Crewe, bishop of Durham, who, for his conduct in the ecclesiastical commission, had been excepted out of the act of indemnity, which passed in 1690. When the dissenters presented their address to king William and queen Mary, on their accession to the throne, the two speeches to their majesties were delivered hy Dr. Bates, who was much respected by that monarch; and queen Mary often entertained herself in her closet with his writings. His residence, during the latter part of his life, was at Hackney, where he preached to a respectable society of Protestant dissenters, in an ancient irregular edifice in Mare-street, which was pulled down in 1773. He was also one of the Tuesday lecturers at Salter’s hall. He died at Hackney, July 14, 1699, in the 74th year of his age. After his death, his works, which had been separately printed, were collected into one volume fol. besides which a posthumous piece of his appeared in 8vo, containing some “Sermons on the everlasting rest of the Saints.” He wrote, likewise, in conjunction with Mr. Howe, a prefatory epistle to Mr. Chaffy’s treatise of the Sabbath, on its being reprinted; and another before lord Stair’s vindication of the Divine Attributes. Dr. Bates is universally understood to have been the politest writer among the nonconformists of the seventeenth century. It is reported, that when his library came to be disposed of, it was found to contain a great number of romances; but, adds his biographer, it should be remembered that the romances of that period, though absurd in several respects, had a tendency to invigorate

, a learned knight, and eminent justiciary of the thirteenth century, was a younger brother of an ancient family of that name, and born, most probably, at the ancient seat of the family, called Bathe house, in the county of Devon. Being a younger brother, he was brought up to the profession of the law, in the knowledge of which he so distinguished himself, that he was advanced by king Henry III. in 1238, to be one of the justices of the common pleas; and in 1240, was constituted one of the justices itinerant (as they were then called), for the county of Hertford; and in 1248 he was appointed the same for Essex and Surrey; in 1249 for Kent, Berks, Southampton, and Middlesex; and in 1250 for Lincolnshire; at which time he had allowed him out of the exchequer, by a peculiar favour, an hundred pounds a year for his sustentation in the discharge of his office. But the year following he lost the king’s favour, owing to the following crimes being laid to his charge, viz. That he had not exercised his office uprightly, but to his own private gain, having perverted justice through bribes, in a suit betwixt him and one Everard Trumpirigton; and this charge was chiefly supported against him by one Philip de Arcis, knt. who also added treason to that of infidelity in his office. The accused was attached in the king’s court; but one Mansel, who was now become a great favourite at court, offered bail for his appearance: king Henry refused this, the case, as he alledged, not being bailable, but one of high-treason. Fulk Basset, however, then bishop of London, and a great many of De Bathe’s friends interceding, the king at last gave orders that he should be bailed, twenty-four knights becoming sureties for his appearing and standing to the judgment of the court. But De Bathe seems to have been conscious of his own dements, or the prejudices of his judges against him, for he was no sooner set at liberty, than he wrote to all his relations either by blood or marriage, desiring that they would apply to the king in his favour, at first by fair speeches and presents, and if these did not prevail, they should appear in a more warlike manner, which they unanimously promised to do, upon the encouragement given them by a bold knight, one Nicholas de Sandford. But the king, confiding in his own power and the interest of De Bathe’s accusers, appeared inexorable, and rejected all presents from the friends of the accused. De Bathe, convinced that, if Henry persisted in his resolution, he himself must perish, had recourse to the bishop of London, and other special friends, and with a great posse of these went to Richard earl of Cornwall (afterwards king of the Romans), whom by prayer and promises he won over to his interest. The king remaining inflexible, about the end of February, De Bathe was obliged to appear to answer what should be laid to his charge. This he accordingly did, but strongly defended by a great retinue of armed knights, gentlemen, and others, viz. his own and his wife’s friends and relations, among whom was the family of the Bassets and the Sandfords. The assembly was now divided between those who depended upon the king for their preferments, and those who (though a great majority) were so exasperated at the measures of the court, that they were resolved not to find De Bathe guilty. It was not long before the king perceived this, and proclaimed that whosoever had any action or complaint against Henry de Bathe, should come in and should be heard. A new charge was now brought against De Bathe: he was impeached (not only on the former articles, but particularly) for alienating the affections of the barons from his majesty, and creating such a ferment all over the kingdom, that a general sedition was on the point of breaking out; and Bathe’s brotherjusticiary declared to the assembly, that he knew the accused to have dismissed without any censure, for the sake of lucre, a convicted criminal. Many other complaints were urged against him, but they seem to have been disregarded by all, except the king and his party, who was so much exasperated to see De Bathe likely to be acquitted, that he mounted his throne, and with his own mouth made proclamation, That whosoever should kill Henry de Bathe, should have the royal pardon for him and his heirs; after which speech he went out of the room in a great passion. Many of the royal party, upon this savage intimation, were for dispatching De Bathe in court: but his friend Mansel, one of the king’s counsel, and Fulk Basset, bishop of London, interposed so effectually, that he was saved; and afterwards, by the powerful mediation of his friends (among whom was the earl of Cornwall, the king’s brother, and the bishop of London), and the application of a sum of money, viz. 2,000 marks to the king, he obtained not only pardon, but all his former places and favour with the king, who re-established him in the same seat of judicature as he was in before, and rather advanced him higher; for he was made chief-justice of the king’s bench, in which honourable post he continued till the time of his death, as Dugdale informs us: for in 1260, we find that he was one of the justices itinerant for the counties of Huntingdon, Norfolk, Suffolk, and Cambridge, which was the year before he died. Browne Willis in h is Cathedrals (vol.ii. p. 410.) mentions that he was buried in Christ church, Oxford, but the editor of Wood’s colleges and halls, asks how any one can conceive the effigy of a man in armour to have been intended for a justiciary of England? This, however, is not decisive against the effigies on this tomb being intended for Henry de Bathe, because from the king’s threat above, which might be executed by any assassin, it is very probable that he might have been obliged to wear armour, even after the king was reconciled to him.

, an Irish Jesuit, was born in Dublin in 1564. It is said that he was of a sullen, saturnine temper, and disturbed in his mind, because his family was reduced from its ancient splendour. His parents, who were Protestants, having a greater regard to learning than religion, placed him under the tuition of an eminent popish school-master, who fitted him for that station of life which he afterwards embraced. He then removed to Oxford, where he studied several years with indefatigable industry: but the inquisitive Anthony Wood could not discover in what college or hall he sojourned, or whether he took any university degree. The same writer alledges, that growing weary of the heresy professed in England (as he usually called the Protestant faith), he quitted the nation and his religion together, and in 1596 was initiated among the Jesuits, being then between thirty and forty years of age; though one of his own order says he was then but twentyfive, which certainly is erroneous. Having spent some time among the Jesuits in Flanders, Ik; travelled into Italy, and completed his studies at Padua; from whence he passed into Spain, being appointed to govern the Irish seminary at Salamanca. He is said to have had a most ardent zeal for making converts, and was much esteemed among the people of his persuasion for his extraordinary virtues and good qualities, though he was of a temper not very sociable. At length, taking a journey to Madrid to transact some business of his order, he died on the 17th of June 1614, and was buried in the Jesuits 7 convent of that city, bearing among his brethren a reputation for learning; particularly on account of a work which he published to facilitate the acquirement of any language, entitled “Janua Linguarum, seu modus maxime accommodatus, quo patent aditus ad omnes linguas intelligendas,” Salamanca, 1611. Besides one or two tracts on confessions and penance, he wrote, when a youth at Oxford, “An introduction to the art of Music,” London, 1584, 4to. In this work, which is dedicated to his uncle Gerald Fitzgerald earl of Kildare, the author displays a good opinion of his own performance, but thought proper, some years after its first publication, to write it over again in such a manner, as scarcely to retain a single paragraph of the former edition. This latter edition was printed by Thomas Este, without a date, with the title of “A briefe introduction to the skill of Song; concerning the practice; set forth by William Bathe, gent.” From sir John Hawkins’s account of both these productions, and his extracts from them, it does not appear that they have any great merit. The style, in particular, is very perplexed and disagreeable.

, earl, an English nobleman of distinguished abilities, was son of sir Benjamin Bathurst of Pauler’s Perry, Northamptonshire, and born in St. James’s square, Westminster, Nov. 16, 1684. His mother was Frances, daughter of sir Allen Apsley, in Sussex, knt. After a grammatical education, he was entered, at the age of fifteen, in Trinity college, Oxford; of which his uncle, dean Bathurst, was president. In 1705, when just of age, he was chosen for Cirencester in Gloucestershire, which borough he represented for two parliaments. He acted, in the great opposition to the duke of Maryborough and the Whigs, under Mr. Harley and Mr. St. John; and, in Dec. 1711, at that memorable period, in which the administration, to obtain a majority in the upper house, introduced twelve new lords in one day, was made a peer. On the accession of George I. when his political friends were in disgrace, and some of them exposed to persecution, he continued firm in his attachment to them: he united, particularly, in the protests against the acts of the attainder against lord Bolingbroke and the duke of Ormond. We have no speech of his recorded, till on Feb. 21, 1718 from which period, for the space of twenty-five years, we find that he took an active and distinguished part in every important matter which came before the upper house; and that he was one of the most eminent opposers of the measures of the court, and particularly of sir Robert Waipole’s administration. For an account of these, however, we refer to history, and especially to the history and proceedings of the house of lords.

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.

, a distinguished wit, and Latin poet, was descended of an ancient family, and was born at Howthorpe, a small hamlet in Northamptonshire, in the parish of Thedingworth, near Market-Harborough in Leicestershire, in 1620. He received the first part of his education at the free-school in Coventry, where his father seems to have resided in the latter part of his life. His mother was Elizabeth Villiers, daughter and coheir of Edward Villiers, esq. of the same place. They had issue thirteen sons, and four daughters. Six of the sons lost their lives in the service of king Charles I. during the grand rebellion: the rest, besides one who died young, were Ralph (of whom we now treat), Villiers, Edward, Moses, Henry, and Benjamin, father of the late earl Bathurst, the subject of the preceding article. At Coventry school our author made so quick a progress in the classics, that at the age of fourteen he was sent to Oxford, and entered October 10, 1634, in Gloucester hall, now Worcester college; but was removed in a few days to Trinity college, and probably placed under the immediate tuition of his grandfather Dr. Kettel, then president, in whose lodging he resided (still known by the name of Kettel-hall), and at whose table he had his diet, for two years. He was elected scholar of the house, June 5., 1637, and having taken the degree of A. B. January 27th following, he was appointed fellow June 4, 1640. He commenced A. M.April 17, 1641, and on March 2, 1644, conformably to the statutes of his college, he was ordained priest by Robert Skinner, bishop of Oxford, and read some theological lectures in the college hall in 1649. These, which he called “Diatribae theologicEc, philosophies, et philological,” are said to discover a spirit of theological research, and an extensive knowledge of the writings of the most learned divines. He likewise kept his exercise for the degree of B. D. but did not take it. The confusion of the times promising little support or encouragement to the ministerial function, like his friend, the famous Dr. Willis, he applied himself to the study of physic, and accumulated the degrees in that faculty, June 21, 1654. Before this time he had sufficiently recommended himself in his new profession, and had not been long engaged in it, when he was employed as physician to the sick and wounded of the navy, which office he executed with equal diligence and dexterity, to the full satisfaction of the sea-commanders, and the commissioners of the admiralty. We find him soon after settled at Oxford, and practising physic in concert with his friend Dr. Willis, with whom he regularly attended Abingdon market every Monday. He likewise cultivated every branch of philosophical knowledge: he attended the lectures of Peter Sthael, a chymist and rosicrucian, who had been invited to Oxford by Mr. R. Boyle, and was afterwards operator to the royal society about 1662. About the same time he had also a share in the foundation of that society; and when it was established, he was elected fellow, and admitted August 19, 1663. While this society was at Gresham college in London, a branch of it was continued at Oxford, and the original society books of this Oxford department are still preserved there in the Ashmolean Museum, where their assemblies were held. Their latter Oxford meetings were subject to regulations made among themselves; according to which Dr. Bathurst was elected president April 23, 1688, having been before nominated one of the members for drawing up articles, February 29, 1683-4. Nor was he less admired as a classical scholar; at the university a.cts, in the collections of Oxford verses, and on every public occasion, when the ingenious were invited to a rival display of their abilities, he appears to have been one of the principal and most popular performers. Upon the publication of Hobbes’s treatise of “Human Nature,” &c. 1650, Bathurst prefixed a recommendatory copy of Latin iambics, written with so much strength of thought, and elegance of expression, that they fully established his character as a Latin poet; and recommended him to the notice of the duke of Devonshire, by whose interest he afterwards obtained the deanery of Wells. He had thought fit, by a temporary compliance, to retain his fellowship at Oxford, under the conditions of the parliamentary visitation in 1648, and after the death of Cromwell, procured a majority of the fellows of his college, in 1659, to elect Dr. Seth Ward president, who was absolutely disqualified for it by the college-statutes. After the Restoration, he re-assumed the character of a clergyman, and returned to his theological studies, but with little hope or ambition of succeeding in a study, which he had so long neglected: however, he was made king’s chaplain in 1663. He was chosen president of his college September 10, 1664, and ^.he same' year he was married, December 31, to Mary, the widow of Dr. John Palmer, warden of All Souls college, a woman of admirable accomplishments. June 28, 1670, he was installed dean of Wells, procured, as before mentioned, by the interest of the duke of Devonshire. In April 1691, he was nominated by king William and queen Mary, through the interest of lord Somers, to the bishopric of Bristol, with licence to keep his deanery and headship in commendam; but he declined the acceptance of it, lest it should too much detach him from his college, and interrupt the completion of those improvements in its buildings, which he had already begun, and an account of which may be seen in the History of Oxford. Had Dr. Bathurst exerted his activity and interest alone for the service of his society, he might have fairly claimed the title of an ample benefactor; but his private liberality concurred with his public collections. He expended near 3000l. of his own money upon it, and purchased for the use of the fellows, the perpetual advowson of the rectory of Addington upon Otmere, near Oxford, with the sum of 400l. in 1700. Nor was he less serviceable by his judicious discipline and example, his vigilance as a governor, and his eminence as a scholar, which contributed to raise the reputation of the college to an extraordinary height, and filled it with students of the first rank and family. He is said to have constantly frequented early prayers in the chapel, then at five in the morning, till his eighty-second year, and he punctually attended the public exercises of the college, inspected the private studies, relieved the wants, and rewarded the merit of his scholars. In the mean time he was a man of the world, and his lodgings were perpetually crowded with visitants of the first distinction. October 3, 1673, he was appointed vice-chancellor of the university, and continued for the two following years, the duke of Ormond being chancellor. During the execution of this office, he reformed many pernicious abuses, introduced several necessary regulations, defended the privileges of the university with becoming spirit, and to the care of the magistrate added the generosity of the benefactor. He established the present practice of obliging the bachelors of arts to stipulate for their determination: he endeavoured, at the command of the king, to introduce a more graceful manner of delivering the public sermons at St. Mary’s, to which church he was also a benefactor, and introduced several other improvements in the academical ceconomy. As Dr. Bathurst was intimately acquainted with the most eminent literary characters of his age, few remarkable productions in literature were undertaken or published without his encouragement and advice. Among many others, Dr. Sprat, Dr. South, Dr. Busby, Dr. Allestree, Creech the translator, sir George Ent, a celebrated physician and defender of the Harveyan system, were of his common acquaintance. Such were his friends; but he had likewise his enemies, who have hinted that he was unsettled in his religious principles. This insinuation most probably arose from his iambics prefixed to Hobbes’s book, which are a mere sport of genius, written without the least connection with Hobbes, and contain no defence or illustration of his pernicious doctrine, which, however, did not appear at that time to be so pernicious. And the sincere and lasting intimacies he maintained with Skinner, Fell, South, Allestree, Aldrich, and several others, are alone an unanswerable refutation of this unfavourable imputation. He died in his eighty-fourth year, June 14, 1704. He had been blind for some time; and his death was occasioned by n fracture of his thigh, while he was walking in the garden, which, on the failure of his eyes, became his favourite and only amusement. Under this malady he languished for several days in acute agonies. It is said that at first, and for some time, he refused to submit to the operations of the surgeon, declaring in his tortures, that there was no marrow in the bones of an old man. He had lost his memory a year or two before his death, of which Mr. Warton has given an instance which we could have wished he had suppressed. He was interred on the south side of the antichapel of Trinity college without the least appearance of pomp and extravagance, according to his own appointment. He left legacies in his will to his friends, servants, and the college, to the amount of near 1000^. As to his character, it is observed that his temperance in eating and drinking, particularly the latter, was singular and exemplary. Amidst his love of the polite arts, he had a strong aversion to music, and discountenanced and despised the study of all external accomplishments, as incompatible with the academical character. His behaviour in general was inoffensive and obliging. The cast of his conversation was rather satirical, but mixed with mirth and pleasantry. He was remarkably fond of young company, and indefatigable in his encouragement of a rising genius. John Philips was one of his chief favourites, whose “Splendid Shilling” was a piece of solemn ridicule suited to his taste. Among his harmless whims, he delighted to surprize the scholars, when walking in the grove at unseasonable hours; on which occasions he frequently carried a whip in his hand, an instrument of academical correction, then not entirely laid aside. But this he practised, on account of the pleasure he took in giving so odd an alarm, rather than from any principle of reproving, or intention of applying an illiberal punishment. In Latin poetry, Ovid was his favourite classic. One of his pupils having asked him what book among all others he chose to recommend he answered, “Ovid’s Metamorphoses.” The pupil, in consequence of this advice, having carefully perused the Metamorphoses, desired to be informed what other proper book it wouldbe necessary to read after Ovid, and Dr. Bathurst advised him to read “Ovid’s Metamorphoses” a second time. He had so mean an opinion of his performances in divinity, that in his will he enjoins his executors entirely to suppress all his papers relating to that subject, and not to permit them to be perused by any, excepting a very few such friends as were likely to read them with candour. We are told, however, that on Sunday, March 20, 1680, he preached before the house of commons at St. Mary’s, the university church, and gave much satisfaction. His manner was nearly that of Dr. South, but with more elegance and felicity of allusion. His Life, written by Mr. Thomas Warton, is perhaps one of the most correct of that author’s performances, and contains Dr. Bathurst’s miscellaneous works, which, though they have great merit in their particular way, and may be read with much pleasure, are not written in such a taste as entitles them to imitation. This is acknowledged by Mr. Warton. “His Latin orations,” says that ingenious Biographer, “are wonderful specimens of wit and antithesis, which were the delight of his age. They want upon the whole the purity and simplicity of Tully’s eloquence, but even exceed the sententious smartness of Seneca, and the surprising turns of Pliny. They are perpetually spirited, and discover an uncommon quickness of thought. His manner is concise and abrupt, but yet perspicuous and easy. His allusions are delicate, and his observations sensible and animated. His sentiments of congratulation or indignation are equally forcible: his compliments are most elegantly turned, and his satire is most ingeniously severe. These compositions are extremely agreeable to read, but in the present improwriiient of classical taste, not so proper to be imitated. They are moreover entertaining, as a picture of the times, and a history of the state of academical literature. This smartness does not desert our author even on philosophical subjects.” Among Dr. Bathurst’s Oratiuncuhe, his address to the convocation, about forming the barbers of Oxford into a company, is a most admirable specimen of his humour, and of that facetious invention, with which few vice-chancellors would have ventured to enforce and eiiliven such a subject. We doubt, indeed, whether a parallel to this exquisite piece of humour can be found. With regard to the doctor’s Latin poetry, though his hexameters have an admirable facility, an harmonious versification, much terseness and happiness of expression, and a certain original air, they will be thought, nevertheless, too pointed and ingenious by the lovers of Virgil’s simple beauties. The two poems which he hath left in iambics make it to be wished tiiat he had written more in that measure. “That pregnant brevity,” says Mr. Warton, “/which constitutes the dignity and energy of the iambic, seems to have been his talent.” Dr. Bathurst’s English poetry has that roughness of versification which was, in a great degree, the fault of the times.

In April 1764, he resigned the office of physician to St. Luke’s hospital. In 1767, when disputesran very high between the college of physicians and the licentiates, Dr. Battie wrote several letters in the public papers, in vindication of the college. In 1776, he was seized with a paralytic stroke, which proved fatal, June 13, in his 72d year. The night he expired, conversing with his servant, a lad who attended on him as a nurse, he said to him, “Young man, you have heard, no doubt, how great are the terrors of death. This night will probably afford you some experience; but may you learn, and may you profit by the example, that a conscientious endeavour to perform his duty through life, will ever close a Christian’s eyes with comfort and tranquillity.” He soon after departed, without a struggle or a groan, and was buried by his own direction, at Kingston-upon-Thames, “as near as possible to his wife, without any monument or memorial whatever.” He left three daughters, Anne, Catherine, and Philadelphia, of whom the eldest was married to sir George Young (a gallant English admiral who died in 1810.) This lady sold her father’s house and estate at Marlow, called Court garden, to Mr. Davenport, an eminent surgeon of London. The second was married to Jonathan Rashleigh, esq. and the third to John, afterwards sir John Call, bart. in the hon. East India company’s service. Dr. Battie gave by his will 100l. to St. Luke’s hospital; 100l. to the corporation for the relief of widows and children of clergymen, and twenty guineas to earl Camden, as a token of regard for his many public and private virtues. His books and papers, whether published or not, he gave to his daughter Anne. Among these was a tract on the meaning of 1 Cor. xv. 22, and some others which were printed before his death, but not published, nor have we seen a copy.

Mr. Baxter came to London a little before the depositioa of Richard Cromwell, and preached before the parliament the day preceding that on which they voted the king’s return. He preached likewise before the lord mayor at St. Paul’s a thanksgiving sermon for general Monk’s success. Upon the king’s restoration he was appointed one of his chaplains in ordinary, preached once before him, liad frequent access to his majesty, and was always treated by him with peculiar respect. He assisted at the conference at the Savoy, as one of the commissioners, and drew up a reformed Liturgy, which Dr. Johnson pronounced “one of the finest compositions of the ritual kind he had ever seen.” He was offered the bishopric of Hereford by the lord chancellor Clarendon, which he refused, and gave his lordship his reasons for not accepting of it, in a letter; he required no favour but that of being permitted to continue minister at Kidderminster, but could not obtain it. Being thus disappointed, he preached occasionally about the city of London, having a licence from bishop Sheldon, upon his subscribing a promise not to preach any thing against the doctrine or ceremonies of the church. May 15, 1662, he preached his farewell sermon at Blackfriars, and afterwards retired to Acton in Middlesex. In 1665, during the plague, he went to Richard Hampden’s, esq. in Buckinghamshire; and when it ceased, returned to Acton. He continued here as long as the act against conventicles was in force, and, when that was expired, had so many auditors that he wanted room: but, while thus employed, by a. warrant signed by two justices, he was committed for six months to New Prison gaol; having, however, procured an habeas corpus, he was discharged, and removed to Totteridge near Barnet. In this affair, he experienced the sincerity of many of his best friends. As he was going to prison, he called upon serjcant Fountain for his advice, who, after perusing the mittimus, said, that he might be discharged from his imprisonment by law. The earl of Orrery, fche earl of Manchester, the earl of Arlington, and the duke of Buckingham, mentioned the affair to the king, who was pleased to send sir John Baber to him, to let him know, that though his majesty was not willing to relax the law, yet he would not be offended, if by any application to the courts in Westminster-hall he could procure his liberty; upon this an habeas corpus was demanded at the bar of the common pleas, and granted. The judges were clear in their opinion, that die mittimus was insufficient, and thereupon discharged him. This exasperate;! the justices who committed him; and therefore they made a new mittimus in order to hn.ve sent him to the connty-gnol of Newgi-te, which he avoided by keeping out of the way. After the indulgence in 1672, he returned to London, and preached on week-days at Pinner’s hall, at a meeting in. Fetter-lane, and in St. James’s market house and the times appearing more favourable about two years after, he built a meeting-house in Oxenden-street, where he had preached but once, when a resolution was formed to take him by surprise, and send him to the county gaol, on the Oxford act; which misfortune he escaped, but the person who happened to preach for him was sent to the Gate-house, where he was confined three months. After having been three years kept out of his meeting-house, he took another in Swallow-street, but was likewise prevented from preaching there, a guard having been placed for many Sundays to hinder his entrance. Upon the death of Mr. Wadsworth, he preached to his congregation in South wark.

, a portrait-painter in the reign of Charles II. was daughter of Mr. Cradock, minister of Walton upon Thames, but was born in Suffolk in 1632. She was assiduous in copying the works of sir Peter Lely and Vandyke. She painted? in oil, water-colours, and crayons; and had much business. The author of the essay towards an English school of Painters, annexed to De Piles’s art of Painting, says, that “she was little inferior to any of her contemporaries, either for colouring, strength, force, or life; insomuch that sir Peter was greatly taken with her performances, as he would often acknowledge. She worked with a wonderful body of colours, and was exceedingly industrious.” She was greatly respected and encouraged by many of the most eminent among the clergy of that time; she took the portraits of Tillotson, Stillingfleet, Patrick, Wilkins, &c. some of which are still remaining at the earl of Ilchester’s, at Melbury, in Dorsetshire. In the manuscripts of Mr. Oldys, she is celebrated for her poetry as well as for her painting; and is styled “that masculine poet, as well as painter, the incomparable Mrs. Beale.” In Dr. S. Woodford’s translation of the Psalms, are two or three versions of particular psalms, by Mrs. Beale: whom, in his preface, he calls “an absolutely complete gentlewoman r” He says farther, “I have hardly obtained leave to honour this volume of mine with two or three versions, long since done by the truly virtuous Mrs. Mary Beale; among whose least accomplishments it is, that she has made painting and poetry, which in the fancies of others had only before a kind of likeness, in her own to be really the same. The reader, I hope, will pardon this public acknowledgement, which I make to so deserving a person.” She died Dec. 28, 1697, in her 66th year. She had two sons, who both exercised the art of painting some little time; one of them afterwards studied physic under Dr. Sydenham, and practised at Coventry, where he and his father died. There is an engraving, by Chambers, from a painting by herself, of Mrs. Beale, in Walpole’s Anecdotes of Painting in England.

, or Belus, who was the eldest sou of Robert Beale, a descendant from the family of Beale, of Woodbridge, in Suffolk, appears to have been educated to the profession of the civil and canon law. He was an exile on account of religion, in queen Mary’s days, but some time after his return, married Editha, daughter of Henry St. Barbe, of Somersetshire, and sister to the lady of sir Francis Walsingham, under whose patronage he first appeared at court. In 1571 he was secretary to sir Francis when sent ambassador to France, and himself was sent in the same character, in 1576, to the prince of Orange. Heylin and Fuller inform us that he was a great favourer of the Puritans, and wrote in defence of their principles. About the year 1564 he wrote in defence of the validity of the marriage between the earl of Hertford and lady Catherine Grey, and against the sentence of the delegates, which sentence was also opposed by the civilians of Spire, and of Paris, whom Beale had consulted. Strype, in his life of Parker, mentions his “Discourse concerning the Parisian massacre by way of letter to the lord Burghley.” His most considerable work, however, is a collection of some of the Spanish historians, under the title “Rerum Hispanicarum Scriptores,” Francf. 1579, 2 vdls. fol. He was by the interest of Walsingham appointed secretary for the northern parts, and a clerk of the privy council. Camden seems to think that his attachment to Puritanism made him be chosen to convey to Fotheringay the warrant for heheading Mary queen of Scots, which he read on the scaffold, and was a witness of its execution. He was also one of the commissioners at the treaty of Bologne, the year before his death, which event happened May 25, 1601, at Barnes, in Surrey. He was interred in the parish church of Allhallows, London Wall.

, an English actor and singer, born in 1717, was bred up in the king’s chapel, and was one of the singers in the duke of Chandos’s chapel at Cannons, where he performed in Esther, an oratorio composed by Mr. Handel. He appeared the first time on the stage at Drury-lane, Aug. 30, 1737, in sir John Loverule, in the “Devil to Pay.” He afterwards, on the 8th of Jan. 1739, married lady Henrietta Herbert, daughter of J&mes earl Waldegrave, and widow of lord Edward Herbert, second son of the marquis of Powis. She died 31st of May 1753. On his marriage he quitted the stage for a few years. He afterwards returned to Drury-lane, and in 1744 to Coventgarden, where he remained until 1758. In that year he engaged with Mr. Garrick, and continued with him until 1759, when having married a daughter of Mr. Rich, he was engaged at Covent-garden, where, on the death of that gentleman, he became manager. His first appearance there was on the 10th of Oct. 1759, in the character of Macheath, which, aided by Miss Brent in Polly, ran fifty-two nights. In 1768 he retired from the theatre, and died universally respected at the age of seventy-four, in 1791. His remains were deposited in the vault of the church at Hampton in Middlesex. He was long the deserved favourite of the public; and whoever remembers the variety of his abilities, as actor and singer, in oratorios and operas, both serious and comic, win 1 testify to his having stood unrivalled in fame and excellence. This praise, however, great as it -was, fell short of what his private merits acquired. He had one of the sincerest hearts joined to the most polished manners. He was a most delightful companion, whether as host or guest. His time, his pen, and purse, were devoted to the alleviation of every distress that fell within the compass of his power, and through life he fulfilled the relative duties of son, brother, guardian, friend, and husband, with the most exemplary truth and tenderness.

When the king died, there being none so near him as the cardinal, it was suggested by his enemies that he forged his will; and it was set aside, notwithstanding he had it proclaimed at the cross of Edinburgh, in order to establish the regency in the earls of Argyle, Huntley, Arran, and himself. He was expressly excluded from the government, and the earl of Arran was declared sole regent during the minority of queen Mary. This was chiefly effected by the noblemen in the English interest, who, after having-sent the cardinal prisoner to Blackness-castle, managed the public affairs as they pleased. Things did not remain long, however, in this situation for the ambitious enterprising“cardinal, though confined, raised so strong a party, that the regent, not knowing how to proceed, began to dislike his former system, and having at length resolved to abandon it, released the cardinal, and became reconciled to him. Upon the young” queen’s coronation, the cardinal was again admitted of the council, and had the high office of chancellor conferred upon him; and such was now his influence with the regent, that he got him to solicit the court of Rome to appoint him legate a latere from the pope, which was accordingly done.

Soon after the death of Mr. Wishart, the cardinal went to Finhaven, the seat of the earl of Crawford, to solemnize a marriage between the eldest son of that nobleman and his daughter Margaret. Whilst he was thus employed, intelligence came that the king of England was making great preparations to invade the Scottish coasts. Upon this he immediately returned to St. Andrew’s; and appointed a day for the nobility and gentry of that country, which lies much exposed to the sea, to meet and consult what was proper to be done upon this occasion. He likewise began to fortify his own castle much stronger than ever it had been before. Whilst he was busy about these matters, there came to him Norman Lesley, eldest son to the earl of Rothes, to solicit him for some favour; who, having met with a refusal, was highly exasperated, and went away in great displeasure. His uncle Mr. John Lesley, a violent enemy to the cardinal, greatly aggravated this injury to his nephew; who, being passionate and of a daring spirit, entered into a conspiracy with his uncle and some other persons to cut off the cardinal. The accomplices met early in the morning, on Saturday the 29th of May. The first thing they did was to seize the porter of the castle, and to secure the gate: they then turned out all the servants and several workmen. This was performed with so little noise, that the cardinal was not waked till they knocked at his chamber door upon which he cried out, “Who is there?” John Lesley answered, “My name is Lesley.” “Which Lesley?” replied the cardinal, “Is it Norman?” It was answered, “that he must open the door to those who were there,” but being afraid, he secured the door in the best manner he could. Whilst they were endeavouring to force it open, the cardinal called to them, “Will you have my life?” John Lesley answered, “Perhaps we will.” “Nay,” replied the cardinal, “swear unto me, and I will open it.” Some authors say, that upon a promise being given that no violence should be offered, he opened the door; but however this be, as soon as they entered, John Lesley smote him twice or thrice, as did likewise Peter Carmichael; but James Melvil, as Mr. Knox relates the fact, perceiving them to be in choler, said, “This work and judgment of God, although it be secret, ought to be done with greater gravity; and, presenting the point of his sword, said, Repent thee of thy wicked life, but especially of the shedding the blood of that notable instrument of God, Mr. George Wishart, which albeit the flame of fire consumed before men, yet cries it for vengeance upon thee; and we from God are sent to revenge it. For here, before my God, I protest, that neither the hatred of thy person, the love of thy riches, nor the fear of any trouble thou couldst have done to me in particular, moved or moveth me to strike thee; but only because thou hast been, and remainest, an obstinate enemy against Christ Jesus and his holy gospel.” After having spoken thus, he stabbed him twice or thrice through the body: thus fell that famous prelate, a man of great parts, but of pride and ambition boundless, and withal an eminent instance of the instability of what the world calls fortune. This event is said to have taken place May 29, 1546. Though cardinal Beaton’s political abilities were undoubtedly of the highest kind, and some false stories may have been told concerning him, it is certain that his ambition was unbounded, that his insolence was carried to the greatest pitch, and that his character, on the whole, was extremely detestable. His violence, as a persecutor, must ever cause his memory to be held in abhorrence, by all who have any feelings of humanity, or any regard for religious liberty. It is to the honour of Mr. Guthrie, that, in his History of Scotland, he usually speaks of our prelate with indignation.

, archbishop of St. Andrew’s in the reign of James V. was uncle to the preceding. We have no certain account of his birth, or of the manner of his education, except that, being a younger brother, he was from his infancy destined for the church. He had great natural talents, and having improved them by the acquisition of the learning fashionable in those times, he came early into the world, under the title of Provost of Both well; a preferment given him through the interest of his family. He received his first benefice in 1503, and next year was advanced to the rich preferment of abbot of Dumferling. In 1505, upon the death of sir David Beaton, his brother, his majesty honoured him with the staff of high-treasurer, and he was thenceforward considered as one of the principal statesmen. In 1508 he was promoted to the hishopric of Galloway, and before he had sat a full year in that cathedral chair, he was removed to the archiepiscopal see of Glasgow, on which he resigned the treasurer’s staff, in order to be more at leisure to mind the government of his diocese: and indeed it is universally acknowledged, that none mflffe carefully attended the duties of his functions than archbishop Beaton while he continued at Glasgow; and he has left there such marks of concern for that church, as have baffled time, and the rage of a distracted populace: the monuments of his piety and public spirit which he raised at Glasgow, still remaining to justify this part of his character. It does not appear that he had any hand in the counsels which drove king James IV. into a fatal war with England. On the death of this monarch in the battle of Flodden-field, the regent John duke of Albany appointed our prelate to be high-chancellor. In 1523 he became archbishop of St. Andrew’s, not only by the favour of the regent, but with the full consent of the young king, who was then, and all his life, much under the influence of the archbishop’s nephew David, the subject of the preceding article. The power of the regent, “however, being abrogated by parliament, and the earl of Angus haying placed himself at the head of government, our archbishop was dismissed the court, and obliged to resign the office of chancellor; but when the Douglases were driven from court, and the king recovered his freedom, the archbishop came again into power, although he did not recover the office of chancellor. He now resided principally at the palace of St. Andrew’s, and, as some say, at the instigation of his nephew, the cardinal, proceeded with great violence against the protestants, and is particularly accountable for the death of Patrick Hamilton, the protomartyr of Scotland, a young man of piety, talents, and high birth, whom he procured to be burnt to death, although it is but justice to add that the same sentence was subscribed by the other archbishop, three bishops, six abbots and friars, and eight divines. He is even said to have had some degree of aversion to such proceedings. The clergy, however, were for stopping the mouths of such as preached what they disliked, in the same manner as they had done Hamilton’s. The archbishop moved but heavily in these kind of proceedings; and there are two very remarkable stories recorded to have happened about this time, which very plainly shew he was far enough from being naturally inclined to such severities. It happened at one qf their consultations, that some who were most vehement pressed for going on with the proceedings in the Archbishop’s court, when one Mr. John Lind$ey, a man in great credit with the archbishop, delivered himself to this purpose” If you burn any more of them, take my advice, and burn them in cellars, for I dare assure you, that the smoke of Mr. Patrick Hamilton has infected all that it blew upon.“The other was of a more serious nature; one Alexander Seton, a black friar, preached openly in the church of St. Andrew’s, that, according to St. Paul’s description of bishops, there were no bishops in Scotland, which being reported to the archbishop, not in very precise terms, he sent for Mr. Seton, and reproved him sharply for having said, according to his information,” That a bishop who did not preach was but a dumb dog, who feel not the flock, but fed his own belly.“Mr. Seton said, that tho.se vvho had reported this were liars, upon which witnesses were produced, who testified very positively to the fact. Mr. Seton, by way of reply, delivered himself thus:” My lord, you have heard, and may consider, what ears these asses have, who cannot discern between Paul, Isaiah, Zachariah, Malachi, and friar Alexander Seton. In truth, my lord, I did preach that Paul saith, it hehoveth a bishop to be a teacher. Isaiah saith, that they that feed not the flock are dumb dogs; and the prophet Zachariah saith, that they are idle pastors. Of my own head I affirmed nothing, but declared what the Spirit of God before pronounced; at whom, my lord, t if you be not offended, you cannot justly be offended with me.“How much soever the bishop might be incensed, he dismissed friar Seton without hurt, who soon afterwards fled out of the kingdom. It does not appear, that from this time the archbishop acted much in these measures himself, but chose rather to grant commissions to others that were inclined to proceed against such as preached the doctrines of the reformation, a conduct which seems very fully to justify the remark of archbishop Spotswood upon our prelate’s behaviour.” Seventeen years,“says he,” he lived bishop of this see, and was herein most unfortunate, that under the shadow of his authority many good men were put to death for the cause of religion, though he himself was neither violently set, nor much solicitous (as it was thought) how matters went in the church."

With this lady Dr. Beattie enjoyed for many years as much felicity as the married state can add; and when she visited London with him, she shared amply in the respect paid to him, and in the esteem of his illustrious friends. By her he had two sons, James Hay, so named from the earl of Errol, one of his old and steady friends; and Montagu, from the celebrated Mrs. Montagu, in whose house Dr. Beattie frequently resided when in London. While these children were very young, Mrs. Beattie was seized with an indisposition, which, in spite of all care and skill, terminated in the painful necessity of separation from her husband*. The care of the children now entirely devolved on the father, whose sensibility received such a shock from the melancholy circumstance alluded to, as could only be aggravated by an apprehension that the consequences of Mrs. Beattie’s disorder might not be confined to herself This alarm, which often preyed on his spirits, proved happily without foundation. His children grew up without the smallest appearance of the hereditary evil; but when they had just begun to repay his care by a display of early genius, sweetness of temper, and filial affection, he was compelled to resign them both to an untimely gravey His eldest son died November 19, 1790, in his twentysecond year; and his youngest on March 14, 1796, in his eighteenth 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.

, the foundress of Christ’s and St. John’s colleges in Cambridge, was the only daughter and heir of John Beaufort, duke of Somerset (grandson of John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster), and of Margaret Beauchamp his wife. She was born at Bletshoe in Bedfordshire) in 1441. About the fifteenth year of her age, being a rich heiress, the great duke of Suffolk, minister to Henry the Vlth. solicited her in marriage for his son; while the king wooed her for his half-brother Edmund, then earl of Richmond. On so nice a point the good young lady advised with an elder gentlewoman; who, thinking it too great a decision to take upon herself, recommended her to St. Nicholas, the patron of virgins. She followed her instructions, and poured forth her supplications and prayers with such effect, that one morning, whether sleeping or waking she could not tell, there appeared unto her somebody in the habit of a bishop, and desired she would accept of Edmund for her husband. Whereupon she married Edmund earl of Richmond; and by him had an only son, who was afterwards king Henry the VI 1th. Edmund died, Nov. 3, 1456, leaving Henry his son and heir but fifteen weeks old: after which Margaret married sir Henry Stafford, knight, second son to the duke of Buckingham, by whom she had no issue. Soon after the death of sir Henry Stafford, which happened about 1482, she was married again to Thomas lord Stanley, who was created earl of Derby, Oct. 27, 1485, which was the first year of her son’s reign; and this noble lord died also before her in 1504.

Lady Margaret, however, could do both; and there are some of her literary performances still extant. She published, “The mirroure of golde for the sinful 1 soule,” translated from a French translation of a book called, * Speculum aureum peccatorum,' very scarce. She also translated out of French into English, the fourth book of Gerson’s treatise “Of the imitation and following the blessed life of our most merciful Saviour Christ,” printed at the nd of Dr. William Atkinson’s English translation of the three first books, 1504. A letter to her son is printed in Howard’s “Collection of Letters.” She also made, -by her son’s command and authority, the orders, yet extant, for great estates of ladies and noble women, for their precedence, &c. She was not only a lover of learning, but a great patroness of learned men; and did more acts of real goodness for the advancement of literature in general, than could reasonably have been expected from so much superstition. Erasmus has spoken great things of her, for the munificence shewn in her foundations and donations of several kinds; a large account of which is given by Mr. Baker, in the preface prefixed to the “Funeral Sermon.” What adds greatly to the merit of these donations is, that some of the most considerable of them were performed in her life-time; as the foundation of two colleges in Cambridge. Her life was checquered with a variety of good and' bad fortune: but she had a greatness of soul, which seems to have placed her above the reach of either; so that she wasneither elated with the former, nor depressed with the latter. She was most affected with what regarded her only child, for whom she had the most tender affection. She underwent some hardships on his account. She saw him from an exile, by a wonderful turn of fortune, advanced to the crown of England, which yet he could not keep without many struggles and difficulties; and when he had reigned twenty-three years, and lived fifty-two, she saw him carried to his grave. Whether this might not prove too great a shock for her, is uncertain; but she survived him only three months, dying at Westminster on the 29th of June, 1509. She was buried in his chapel, and had a beautiful monument erected to her memory, adorned with gilded brass, arms, and an epitaph round the verge, drawn up by Erasmus, at the request of bishop Fisher, for which he had twenty shillings given him by the university of Cambridge. Upon this altar-tomb, which is enclosed with a grate, is placed the statue of Margaret countess of Richmond and Derby, in her robes, all of solid brass, with two pillars on each side of her, and a Latin inscription, of which the following is a translation: “To Margaret of Richmond, the mother of Henry VII. and grandmother of Henry VIII. who founded salaries for three monks in this convent, for a grammar-school at Wymborn, and a preacher of God’s word throughout England; as also for two divinity-lecturers, the one at Oxford, the other at Cambridge; in which last place she likewise built two colleges, in honour of Christ and his disciple St. John. She died in the year of our Lord 1509, June the 29th.” This lady was the daughter and sole heiress of John Beaufort duke of Somerset, who was grandson to John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster, fourth son of Edward the Third. Her mother, Margaret Beauchamp, was daughter and heiress of the lord Beauchamp of Powick. Bishop Fisher observes, “that by her marriage with the earl of Richmond, and by her birth, she was allied to thirty kings and queens, within the fourth degree either of blood or affinity; besides earls, marquisses, dukes, and princes: and since her death,” as Mr. Baker says, “she has been allied in her posterity to thirty more.” Her will, which is remarkably curious, is printed at length in the “Collectioii of Royal and Noble Wills,” 1780, 4to, p. 376.

Their connection, from similarity of taste and studies, was very intimate, and it would appear, at one time, very Œconomical. Aubrey informs us, that “There was a wonderful consimility of fancy between Mr. Francis Beaumont and Mr. John Fletcher, which caused that dearness of friendship between them. I have heard Dr. John Earl, since bishop of Sarum, say, who knew them, that his (Beaumont’s) main business was to correct the super-overflowings of Mr. Fletcher’s wit. They lived together on the Bankside, not far from the play-iiouse, both bachelors; had one bench in the house between them, which they did so admire the same cloaths, cloak, &c. between them.” With respect to the specific share he had in the plays which have been published as the joint production of Beaumont and Fletcher, the reader may find much information, and perhaps all that can now be ascertained on this subject, in the preliminary matter of the edition published in 1778, 10 vols. vo, or more briefly in a note in Mr. Malone’s life of Dryden, vol. II. p. 100—101. Sir Egerton Brydges, whose judgment is of sterling value in matters of literary antiquity, suspects that great injustice has been generally done to Beaumont, by the supposition of Langbaine and others that his merit was principally confined to lopping the redundancies of Fletcher. He acquits, however, the editors of the Biographia Dramatica of this blame. They say, “It is probable that the forming of the plots, and contriving the conduct of the fable, the writing of the more serious and pathetic parts, and lopping the redundant branches of Fletcher’s wit, whose luxuriances, we are told frequently, stood in need of castigation, might be, in general, Beaumont’s portion of the work.” This,“adds Mr. Brydges,” is to afford him very high praise," and the authorities of sir John Birkenhead, Jasper Mayne, sir George Lisle, and others, amount to strong proof that he was considered by his contemporaries 'in a superior light, (and by none more than by Jonson), and that this estimation of his talents was common in the life-time of his colleague, who, from candour or friendship, appears to have acquiesced in every respect paid to the memory of Beaumont.

He appears a satirist on women in some of his poems, but he was more influenced by wit than disappointment, and probably only versified the common-place raillery of the times. He married Ursula, daughter and co-heir of Henry Isley of Sundridge in Kent, by whom he had two daughters. One of these, Frances, was living at a great age in Leicestershire, in 1700, and at that time enjoyed a pension of lOOl. a-year from the duke of Ormond, in whose family she had resided for some time as a domestic. She had once in her possession several poems of her father’s writing, which were lost at sea during her voyage from Ireland. Mr. Beaumont died early in March, 1615-16, and was buried on the 9th, at the entrance of St. Benedict’s chapel near the earl of Middlesex’s monument, in the collegiate church of St* Peter, Westminster, without any inscription.

Theobald also recommended him to king Henry II. in so effectual a manner, that in 1158 he was appointed high chancellor, and preceptor to the prince. Becket now laid aside the churchman, and affected the courtier; he conformed himself in every thing to the king’s humour; he partook of all his diversions, and observed the same hours of eating and going to bed. He kept splendid levees, and courted popular applause; and the expences of his table exceeded those of the first nobility. In 1159 he made a campaign with king Henry into Toulouse, having in his own pay 1200 horse, besides a retinue of 700 knights or gentlemen. While here he gave a piece of advice which marked the spirit and fire of his character. This was, to seize the person of Lewis, king of France, who had imprudently thrown himself into the city of Toulouse without an army. But the counsel was deemed too bold. Besides several political reasons against complying with it, it was thought an enormous and criminal violation of the feudal allegiance, for a vassal to take and hold in captivity the person of his lord. We need not inforjn our historical readers, that Henry, though a very powerful monarch, did, by the large possessions he held in France, stand in. the relation of a vassal to the king of that country. In the war against the earl of Toulouse, Becket, besides his other military exploits, engaged, in single combat, Engelvan, de Trie, a French knight, famous for his valour, dismounted him with his lance, and gained his horse, which he led off in great triumph.

His style was clear and full, but plain and simple. He read the Hebrew and Septuagint so much, that they were as familiar to him as the English translation. He had gathered a vast heap of critical expositions, which, with a trunk full of other manuscripts, fell into the hands of the Irish, and were all lost, except his great Hebrew manuscript, which was preserved by a converted Irishman, and is now in Emanuel college, in Cambridge. Every day after dinner and supper a chapter of the Bible was read at his table, whether Papists or Protestants were present; and Bibles were laid before every one of the company, and before himself either the Hebrew or the Greek, but in his last years, the Irish translation; and he usually explained ­the occurring difficulties. He wrote much in controversy, occasioned by his engagements to labour the conversion of those of the Roman communion, which he looked on as idolatrous and antichristian. He wrote a large treatise on these two questions: “Where was our religion before Luther? And what became of our ancestors who died in Popery?” Archbishop Usher pressed him to have printed it, and he resolved to have done so; but that and all his other works were swallowed up in the rebellion. He kept a great correspondence not only with the divines of England, but with others over Europe. He observed a true hospitality in house-keeping; and many poor Irish families about him were maintained out of his kitchen; and in Christmas the poor always eat with him at his own table, and he had brought himself to endure both their rags and rudeness. At public tables he usually sat silent. Once at the earl of Strafford’s table, one observed, that while they were all talking, he said nothing. The primate answered, “Broach him, and you will find good liquor in him.” Upon which the person proposed a question in divinity, in answering which the bishop shewed his abilities so well, and puzzled the other so much, that all, at last, except the bishop, fell a laughing at the other. The greatness of his mind, and undauntedness of his spirit, evidently appeared in many passages of his life, and that without any mixture of pride, for he lived with his clergy as if they had been his brethren. In his visitation he would accept of no invitation from the gentlemen of the country, but would eat with his clergy in such poor inns, and of such coarse fare, as the places afforded. He avoided all affectation of state in his carriage, and, when in Dublin, always walked on foot, attended by one servant, except on public occasions, which obliged him to ride in procession among his brethren. He never kept a coach, his strength suffering him always to ride on horseback. He avoided the affectation of humility as well as pride; the former often flowing from the greater pride of the two. He took an ingenious device to put him in mind of his obligations to purity: it was a flaming crucible, with this motto: “Take from me all my Tin,” the word in Hebrew signifying Tin, being Bedil, which imported that he thought every thing in him but base alloy, and therefore prayed God would cleanse him from it. He never thought of changing his see, but considered himself as under a tie to it that could not easily be dissolved; so that when the translating him to a bishopric in England was proposed to him, he refused it; and said, he should be as troublesome a bishop in England as he had been in Ireland. He had a true and generous notion of religion, and did not look upon it as a system of opinions, or a set of forms, but as a divine discipline that reforms the heart and life. It was not leaves, but fruit that he sought. This was the true principle of his great zeal against Popery. He considered the corruptions of that church as an effectual course to enervate the true design of Christianity. He looked on the obligation of observing the Sabbath as moral and perpetual, and was most exact in the observation of it.

, of Sibsey, in Lincolnshire, a quaker, came to London, and settled there as a stationer between the years 1600 and 162.5. He married a daughter of Mr. William Plat, of Highgate, by whom he had a son, Hilkiah, a mathematical instrument maker in Hosier-lane, near West-Smithfield. In this house (which was afterwards burnt in the great fire of London, 1666), was born the famous Hilkiah, July 23, 1663; who was educated at Bradley, in Suffolk, and in 1679 was admitted of St. John’s college, Cambridge, the first scholar on the foundation of his maternal grandfather, William Plat. Hilkiah was afterwards elected fellow of his college, and patronized by Heneage Finch earl of Winchelsea, but deprived of his preferment (which was in Lincolnshire), for refusing to take the oaths at the revolution, and afterwards kept a boarding-house for the Westminster scholars. In 1714, being tried in the court of king’s-bench, he was fined 1000 marks, and imprisoned three years, for writing, printing, and publishing “The hereditary Right of the Crown of England asserted,” 1713, folio; the real author of which was George Harbin, a nonjuring clergyman, whom his friendship thus screened; and on account of his sufferings he received 100l. from the late lord Weymouth, who knew not the real author. His other publications were, a translation of “An answer to Fontenelle’s History of Oracles,” and the translation of the life of Dr. Barvvick, as noticed in the life of that gentleman. He died Nov. 26, 1724, and was buried in the church-yard of St. Margaret’s Westminster, with an epitaph.

The disappointments she met with at Surinam, by losing her parents and relations, obliged her to return to England; where, soon after her arrival, she was married to Mr. Behn, an eminent merchant of London, of Dutch extraction. King Charles II. whom she highly pleased by the entertaining and accurate account she gave him of the colony of Surinam, thought her a proper person to be intrusted with the management of some affairs during the Dutch war, in other words to act as a spy; which was the occasion of her going over to Antwerp. Here she discovered the design formed by the Dutch, of sailing up the river Thames, in order to burn the English ships; which she learnt from one Vander Albert, a Dutchman. This man, who, before the war, had been in love with her in England, no sooner heard of her arrival at Antwerp, than he paid her a visit; and, after a repetition of all his former professions of love, pressed her extremely to allow him by some signal means to give undeniable proofs of his passion. This proposal was so suitable to her present aim in the service of her country, that she accepted of it, and employed her lover in such a manner as* made her very serviceable to the king. The latter end of 1666, Albert sent her word by a special messenger, that he would be with her at a day appointed, at which time he revealed to her, that Cornelius de Witt and De Ruyter had proposed the above-mentioned expedition to the States. Albert having mentioned this affair with all the marks of sincerity, Mrs. Behn coukl not doubt the credibility thereof; and when the interview was ended, she sent express to the court of England; but her intelligence (though well grounded, as appeared by the event) being disregarded and ridiculed, she renounced all state affairs, and amused herself during her stay at Antwerp with what was more suited to her talents, the gallantries of the city. After some time she embarked at Dunkirk for England, and in her passage the ship was driven on the coast four days within sight of land; but, by the assistance of boats from that shore, the crew were all saved; and Mrs. Behn arrived safely in -London, where she dedicated the rest of her life to pleasure and poetry, neither of the most pure kind. he published three volumes of miscellany poems; the first in 1684, the second in 1685, and the third in 1688, consisting of songs and miscellanies, by the earl of Rochester, sir George Etherege, Mr. Henry Crisp, and others, with some pieces of her own. To the second collection is annexed a translation of the duke de Rochefoucauld s moral reflections, under the title of “Seneca unmasked.” She wrote also seventeen plays, some histories and novels, which are extant in two volumes, 12mo, 1735, 8th edition, published by Mr. Charles Gildon, and dedicated to Simon Scroop, esq. to which is prefixed the history of the life, and memoirs of Mrs. Behn, written by one of the fair sex. She translated Fontenolle’s History of oracles, and Plurality of worlds, to which last she annexed an essay on translation and translated prose, not very remarkable for critical acumen. The paraphrase of CEnone’s epistle to Paris, in the English translation of Ovid’s Epistles, is Mrs. Behn’s; and Mr. Dryden, in the preface to that work, compliments her with more gallantry than justice, when he adds, “I was desired to say, that the author, who is of the fair sex, understood not Latin; but if she does not, I am afraid she has given us occasion to be ashamed who do.” She was also the authoress of the celebrated Letters between a nobleman and his sister, printed in 1684; and we have extant of hers, eight love-letters, to a gentleman whom she passionately loved, and with whom she corresponded under the name of Lycidas. They are printed in the Life and Memoirs of Mrs. Behn, prefixed to her histories and novels. She died between forty and fifty years of age, after a long indisposition, April 16, 1689, and was buried in the cloisters of Westminster-abbey. Mrs. Behn, upon the whole, cannot be considered as an ornament either to her sex, or her nation. Her plays abound with obscenity; and her novels are little better. Mr. Pope speaks thus of her:

I. bishop of London in the reign of Henry I. was advanced to that sea through the interest of Roger Montgomery, earl of Shropshire, and consecrated 26th July, 1108. Immediately after his consecration, he was appointed, by the king, warden of the marches between England and Wales, and lieutenant of the county of Salop which offices he held about three years, residing for the most part of the time at Shrewsbury. This prelate expended the whole revenues of his bishopric in the structure of St. Paul’s cathedral, for which purpose he purchased several adjoining houses of the owners, which he pulled down, and converted the ground they stood upon into a church-yard, and this he surrounded with a very high wall. Bishop Godwin thinks this wall remained entire in his time, though no part of it was to be seen by reason of the houses, with which it was on all sides covered. Despairing, however, of seeing it finished, he turned the stream of his liberality another way; and, exchanging the manor of Landsworth for a place in the diocese of London called St. Osith de Chich, near Colchester in Essex, he built there a convent of regular canons. Being seized with a dead palsy, and thereby disqualified for the exercise of his episcopal functions, he intended to have resigned his bishopric, and to have spent the remainder of his life in the monastery of his own foundation: but whilst he delayed his purpose from day to day, he died Jan. 16, 1127 and he was buried in the convent of St. Osith. Tanner informs us, that, in the monastery of Peterborough there was formerly a treatise, written in verse, by bishop Belmeis, and addressed to Henry I.

, earl of Arlington, was descended from an ancient family, and was second son of sir John Bennet of Arlington in Middlesex, by Dorothy, daughter of sir John Crofts of Saxham in the county of Norfolk. He was born in 1618, and educated at Christ-church in the university of Oxford, where he took the degree of master of arts, and distinguished himself by his poetical compositions, several of which were occasionally inserted in books of verses published under the name of the university, and in others in that time. In the beginning the civil war, when king Charles I. fixed his chief residence at Oxford, he was appointed under-secretary to lord George Digby, secretary of state; and afterwards entered himself as a volunteer in the royal cause, and served very bravely, especially at the sharp encounter near Andover in Hampshire, where he received several wounds. When the wars were ended, he did not leave the king, when success did, but attended his interest in foreign parts; and, in order to qualify himself the better for his majesty’s service, travelled into Italy, and made his observations on the several countries and states of Europe. He was afterwards made secretary to James, duke of York, and received the honour of knighthood from king Charles II. at Bruges in March, 1658, and was soon after sent envoy to the court of Spain; in which negociation he acted with so much prudence and success, that his majesty, upon his return to England, soon called him home, and made him keeper of his privy purse. On the 2d of October, 1662, he was appointed principal secretary of state in the room of sir Edward Nicholas; but by this preferment some advances were evidently made towards the interest of Rome; since the new secretary was one who secretly espoused the cause of popery, and had much influenced the king towards embracing-that religion, the year before his restoration, at Fontarabia on Which' account he had been so much threatened by lord Culpepper, that it was believed he durst not return into England, till after the death of that nobleman.

In March 14, 1664, he was advanced to the degree of a baron, by the title of Lord Arlington of Arlington in Middlesex, and in 1670, was one of the cabinet council, distinguished by the title of the Cabal, and one of those ministers, who advised the shutting up of the exchequer. April 22, 1672, he was created viscount Thetford and earl of Arlington and on the 15th of June following, was made knight of the garter. On the 22d of the same month he was sent to Utrecht, with the duke of Buckingham and lord Hallifax, as ambassadors extraordinary and plenipotentiaries, to meet jointly with such as should be appointed by the king of France, and with the deputies from the States-General, but this negociation had no great effect. In April 1673, he was appointed one of the three plenipotentiaries from the court of Great Britain to Cologne, in order to mediate a peace between the emperor and king of France. In January following, the house of commons resolving to attack him, as well as the dukes of Lauderdale and Buckingham, who were likewise members of the Cabal, the last endeavoured to clear himself by casting all the odium upon the earl of Arlington; who being admitted to make his defence in that house, answered some parts of the duke of Buckingham’s speech, but was so far from giving them satisfaction with regard to his own conduct, that they immediately drew up articles of impeachment against him, in which he was charged to have been a constant and vehement promoter of popery and popish councils; to have been guilty of many undue practices in order to promote his own greatness; to have embezzled and wasted the treasure of the nation; and to have falsely and traiterously bet ayed the important trust reposed in him, as a counsellor and principal secretary of state. Upon this he appeared before the house of commons, and spoke much more than was expected; excusing himself, though without blaming the king. This had so good an effect, that though he, as secretary of state, was more exposed than any other, by the many warrants and orders which he had signed; yet he was acqu.tted by a small majority. But the care, which he took to preserve himself, and his success in it, lost him his high favour; with the king, as the duke of York was greatly offended with him; for which reason he quitted his post, and was made lord chamberlain on the lith of September 1671-, with this public reason assigned, that it was in recompence of his long and faithful service, and particularly for having performed the office of principal secretary of state for the space of twelve years to his majesty’s great satisfaction. But finding, that his interest began sensibly to decline, while that of the earl of Danby increased, who succeeded lord CiiHord in the office of lord high treasurer, which had ever been the height of lord Arlington’s ambition, he conceived an implacable hatred against that earl, and used his utmost effort* to supplant him, though in vain. For, upon his return from his unsuccessful journey to Holland in 1674-5, his credit was so much sunk, that several persons at court took the liberty to mimic his person and behaviour, as had been formerly done against lord chancellor Clarendon; and it became a common jest for some courtier to put a black patch upon his nose, and strut about with a white staff in his hand, in order to divert the king. One reason of his majesty’s disgust to him is thought to have been the earl’s late inclining towards the popular opinions, and especially his apparent zealous proceedings against the papists, while the court knew him to be of their religion in his heart, [n confirmation of this a remarkable story is told; that col. Richard Talbot, afterwards earl of Tyrconnel, having been some time absent from the court, upon his return found lord Arlington’s credit extremely low; and seeing him one day acted by a person with a patch and a staff, he took occasion to expostulate this matter with the king, with whom he was very familiar, remonstrating, how very hard it was, that poor Harry Ben net should be thus used, after he had so long and faithfully served his majesty, and followed him every where in his exile. The king hereupon began to complain too, declaring what cause he had to be dissatisfied with his conduct, “who had of late behaved himself after a strange manner; for, not content to come to prayers, as others did, he must be constant at sacraments too.” “Why,” said colonel Taibot interrupting, “does not your majestydo the same thing?” “God’s fish,” replied the king with some warmth, “I hope there is a difference between Harry Bennet and me.” However, in 1679, lord Arlington was chosen one of the new council to his majesty; and upon the accession of king James II. to the throne, was confirmed by him in the office of lord chamberlain. He died July J8, 1685, aged sixty-seven years, and was interred at Euston in Suffolk. By his lady Isabella, daughter of Lewis de Nassau, lord Beverwaert, he had one only daughter, Isabella, married to Henry, duke of G ration.

, knt. grandfather to the preceding, and second son of sir Richard Bennet, was created on the 6th of July, 1589, doctor of laws by the university of Oxford, having been one of the proctors there. He was afterwards vicar-general in spirituals to the archbishop of York, and prebendary of Langtoft in the church of York. In the 24th of ELz. bearing the title of doctor of laws, he was in commission with the lord-keeper Egerton, the lord-treasurer Buckhurst, and several other noblemen, for the suppression of heresy. He was also in that reign returned to parliament for the city of York, and was a leading member of the house of commons, as appears from several of his speeches in Townshend’s collections. He received the honour of knighthood from king James before his coronation, on the 23d of July 1603, at Whitehall, and was made in that reign chancellor to queen Anne (consort of king James), judge of the prerogative court of Canterbury, and chancellor to the archbishop of York. In the beginning of 1617, he was sent ambassador to Brussels to question the archduke, in behalf of his master the king of Great Britain, concerning a libel written and published, as it was supposed, by Erycius Puteanus, but he neither apprehended the author, nor suppressed the book, until he was solicited by the king’s agent there: he only interdicted it, and suffered the author to fly out of his dominions. In 1620, sir John Bennet being entitled judge of the prerogative court of Canterbury, was in a special commission with the archbishop of Canterbury, and other noblemen, to put in execution the laws against all heresies, great errors in matters of faith and religioH, &c. and the same year bearing the title of chancellor to the archbishop of York, he was commissioned with the archbishop of York, and others, to execute all manner of ecclesiastical jurisdiction within the province of York. He died in the parish of Christ church in London, in the beginning of 1627, having had issue by Anne his wife, daughter of Christopher Weekes of Salisbury, in the county of Wilts, esq. sir John lien net, his son and heir; sir Thomas Bennet, knt. second son, doctor of the civil law, and master in chancery; and Matthew, third son, who died unmarried. His eldest son, sir John Bennet of Dawley, received the honour of knighthood in the life-time of his father, at Theobalds, on the 15th of June, 1616. He married Dorothy, daughter of sir John Crofts of Saxham, in the county of Norfolk, knt. by whom he had issue six sons, the second of whom was afterwards created earl of Arlington. This account drawn up also by Dr. Campbell as a note to his life of Arlington, partakes of the partiality of that account by suppressing that in 1621, certain mal-practices were detected in the judicial conduct of sir John, and he was committed to the custody of the sheriffs of London, and afterwards to prison, fined 20,000l. and deprived of his offices. In consequence of this, according to Mr. Lodge, he died in indigence and obscurity, in the parish of Christ church, in Surrey, not in London, at the time mentioned above; but another account says that he was merely required to find security to that amount for his appearance to answer to the charges brought against him. If the fine was imposed, we may conclude it was remitted; for in a letter from lord Bacon to king James, we read these words, “Your majesty hath pardoned the like (corruption) to sir John Bennet, between whose case and mine (not being partial to myself, but speaking out of the general opinion), there was as much difference, I will not say, as between black and white, but as between black and grey or ash-coloured.”

He became member of parliament for Shaftesbury in the first parliament of George I. and in 17 Is was made surveyor general, in the place of sir Christopher Wren, on which occasion he vacated his seat in parliament. Why such a disgrace should be inBicted on sir Christopher Wren, now full of years and honours, cannot be ascertained. Benson, however, gained only an opportunity, and that soon, to display his incapacity, and the amazing contrast between him and his predecessor. Being em-­ployed to survey the house of lords, he gave in a report that that house and the painted-chamber adjoining were in immediate danger of falling. On this the lords were about to appoint some other place for their meeting, when it was suggested that it would be proper to take the opinion of some other builders, who reported that the building was in very good condition. The lords, irritated at Benson’s ignorance and incapacity, were about to petition the king to remove him, when the earl of Sunderland, then secretary, assured them that his majesty would anticipate their wishes. Benson was accordingly dismissed. He was in some measure consoled, however, by the assignment of a considerable debt due to the crown in Ireland, and by the reversion of one of the two offices of auditor of the imprests, which he enjoyed after the death of Mr, Edward Harley. In 1724, he published “Virgil’s Husbandry, with notes critical and rustic;” and in 1739, “Letters concerning poetical translations, and Virgil’s and Milton’s arts of verse.” This last was followed by an edition of “Arthur Johnston’s Psalms,” accompanied with the Psalms of David, according to the translation in the English Bible, printed in 4to, 8vo, and 12mo; with a “Prefatory discourse,” 1740; in 1741 “A conclusion to his prefatory discourse” and in the same year, “A supplement to it, in which is contained, a comparison betwixt Johnston and Buchanan.” In this comparison, given in favour of Johnston, he was so unlucky, or, rather for the sake of taste, so lucky as to excite the indignation of the celebrated Ruddiman, who wrote an elaborate and unanswerable defence of Buchanan, in a letter to Mr. Benson, under the title of “A Vindication of Mr. George Buchanan’s Paraphrase of the Book of Psalms,” Edinburgh, 1745, 8vo. Benson, although a man who had spent the greater part of his life among books, yet a short time before his death, contracted an unconquerable aversion to them, and perhaps to society likewise, as the latter years of his life were passed in close retirement at his house at Wimbledon, where he died Feb. 1754. His character has been variously represented. It was his misfortune, if not his fault, in the outset, that he was placed in the invidious situation of suc-s cessor to sir Christopher Wren, who was most improperly dismissed; and this procured him a place in the Dunciad, which probably served to keep up the remembrance of whaj he would willingly have forgot. Dr. Warton, however, has endeavoured to do him justice in his notes on Pope. “Benson,” says that amiable critic, “is here spoken of too contemptuously. He translated faithfully, if not very poetically, the second book of the Georgics, with useful notes he printed elegant editions of Johnston’s psalms; he wrote a discourse on versification he rescued his country from the disgrace of having no monument erected to the memory of Milton in Westminster-abbey; he encouraged and urged Pitt to translate the yEneid; and he gave Dobson of.1000 for his Latin translation of Paradise Lost.” Another testimony we have of his liberality which ought not to be suppressed. In 1735, a book was published, entitled “The cure of Deism.” The author, Mr. Elisha Smith, was at that time confined in the Fleet prison for a debt of ^^Oo. Benson, pleased with the work, inquired who was the author, and having received an account of his unfortunate state, not only sent him a handsome letter, but discharged the whole debt, fees, &o. and set him at liberty.

, earl of Portland, &c. one of the greatest statesmen of his time, and the first that advanced his family to the dignity of the English peerage, was a native of Holland, of an ancient and noble family in the province of Guelderland. After a liberal education, he was promoted to be page of honour to William, then prince of Orange (afterwards king William III. of England), in which station his behaviour and address so recommended him to the favour of his master, that he preferred him to the post of gentleman of his bedchamber. In this capacity he accompanied the prince into England, in the year 1670, where, going to visit the university of Oxford, he was, together with the prince, created doctor of civil law. In 1672, the prince of Orange being made captain-general of the Dutch forces, and soon after Stadtholder, M. Bentinck was promoted, and had a share in his good fortune, being made colonel and captain of the Dutch regiment of guards, afterwards esteemed one of the finest in king William’s service, and which behaved with the greatest gallantry in the wars both in Flanders and Ireland. In 1675, the prince falling ill of the small-pox, M. Bentinck had an opportunity of signalizing his love and affection for his master in an extraordinary manner, and thereby of obtaining his esteem and friendship, by one of the most generous actions imaginable: for the small-pox not rising kindly upon the prince, his physicians judged it necessary that some young person should lie in the same bed with him, imagining that the natural heat of another would expel the disease. M. Bentinck, though he had never had the small-pox, resolved to run this risque, and accordingly attended the prince during the whole course of his illness, both day and night, and his highness said afterwards, that he believed M. Bentinck never slept; for in sixteen days and nights, he never called once that he was not answered by him. M. Bentinck, however, upon the prince’s recovery, was immediately seized with the same distemper, attended with a great deal of danger, but recovered soon enough to attend his highness into the field, where he was always next his person; and his courage and abilities answered the great opinion his highness had formed of him, and from this time he employed him in his most secret and important affairs. In 1677, M. Bentinck was sent by the prince of Orange into England, to solicit a match with the princess Mary, eldest daughter of James, at that time duke of York (afterwards king James II.) which was soon after concluded. And in 1685, upon the duke of Monmouth’s invasion of this kingdom, he was sent over to king James to offer him his master’s assistance, both of his troops and person, to head them against the rebels, but, through a misconstruction put on his message, his highness’s offer was rejected by the king. In the year 1688, when the prince of Orange intended an expedition into England, he sent M. Bentinck, on the elector of Brandenburgh'a death, to the new elector, to communicate to him his design upon England, and to solicit his assistance. In this negociation M. Bentinck was so successful as to bring back a more favourable and satisfactory answer than the prince had expected; the elector having generously granted even more than was asked of him. M. Bentincfc had also a great share in the revolution; and in this difficult and important affair, shewed all the prudence and sagacity of the most consummate statesman. It was he that was applied to, as the person in the greatest confidence with the prince, to manage the negociations that were set on foot, betwixt his highness and the English nobility and gentry, who had recourse to him to rescue them from the danger they were in. He was also two months constantly at the Hague, giving the necessary orders for the prince’s expedition, which was managed by him with such secrecy, that nothing was suspected, nor was there ever so great a design executed in so short a time, a transport fleet of 500 vessels having been hired in three days. M. Bentinck accompanied the prince to England, and after king James’s abdication, during the interregnum, he held the first place among those who composed the prince’s cabinet at that critical time, and that, in such a degree of super-eminence, as scarcely left room for a second: and we may presume he was not wanting in his endeavours to procure the crown for the prince his master; who, when he had obtained it, was as forward on his part, in rewarding the faithful and signal services of M. Bentinck, whom he appointed groom of the stole, privy purse, first gentleman of the royal bedchamber, and first commoner upon the list of privy counsellors. He was afterwards naturalised by act of parliament; and, by letters patent bearing date the 9th of April 1689, two clays before the king and queen’s coronation, he was created baron of Cirencester, viscount Woodstock, and earl of Portland. In 1690, the earl of Portland, with many others of the English nobility, attended king William to Holland, where the earl acted as envoy for his majesty, at the grand congress held at the Hague the same year. In 1695, king William made this nobleman a grant of the lordships of Denbigh, Bromtield, Yale, and other lands, containing many thousand acres, in the principality of Wales, but these being part of the demesne thereof, the grant was opposed, and the house of commons addressed the king to put a stop to the passing it, which his majesty accordingly complied with, and recalled the grant, promising, however, to find some other way of shewing his favour to lord Portland, who, he said, had deserved it by long and faithful services. It was to this nobleman that the plot for assassinating king William in 1695 was first discovered; and his lordship, by his indefatigable zeal, was very instrumental in bringing to light the whole of that execrable scheme. The same year another affair happened, in which he gave such a shining proof of the strictest honour and integrity, as has done immortal honour to his memory. The parliament having taken into consideration the affairs of the East India company, who, through mismanagement and corrupt dealings, were in danger of losing their charter, strong interest was made with the members of both houses, and large sums distributed, to procure a new establishment of their company by act of parliament. Among those noblemen whose interest was necessary to bring about this affair, lord Portland’s was particularly courted, and an extraordinary value put upon it, much beyond that of any other peer; for he was offered no less than the sum of 50,000l. for his vote, and his endeavours with the king to favour the design. But his lordship treated this offer with all the contempt it deserved, telling the person employed in it, that if he ever so much as mentioned such a thing to him again, he would for ever be the company’s enemy, and give them all the opposition in his power. This is an instance of public spirit not often mst with, and did not pass unregarded; for we find it recorded in an eloquent speech of a member of parliament, who related this noble action to the house of commons, much to the honour of lord Portland. It was owing to this nobleman, also, that the Banquetting-house at Whitehall was saved, when the rest of the Palace was destroyed by fire. In February 1696, he was created a knight of the garter, at a chapter held at Kensington, and was installed at Windsor on the 25th of March, 1697, at which time he was also lieutenant-general of his majesty’s forces: for his lordship’s services were not confined to the cabinet; he likewise distinguished himself in the field on several occasions, particularly at the battle of the Boyne, battle of Landen, where he was wounded, siege of Limerick, Namur, &c. As his lordship thus attended his royal master in his wars both in Ireland and Flanders, and bore a principal command there, so he was honoured by his majesty with the chief management of the famous peace of Ryswick; having, in some conferences with the marshal BoufHers, settled the most difficult and tender point, and which might greatly have retarded the conclusion of the peace. This was concerning the disposal of king James; the king of France having solemnly promised, in an open declaration to all Europe, that he would never lay down his arms tilt he had restored the abdicated king to his throne, and consequently could not own king William, without abandoning him. Not long after the conclusion of the peace, king William nominated the earl of Portland to be his ambassador extraordinary to the court of France; an, honour justly due to him, for the share he had in bringing about the treaty of Hysvvick; and the king could not have fixed upon a person better qualified to support his high character with dignity and magnificence. The French likewise had a great opinion of his lordship’s capacity and merit; and no ambassador was ever so respected and caressed in France as his lordship was, who, on his part, filled his employment with equal honour to the king, the British nation, and himself. According to Prior, however, the earl of Portland went on this embassy with reluctance, having been for some time alarmed with the growing favour of a rival in king William’s affection, namely, Keppel, afterwards created earl of Albermarle, a DutchmLin, who had also been page to his majesty. “And,” according to Prior, “his jealousy was not ill-grounded for Albemarle so prevailed in lord Portland’s absence, that he obliged him, by several little affronts, to lay down all his employments, after which he was never more in favour, though the king always shewed an esteem for him.” Bishop Burnet says “That the earl of Portland observed the progress of the king’s favour to the lord Albemaiie with great uneasiness they grew to be not only incompatible, as all rivals for favour must be, but to hate and oppose one another in every thing; the one (lord Portland) had more of the confidence, the other more of the favour. Lord Portland, upon his return from his embassy to France, could not bear the visible superiority in favour that the other was growing up to; so he took occasion, from a small preference given lord Albemarle in prejudice of his own post, as groom of the stole, to withdraw from court, and lay down all his employments. The king used all possible means to divert him from this resolution, but could not prevail on him to alter it: he, indeed, consented to serve his majesty still in his state affairs, but would not return to any post in the household.” This change, says bishop Kennet, did at first please the English and Dutch, the earl of Albermarle having cunningly made several powerful friends in both nations, who, out of envy to lord Portland, were glad to see another in his place; and it is said that lord Albemarle was supported by the earl of Sutherland and Mrs. Villiers to pull down lord Portland: however, though the first became now the reigning favourite, yet the latter, says bishop Kennet, did ever preserve the esteem and affection of king William. But king William was not one of those princes who are governed by favourites. He was his own minister in all the greater parts of government, as those of war and peace, forming alliances and treaties, and he appreciated justly the merit of those whom he employed in his service. It is highly probable, therefore, that lord Portland never Jost the king’s favourable opinion, although he might be obliged to give way to a temporary favourite. The earl of Albemarle had been in his majesty’s service from a youth, was descended of a noble family in Guelderland, attended king William into England as his page of honour, and being a young lord of address and temper, with a due mixture of heroism, it is no wonder his majesty took pleasure in his conversation in the intervals of state business, and in making his fortune, who had so long followed his own. Bishop Burnet says, it is a difficult matter to account for the reasons of the favour shewn by the king, in the highest degree, to these two lords, they being in all respects, not only of different, but of quite opposite characters; secrecy and fidelity being the only qualities in which they did in any sort agree. Lord Albetnarle was very cheerful and gay, had all the arts of a court, was civil to all, and procured favours for many; but was so addicted to his pleasures that he could scarcely submit to attend on business, and had never yet distinguished himself in any thing. On the other hand, lord Portland was of a grave and sedate disposition, and indeed, adds the bishop, was thought rather too cold and dry, and had not the art of creating friends; but was indefatigable in business, and had distinguished himself on many occasions. With another author, Mackey, his lordship has the character of carrying himself with a very lofty mien, yet was not proud, nor much beloved nor hated by the people. But it is no wonder if the earl of Portland was not acceptable to the English nation. His lordship had been for ten years entirely trusted by the king, was his chief favourite and bosom-friend, and the favourites of kings are seldom favourites of the people, and it must be owned king William was immoderately lavish to those he personally loved. But as long as history has not charged his memory with failings that might deservedly render him obnoxious to the public, there can be no partiality in attributing this nobleman’s unpopularity partly to the above reasons, and partly to his being a foreigner, for which he suffered not a little from the envy and malice of his enemies, in their speeches, libels, &c. of which there were some levelled as well against the king as against his lordship. The same avereion, however, to foreign favourites, soon after shewed itself against lord Albemarle, who, as he grew into power and favour, like lord Portland, began to be looked upon with the same jealousy; and when the king gave him the order of the garter, in the year 1700, we are told it was generally disliked, and his majesty, to make it pass the better, at the same time conferred the like honour on Jord Pembroke (an English nobleman of illustrious birth). Yet it was observed, that few of the nobility graced the ceremony of their installation with their presence, and that many severe reflections were then made on his majesty, for giving the garter to his favourite. The king had for a long time given the earl of Portland the entire and absolute government of Scotland; and his lordship was also employed, in the year 1698, in the new negociation set on foot for the succession of the Crown of Spain, called by the name of the partition treaty > the intention of which being frustrated by the treachery of the French king, the treaty itself fell under severe censure, and was looked upon as a fatal slip in the politics of that reign; and lord Portland was impeached by the house of commons, in the year 1700, for advising and transacting it, as were also the other lords concerned with him in it. This same year, lord Portland was a second time attacked, together with lord Albemarle, by the house of commons, when the affair of the disposal of the forfeited estates in Ireland was under their consideration; it appearing upon inquiry, that the king had, among many other grants, made one to lord Woodstock (the earl of Portland’s son) of 135,820 acres of land, and to lord Albemarle two grants, of 108,633 acres in possession and reversion; the parliament came to a resolution to resume these grants; and also resolved, that the advising and passing them was highly reflecting on the king’s honour; and that the officers and instruments concerned in the procuring and passing those grants, had highly failed in the performance of their trust and duty; and also, that the procuring or passing exorbitant grants, by any member now of the privy-council, or by any other that had been a privy -counsellor, in this, or any former reign, to his use or benefit, was a high crime and misdemeanour. To carry their resentment still farther, the commons, immediately impeached the earls of Portland and Albemarle, for procuring for themselves exorbitant grants. This impeachment, however, did not succeed, and then the commons voted an address to his majesty, that no person who was not a native of his dominions, excepting his royal highness prince George of Denmark, should be admitted to his majesty’s councils in England or Ireland, but this was evaded by the king’s going the very next day to the house of lords, passing the bills that were ready, and putting an end to the session. The partition treaty was the last public transaction we find lord Portland engaged in, the next year after his impeachment, 1701, having put a period to the life of his royal and munificent master, king William III.; but not without having shewn, even in his last moments, that his esteem and affection for lord Portland ended but with his life: for when his majesty was just expiring, he asked, though with a faint voice, for the earl of Portland, but before his lordship could come, the king’s voice quite failed him. The earl, however, placing his ear as near his majesty’s mouth as could be, his lips were observed to move, but without strength to express his mind to his lordship; but, as the last testimony of the cordial affection he bore him, he took him by the hand, and carried it to his heart with great tenderness, and expired soon after. His lordship had before been a witness to, and signed his majesty’s last will and testament, made at the Hague in 1695; and it is said, that king William, the winter before he died, told lord Portland, as they were walking together in the garden at Hampton court, that he found his health declining very fast, and that he could not live another summer, but charged his lordship not to mention this till after his majesty’s death. We are told, that at the time of the king’s death, lord Portland was keeper of Windsor great park, and was displaced upon queen Anne’s accession to the throne: we are not, however, made acquainted with the time when his lordship became first possessed of that post. After king William’s death, the earl did not, at least openly, concern himself with public affairs, but betook himself to a retired life, in a most exemplary way, at his seat at Bulstrode in the county of Bucks, where he erected and plentifully endowed a free-school; and did many other charities. His lordship had an admirable taste for gardening, and took great delight in improving and beautifying his own gardens, which he made very elegant and curious. At length, being taken ill of a pleurisy and malignant fever, after about a week’s illness he died, November 23, 1709, in the sixty-first year of his age, leaving behind him a very plentiful fortune, being at that time reputed one of the richest subjects in Europe. His corpse being conveyed to London, was, on the third of December, carried with, great funeral pomp, from his house in St. James’s square to Westminster-abbey, and there interred in the vault under the east window of Henry the Seventh’s chapel.

Henry, his son, second earl, was created duke of Portland, 1716, and having incurred great loss of fortune by the South Sea bubble, went over as governor to Jamaica, 1722, and died there 1726, aged forty-five. William his son, second duke, who died in 1762, married lady Margaret Cavendish Harley, only child of the second earl of Oxford, and heiress to the vast estates of the Cavendishes, formerly dukes of Newcastle. This lady, after the duke’s death, lived with splendid hospitality at Bulstrode, which was the resort not only of persons of the highest rank, but of those most distinguished for talents and eminence in the literary world. To her, posterity will ever be indebted, for securing to the public the inestimable treasures of learning contained in the noble manuscript library of her father and grandfather, earls of Oxford, now deposited in the British museum, by the authority of parliament, under the guardianship of the most distinguished persons of the realm, easy of access, and consequently of real use to the philosopher, the statesman, the historian, and the scholar. She died July 17, 1785, and the following year her own museum, collected at vast expence to herself', and increased by some valuable presents from her friends, was disposed of by auction, by the late Mr. Alderman Skinner. The sale lasted thirty-seven days. Among the books was the fine Missal, known by the name of the Bedford Missal, of which Mr. Gough published an account, as will be noticed in his life. This splendid volume was purchased by, and is now in the very curious and valuable library of James Edwards, esq. of Harrow-on-the-hill.

, third duke of Portland, was born in 1738, and educated at Christchurch, Oxford, where he was created M. A. Feb. 1, 1757. He afterwards travelled for some time on the continent, and on his return was elected M. P. for Weobly, but in 1762 was called up to the house of peers on the death of his father. From that period, we find him generally dividing on important questions with the minority, and having connected himself with the late marquis of Rockingham, during that nobleman’s short-lived administration in 1765, he held the office of lord chamberlain. In 1767-8, his grace was involved in a long dispute with government respecting the grant of the forest of Inglewood to sir James Lowther, which had been part of the estates belonging to the duke’s ancestors, but by a decision of the court of exchequer in 1771, the grant was declared to be illegal. During the progress of the Ameiican war, his grace continued invariably to vote with the party who opposed the measures of administration, and became perhaps more closely united to them by his marriage with lady Dorothy Cavendish, sister to the duke of Devonshire. When the administration of lord North, which had conducted that unfortunate war, was dissolved in 1782, and replaced by the marquis of Rockingham, and his friends, the duke of Portland was appointed lord-lieutenant of Ireland, but owing to the death of the marquis, he remained in this office only about three months. In consequence of the same event, some of the party were for earl Fitzwilliam, and some for the duke of Portland, as the ostensible head of the new arrangement, but in the mean time his majesty preferred the earl of Shelburne, Mr. Pitt, &c. The memorable coalition then took place between lord North and Mr. Fox, supported by many of the friends of the latter; but soon was not more unacceptable to his majesty than to the nation, whose confidence in public professions was shaken to a degree of indifference from which perhaps it has never since recovered. The coalition-ministry, however, having the voice of the house of commons in their favour, his majesty determined to appeal to the people by a general election, the issue of which was completely unfavourable to his grace’s friends; and Mr. Pitt, who had been appointed first lord of the treasury and chancellor of the exchequer, found a decided majority of the parliament and of the country on his side. An attempt was indeed made to engage Mr. Pitt and the duke in the same administration, but as the latter insisted as a preliminary, that Mr. Pitt should resign, the negociation was soon broken off.

After he had passed some years at Rome, where he made many friends, pope Paul V. appointed him his referendary, and sent him, with the title of archbishop of Rhodes, as apostolic nuncio, into Flanders, where he arrived in 1607. After remaining there nine years, he was, in 1617, appointed nuncio in France, and acted with so much dexterity with respect to the affairs of both courts, that when he was made cardinal, Jan. 11, 1621, Louis XIII. chose him to be the agent of France at the court of Rome. Here he soon became the confidential friend of pope Urban VIII. who, in 1641, bestowed on him the bishopric of Palestrina. On the death of this pope in 1644, it was generally thought that cardinal Bentivoglio would be his successor; but he had scarcely entered the conclave when the heat overpowered him, and brought on a fever, of which he died September 7, of that year. He was interred in the church of the Theatins of St. Silvester, in a private manner, agreeably to his own desire, owing to his affairs being deranged. He owed large sums at his death, in order to pay part of which he had been obliged, some time before, to sell his palace at Rome. A magnificent style of living was then one of the means by which the Romish ecclesiastics endeavoured to acquire the humble title of “Servant of servants,” and Bentivoglio had not neglected this or any other expedient. He was in truth a consummate politician, knew how to re^ concile clashing interests, and how to assume every necessary change of character; his historical memoirs partake of this character, being cautious, reserved, yet amusing and illustrative of the characters and events of the times in which he lived. His works are, 1. “Relazioni del card. Bentivoglio in tempo delle sue nunziature di Fiandra e di Francia, date in luce da Ericio Puteano (Henry Dupuy), Antwerp, 1629; Cologne, 1630; Paris, 1631; all in 4to; translated into English by Henry earl of Monmouth, London, 1652, folio. 2.” Delia guerra di Fiandra,“in six books, printed at various times, but all included in the edition of Cologne, 1639, 4to, which is considered as the best. This likewise was translated into English by the earl of Monmouth, 1654, folio. 3.” Kaccolta di lettere scritte in tempo delle sue nunziature di Fiandra et di Francia,“Cologne, 1631, 4to. A fine edition of this was lately published by M. Biagioli, at Didot’s press, Paris, 1807, 12mo, with French notes, grammatical and philosophical, and a literal translation was published at London, 1764, for the use of learners of the Italian tongue, but it was feebly executed. In 1727, an edition of the original was printed at Cambridge. 4.” Memorie^ owero diario del cardinal Bentivoglio,“Amst. 1648, 8vO. He wrote these memoirs in 1642, with a view, as he says in his preface, to please himself, and he relates what he would wish posterity to know of his history and character. The whole of his works, with the exception of his” Memoirs," were published together at Paris, 1645, folio, and apparently reprinted 1648, but this is the same publication with a new title-page. They were also printed, including the Memoirs, at Venice, 1668, 4to.

On the 4th of July, 1.689, being already M.A. in the university of Cambridge, he was incorporated as such in the university of Oxford, in Wadham college, and is mentioned by Anthony Wood (though then but a young man, a good deal under thirty) as a genius that was promising, and to whom the world was likely to be obliged, for his future studies and productions. In 1691 he published a Latin epistle to John Mill, D.D. containing some critical observations relating to Johannes Malala, Greek historiographer, published at the end of that author, at Oxon, in 1691, in a large 8vo. This was the first piece that our author published. Nor was religion less indebted to him than learning, for in 1691-2, he had the honour to be selected as the first person to preach at Boyle’s lectures (founded by that honourable gentleman, to assert and vindicate the great fundamentals of natural and revealed religion), upon which occasion he successfully applied sir Isaac Newton’s “Principia Mathematica,” to demonstrate the being of God, and altogether silenced the Atheists, who, in this country, have since that time, for the most part, sheltered themselves under Deism. The subject of his discourses was the folly of atheism, even with respect to the present life, and that matter and motion cannot think; or a confutation of atheism from the faculties of the soul, from the structure and origin of human bodies, and the origin and trame of the world itself; and though he was bnt young, and even only in deacon’s orders, he laid the basis and foundation upon which all the successors to that worthy office have since built. Though this was a task of great extent, and no small difficulty, yet Mr. Bentley acquitted himself with so much reputation, that the trustees not only publicly thanked him for them, but did moreover, by especial command and desire, prevail upon him to make the said discourses public, upon which he gave the world a volume, 1693, 4to, containing eight sermons, which have not only undergone a number of editions, but have been translated abroad into several languages. On the 2d of October, 1692, he was installed a prebendary of Worcester by bishop Stillingfleet. Upon the death of Mr. Justel, Mr. Bentley was immediately thought upon to succeed him, as keeper of the royal library at St. James’s; and accordingly, a few months after his decease, he had a warrant made out for that place, from the secretary’s office, December 23, 1693, and had his patent for the same in April following. Soon after he was nominated to that office, before his patent was signed, by his care and diligence he procured no less than a thousand volumes of one sort or other, which had been neglected to be brought to the library, according to the act of parliament then subsisting, which prescribed that one copy of every book printed in England, should be brought and lodged in this library, and one in each university library. It was about this time and upon this occasion of his being made library-keeper, that the famous dispute between him and the honourable Mr. Boyle, whether the epistles of Phalaris were genuine or riot, in some measure, at first took rise, which gave occasion to so maiw books and pamphlets, and has made so much noise in the world. This controversy upon a point of learning, in itself not very entertaining, was managed with a wit and humour which rendered it interesting to the public. The world was at that time a little biassed in favour of the production of the young nobleman, at least as to the genteel raillery of his pieces; for as to the dispute itself, viz. the genuineness of the Epistles of Phalaris, the best judge^s almost universally now give the preference to Dr. Bentley; nor does he much, if at all, fall short of Mr. Boyle, in throwing a deal of life and spirit into the controversy, particularly in his answer to Mr. Boyle, which is interspersed, as well as Mr. Boyle’s piece, with abundance of wit and humour, and is, upon the whole, reckoned much the best book. When, in 1696, he was admitted to his degree of D. D. he preached, on the day of the public commencement, from 1 Peter iii. 15. “Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you.” About this time the university entered upon a design of publishing some editions, in 4to, of some classic authors, for the use of the duke of Gloucester. Dr. Bentley, who was consulted upon the occasion, advised Laughton, to whose care the edition of Virgil was committed, to follow Heinsius very close, but his advice was not complied with. Terence was published by Leng, Horace byTalbot, and Catullus, Tibnllus, and Propertius, by Mr. Annesley, afterwards earl of Anglesey. Dr. Bentley procurecUfrom Holland the types with which these books were printed. At the express desire of his friend Mr. Graevius, he published his “Animadversions and remarks on the poet Callimachus,” making, at the same time, a collection of some scattered pieces or fragments of that author. These he finished and sent over to Mr. Grarmus, towards the latter end of his dispute with Mr. Boyle, and Mr. Graevius published them abroad in 1697. in 1700, upon the death of Dr. Montague, he was by the crown presented to the mastership of Trinity-college, Cambridge, which is reckoned worth near 1000l. per annum, upon obtaining which preferment he resigned his prebend of Worcester; but June 12, 1701, on Dr. Say well’s death, he was collated archdeacon of Ely. What next employed his critical genius were the two first comedies of Aristophanes. Upon these he made some curious annotations, which were published at Amsterdam in 1710; as was much about the same time, at Rheims, his emendations, &c. on the fragments of Menancler and Philemon, in the feigned name of “Philcleutherus Lipsiensis.” Under this character he appeared again, in 1713, in remarks upon Collins’s discourse of free-thinking, a book which had made no small noise in the world at that time. This he handles and confutes in a critical, learned, and yet familiar manner. Before his Remarks on Freethinking, in 1711, came forth his so long-expected and celebrated edition of Horace. What he intended, was not properly to explain his author, but only to correct what he judged remained still corrupted in the text, as he himself tells us in his preface; and this by the help and assistance, either of ancient manuscripts, old editions, or by conjecture. This, it must be confessed, was a nice and dangerous undertaking, but he succeeded at least in correcting a much greater number of passages than any, or all his former interpreters, ever had done; furnishing us, in this his new edition of our elegant Roman poet, with a great number of very plausible, and probable, and unquestionably, some genuine emendations. Le Clerc abroad was Bentley’s chief opponent in this edition. At home, in the year following the doctor’s edition, viz. 1712, came out, by various hands, the odes and epodes of Horace, in sixpenny numbers, making in the whole two volumes in 8vo; the titles of which are “The odes and epodes of Horace in Latin and English, with a translation of Dr. Bentley’s notes. To which are added notes upon notes, done in the Bentleian style and manner.” In the preface they “humbly hope that the reader will encourage the following essays, upon several accounts. First, as they are designed to shew him the best author of Augustus’s age in his native purity. Secondly, to give him a further proof how far all attempts to render him into English, even after the best version now extant has succeeded no better, must fall short of the original. Thirdly, to convince him how ridiculous it is to presume to correct Horace without authority, upon the pretended strength of superior judgment in poetry. And lastly, how easily such a presumption may be turned upon the authors, and sufficiently expose them in their own way.” This last paragraph seems indeed to express the greatest part of the design of this work, which is executed with a great deal of spirit and humour. On the 5th of November, 1715, the doctor preached a sermon before the university against popery, on which somebody soon after published remarks, which occasioned Dr, Bentley’s answer, entitled “Reflections on the scandalous aspersions cast on the Clergy, by the author of the Remarks on Dr. Bentley’s Sermon on Popery, &c.” This was printed in 1717, in 8vo. In 1716, at which time he succeeded to the chair of Regius professor of divinity, the doctor had two printed letters inscribed to him, dated Jan. 1, to which also was added his answer, concerning his intended edition of the Greek Testament, giving some account of what was to be expected in that edition; and in them we are informed, that he intended to make no use of any manuscript in this edition that was not a thousand years old or above; of which sort he had got at that time twenty together in his study, which made up, one with another, 20,000 years. After having had this affair in agitation for about four years, he at last published proposals for it, which met with great encouragement. But soon after came out Remarks, paragraph by paragraph, on these proposals, by Dr. Conyers Middleton, as it afterwards appeared, who sets out by assuring his reader, that it was neither personal spleen, nor envy to the author of the Proposals, that drew the following remarks from him, but a serious conviction that Dr. Bentley had neither talents nor materials proper for the work, and that religion was much more likely to receive detriment than service from it. “The time, manner, and other circumstances of these proposals,” says he, “make it but too evident, that they were hastened out to serve quite different ends than those of common Christianity; and I think it my duty to obviate, as far as I am able, the influence they might have on some, whom big words, and bold attempts, are apt to lead implicitly into an high opinion and admiration of the merit and abilities of the undertaker.” Dr. Middleton then proceeds to criticise, paragraph by paragraph, Dr. Bentley’s proposals. Soon after these Remarks, paragraph by paragraph, the Proposals appeared, with a pamphlet entitled “A full answer to all the Remarks of a late pamphleteer, by a member of Trinity college, Cambridge,” 1721, signed J. E. This Dr. Middleton, and all, imagined could be none but the doctor himself, as well from the style, as the letters J. E. the two first vowels of Richard Bentley: and, upon this supposition, Dr. Middleton and others, in their future remarks, make that one great handle for abusing him. It is, however, somewhat uncertain, whether Dr. Middleton might not be as much mistaken as to the author of those Remarks, as the very author of those Remarks was with respect to the author of the Remarks paragraph by paragraph, who supposed them to be made by Dr. Colbatch. Soon after this came out a pamphlet, with some further “Remarks, &c. containing a full answer to the editor’s late defence -of his Proposals, as well as all his objections there made against my former remarks, by Conyers Middleton, D. D.” As also, an anonymous letter to the reverend master of Trinity college, Cambridge, editor of a new Greek Testament. We also find, under the Catalogue of the doctor’s works in the Bibliotheca Bodleiana,-much about this time, another publication, somewhat analogous, and relating to this affair, viz. “An enquiry into the authority of the primitive Complutensian edition of the New Testament, in a letter to archdeacon Bentley,” 1722, 8vo. As to these proposals, Dr. Middleton takes upon him to say, that they were only published with a view “that some noise should be made in the world in his favour, to support his declining character by something great and popular, to recover esteem and applause to himself, and throw an odium and contempt upon his prosecutors, &c.” In 1725, at a public commencement on the 6th of July, the doctor made an elegant Latin speech, on creating seven doctors of divinity, in which, at the several periods, by little notes below, is set forth the whole form of the creation of a doctor of divinity. This piece is usually joined to his edition of Terence and Phsedrus: at least it is added to the Amsterdam edition of them in 1727, a very neat edition, corrected for the press by the doctor. To these notes on Terence, he has also added those of the learned Gabriel Faernius, and taken great pains in amending and correcting the author, not only from those ancient manuscripts which Gabriel Faernius had procured, but also from whatever manuscripts the royal library, those of Cambridge, or any of his friends, could afford; some of which, he assures us, were of great antiquity, and at least next, and very little inferior, to those of Faernius, the orthography of which, as the most ancient manuscript, he altogether follows. He has likewise altered the text in abundance of places, and assigns in the notes the reason for such alteration. Then follows the Schediasma of the metre and accents of Terence, by which the doctor proves that Terence is written all in Verse. This, however', was a matter of some controversy betw-een the learned bishop Hare and our author; and during the warmth of the debate. Will. Whiston remarked how intolerable it was, that while Grotius, Newton, and Locke, all laymen, were employing their talents on sacred studies, such clergymen as Dr. Bentley and bishop Hare were fighting about a play-book. About 1732, the doctor published his Milton’s “Paradise Lost,” when he was, as he says in his preface, about seventy years old. This is a very elegant and beautiful edition of that poem, but cannot be said to have contributed much to the editor’s deputation. Dr. Bentley tells us, that he had prepared a new edition of the poet Manillas for the press, which he would have published, had not the clearness of paper, and the want of good types, and some other occasions, hindered him. He had also some design of publishing an edition of Hesychius, as we find by Mr. Graevius’s letter to him, and assured Dr. Mill, he could, if he pleased, correct five thousand faults in that author. His emendations on the Tusculan Questions of Cicero are adjoined to Mr. Davis’s edition of that author. From this produce of his studious, we must now pass to that of his more active, life, in the memorable complaints of rrial -administration urged against him by the college, which were the occasion of a long suit, whether the Crown‘ or the bishop of Ely was general visitor. A party in the college, displeased at some of his regulations, began to talk of the fortieth statute, de Magistri (si res exigat) Amotionc, and meditated a complaint to the bishop of Ely. The master hearing this, went to bishop Patrick, then at Ely, who told him, he had never heard before, that, as bishop of Ely, he had any thing to do in the royal college of Trinity; called his secretary to him, and bid him seek if there was any precedent for it in the bishop’s archives; but not one was found, nor so much as a copy of Trinity college statutes. Upon that, the doctor lent him one; and during that bishop’s time the matter was dropped. But in his successor Dr. Moore’s time, the party were encouraged to apply to the bishop, in 1709, and avast number of articles about dilapidations, but not one of immorality, bribery, or fraud, were exhibited against the master. These were, however, the subject of many pamphlets on both sides. His lordship received the charge, intending to proceed upon it, which he conceived himself sufficiently authorised to do, and required Dr. Bentley’ s answer, which he declined for some time to give, pleading want of form in the charge; because other members of the college, besides the seniors, had joined in the accusation, and the seniors themselves, as he alleged, had never yet admonished him; from whence he inferred, that all proceedings on such a charge, and whatsoever should follow on the same foot, would be ipso facto null and void. The bishop, however, did not, it seems, think this plea to be material; for he insisted upon Dr. Bentley’s answer to the charge; who, upon that, began to question what authority his lordship had over him; and, by a petition presented to queen Anne, prayed “that her majesty would take him and the college into her protection, against the bishop’s pretensions, and maintain her sole power and jurisdiction over her royal foundation, and the masters thereof.” This petition was referred to the then attorney and solicitor-general, and they were ordered fully to consider the matter, and report their opinions. Notice was given at the same time to the bishop, that her majesty having taken this affair into her cognizance, his lordship was to stay proceedings till the queen’s pleasure was farther known. Mr. attorney and solicitor-general took some time to consider; and were of opinion, the bishop had power over the master. But this report not proving satisfactory to some persons then in administration, a letter was brought to the bishop from Mr. secretary St. John, dated 18th June, 1711, acquainting him, “that the matter of the petition of Dr. Richard Bentley, master of Trinity-college in Cambridge, together with the report of Mr. attorney and Mr. solicitorgeneral, being then before the queen, and ordered to be taken into consideration by my lord keeper, assisted by her majesty’s counsel learned in the law, her majesty thought it to be a business of such weight and consequence, that she had commanded him (the secretary) to signify her pleasure to his lordship, that he should stop all further proceedings, according to her majesty’s direction.” But the master seeing that all discipline and studies would be lost in the college, if that controversy were not one way or other decided, requested of the ministry that he might be permitted to take his trial under any visitor the queen should appoint; or if none could be so appointed, that he might have leave, salvo jure regio, to be voluntarily tried under the bishop. Upon this the inhibition was taken off by Mr. secretary St. John, by order of the queen, signifying, “that his lordship was at liberty to proceed, so far as by the law he might.” But his lordship did not think fit to proceed, till he was served uith a rule of court from the king’s-bench, in Easter-term 1714, to shew cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue out against him. The bishop, being then at Ely, was applied to by joint messengers on both sides, to go to the college, where he might have ended the matter in two days. But this was not thought so proper, and Ely-house at London was pitched on, where, instead of two days, the trial lasted at least six weeks, and the college paid a thousand pounds for it; three learned lawyers, who could know but very little of the matter, being admitted on each side, to make eloquent harangues, answers, and replies, upon questions arisingfrom above fifty articles, in which there was scarcely any thing material that might not easily be determined upon a bare inspection of the college statutes, registers, and books of accounts. The trial being ended, and the cause ripe for sentence, the bishop’s death prevented his giving judgment. Thus the matter dropped for the present; but was afterwards revived in 1728, when new articles of complaint against Dr. Bentley, charging him with having in many instances made great waste of the college revenue, and violated the statutes, all founded on the 40th of Elizabeth, were again exhibited to the bishop of Ely, as specially authorised and appointed to receive the same, and to proceed thereupon; though the matter had been long before decided in favour of the crown, as having the general visitatorial power. Upon this, a petition was subscribed by the college, and presented to his majesty under the common-seal, the 10th of August 1728, and the cause carried before the king in council for the college itself now engaged as party in the cause against the bishop, and above fifteen hundred pounds out of the revenues of the college, were spent in carrying it on. This being referred to a committee of his majesty’s most honourable privy-council, Dr. Fleetwood, the lord bishop of Ely, on the 2nd of November, 1728, also presented a petition to his majesty, to be heard touching his right, which was likewise referred to the said committee. The lords committee, just before the clay appointed for a hearing, viz. March 13, 1728, had a printed pamphlet put into their hands, entitled, “The Case of Trinity-college; whether the Crown or the Bishop of Ely be General Visitor;” at the end of which, as well as in their petition, the college applied to the king, to take the visitatorial power (as by the opinion of council he might with their consent) into his own hands, that they might b0 only visited by the crown, but not with a view or intent of avoiding a visitation or inquiry into the state of the society, for which they were very pressing, both in their petition, and at the end of this pamphlet. On the fifteenth the cause came on before the lords of the committee of privy-council, but was from thence referred to the king’s bench, where the May following it was tried by way of prohibition, and after a long pleading, the judges unanimously determined it in favour of the bishop, as to his visitatorial power over the doctor; and the June following, the fellows exhibited their articles of complaint against him before the bishop of Ely, his lordship having two assistants, viz. sir Henry Penrice, and Dr. Bettesworth. But it being urged, that the bishop was going to exercise a general visitatorial power, another petition was preferred to his majesty and council, by the master and fellows, and a farther hearing appointed in the cause, in the court of king’s bench, in November, 1729, &c. and in November, 1731, we find the cause had gone against the bishop of Ely, by his taking out a writ of error, for carrying the' cause by appeal into the house of lords. The crown, however, at last, to put an end to the dispute and disturbance, (as fully impowered to do) took both college and master, according to their petition, into its own jurisdiction and visitation, and here the matter ended.

The earl of.Orrery, in his “Remarks on the life and writings of Swift,” has taken occasion to speak of him in the following manner “Cyrano de Bergerac is a French author of a singular character, who had a very peculiar turn of wit and humour, in many respects resembling that of Swift. He wanted the advantages of learning and a regular education; his imagination was less guarded and correct, but more agreeably extravagant. He has introduced into his philosophical romance the system of des Cartes, which was then much admired, intermixed with several fine strokes of just satire on the wild and immechanical inquiries of the philosophers and astronomers of that age; and in many parts he has evidently directed the plan which the dean of St. Patrick’s has pursued.” This opinion was first quoted in the Monthly Review (vol. X), when Derrick translated a. id published Bergerac’s “Voyage to tha Moon,” 1753, 12mo. But Swift is not the only person indebted to Bergerac. His countrymen allow that Moliere, in several of his characters, Fontenelie, in his “Plurality of Worlds,” and Voltaire, in his “Micromegas,” have taken many hints and sketches from this eccentric writer. There have been various editions of his works at Paris, Amsterdam, Trevoux, &c. the last was printed at Paris, 1741, 3 vols. 12 mo.

In 1710 appeared “The Principles of human knowledge;” and, in 1713, “Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous” but to them the same praise has not been given, and to this day their real tendency is a disputed point. The object of both pieces is to prove that the commonly received notion of the existence of matter is false that sensible material objects, as they are called, are not external to the mind, but exist in it, and are nothing more than impressions made upon it by the immediate act of God, according to certain rules termed laws of nature, from which, in the ordinary course of his government, he never deviates and that the steady adherence of the Supreme Spirit to these rules is what constitutes the reality of things to his creatures. These works are declared to. Lave been written in opposition to sceptics and atheists and the author’s inquiry is into the chief cause of error and difficulty in the sciences, with the grounds of scepticism, atheism, and irreligion which cause and grounds are found to be the doctrines of the existence of matter. He seems persuaded that men never could have been deluded into a false opinion of the existence of matter, if they had not fancied themselves invested with a power of abstracting substance from the qualities under which it is perceived and hence, as the general foundation of his argument, he is led to combat and explode a doctrine maintained by Locke and others, of there being a power in the mind of abstracting general ideas. Mr. Hume says, that these works “form the best lessons of scepticism, which are to be found either among the ancient or modern philosophers, Bayle not excepted.” Dr. Beattie also considers them as having a sceptical tendency. He adds, that if Berkeley’s argument be conclusive, it proves that to b false which every man must necessarily believe, every moment of his life, to be true, and that to be true which no man since the foundation of the world was ever capable of believing for a single moment. Berkeley’s doctrine attacks the most incontestable dictates of common sense, and pretends to demonstrate that the clearest principles of human conviction, and those which have determined the judgment of men in all ages, and by which the judgment of all reasonable men must be determined, are certainly fallacious. It may just be observed, that Berkeley had not reached his 27th year when he published this singular system. The author of his life in the Biog. Brit, asserts that “the airy visions of romances, to the reading of which he was much addicted, disgust at the books of metaphysics then received in the university, and that inquisitive attention to the operations of the mind which about this time was excited by the writings of Locke and Malebranche, probably gave birth to his disbelief of the existence of matter.” Whatever influenre the oth^r causes here assigned might have had, we have the authority of his relict, Mrs. Berkeley, that he had a very great dislike to romances, and indeed it would be difficult to discover in any of these volumes of absurd fiction the grounds of such a work as Berkeley’s. In 1712 he published three sermons in favour of passive obedience and non-resistance, which underwent at least three editions, and afterwards had nearly done him sonic injury in. his fortune. They caused him to be represented as ajlacobite, and stood in his way with the house of Hanover, till Mr. Molineux, above-mentioned, took off the impression, and first made him known to queen Caroline, whose secretary, when princess, Mr. -Molineux had been. Acuteness of parts and beauty of imagination were so conspicuous in his writings, that his reputation was now established, and his company courted even where his opinions did not find admission. Men of opposite parties concurred in recommending him sir Richard Steele, for instance, and Dr. Swift. For the former he wrote several papers in the Guardian, and at his house became acquainted with Pope, with whom he afterwards lived in friendship. It is said he had a guinea and a dinner with Steele for every paper he wrote in the Guardian. Swift recommended him to the celebrated earl of Peterborough, who being appointed ambassador to the king of Sicily and the Italian states, took Berkeley with him as chaplain and secretary in November 1713. He returned to England with this nobleman in August 1714, and towards the close of the year had a fever, which gave occasion to Dr. Arbuthnot to indulge a little pleasantry on Berkeley’s system. “Poor philosopher Berkeley,” says he to his friend Swift, “has now the idea of health, which was very hard to produce in him; for he had an idea of a strange fever on him so strong, that it was very hard to destroy it by introducing a contrary one.”

But the bishop, ever, active and attentive to the public good, was continually sending forth something or o-ther in 1735, the “Querist;” in 1736, “A Discourse addressed to Magistrates,” occasioned by the enormous licence and irreligion of the times and many other things afterwards of a smaller kind. In 1744 came forth his celebrated and curious book, entitled, “Siris a chain of philosophical reflections and inquiries concerning the virtues of Tar Water” a medicine which had been useful to himself in a case of nervous colic. This work, he has been heard to declare, cost him more time and pains than any other he had ever been engaged in. It underwent a second impression, with additions and emendations, in 1747 and was followed by “Farther thoughts on Tar Water,” in 1752. In July, the same year, he removed with his lady and family to Oxford, partly to superintend the education of his son, the subject of the following article, but chiefly to indulge the passion for learned retirement, which had ever strongly possessed him, and was one of his motives to form the Bermuda project. But as none could be more sensible tban his lordship of the impropriety of a bishop’s nonresidence, he previously endeavoured to exchange his high preferment for some canonry or headship at Oxford. Failing of success in this, he actually wrote over to the secretary of state, to request that he might have permission to resign his bishopric, worth at that time at least 1400l. per annum. So uncommon a. petition excited his majesty’s curiosity to inquire who was the extraordinary man that preferred it: being told that it was his old acquaintance Dr. Berkeley, he declared that he should die a bishop in spite of himself, but gave him- full liberty to reside where he pleased. The bishop’s last act before he left Cloyne was to sign a lease of the demesne lands in that neighbourhood, to be renewed yearly at the rent of 200l. which sum he directed to be distributed every year, until his return, among poor house-keepers of Cloyne, Youghal, and Aghadtla. The author of his life in the Biog. Brit, magnifies his love for the beauties of Cloyne, but the fact was, that he had never any idea of Cloyne as a beautiful situation, and we are happy to draw from the same authority which corrects this error, some additional particulars of his disinterested spirit. He declared to Mrs. Berkeley, soon after he was advanced to the prelacy, that his resolution was never to change his see; because, as he afterwards confessed to the archbishop of Tuam, and the late earl of Shannon, he had very early in life got the world under his feet, and he hoped to trample on it to his latest moment. These two warm friends had been pressing him to think of a translation but he did not love episcopal translations. He thought that they were sometimes really hurtful to individuals, and that they often gave, though unjustly, a handle to suspect of mean views, an order to which that holy and humble man was himself an honour, and to which it may be said, without adulation, that he would have been an honour in any age of the church. Humble and unaspiring as was the bishop of Cloyne, the earl of Chesterfield sought him out and when, as a tribute to exalted merit, that nobleman offered to him tl e see of Clogher, where he was told he might immediately receive fines to the amount of ten thousand pounds, he consulted Mrs. Berkeley, as having a family, and, with her full approbation, not only declined the bishopric of Clogher, but the offer which accompanied that proposal, of any other translation which might become feasible during lord Chesterfield’s administration. The primacy was vacated before the expiration of that period. On that occasion, the bishop said to Mrs. Berkeley, “I desire to add one more to the list of churchmen, who are evidently dead to ambition and avarice.” Just before his embarkation for America, queen Caroline endeavoured to stagger his resolution, by the offer of an English mitre but, in reply, he assured her majesty, that he chose rather to be president of St. Paul’s college, than primate of all England.

, descended in a direct line from Robert Fitzharding, who was of the royal house of Denmark. He with his nephew, Charles Berkeley, had the principal management of the duke of York’s family, and was one of the privy council in the reign of Charles II. James II. and William III. At the restoration he manifested great loyalty for Charles II. and was advanced to the dignity of viscount Dursley and earl of Berkeley in 1679. One of his most munificent acts was his bestowing on the public library of Sion college, a valuable collection of books formed by sir Robert Coke. He died Oct. 14, 1698, aged seventy-one, and was buried at Cranford in Middlesex. Lord Orford attributes to him, on good authority, a curious and scarce work of the religious cast, entitled “Historical applications and occasional meditations upon several subjects. Written by a person of honour,” 1670, 12mo. In this book are several striking instances of the testimony which some men of eminence have borne to the importance of religious life, and the consolation to be received from it, especially at the approach of death. Fenton, in his observations on a short poem, prefixed to this work by Waller, says that his lordship was a person of strict virtue and piety, but of such undistinguishing affability to men of all ranks and parties, that Wycherley has been supposed to have drawn his character of “Lord Plausible,” in the Plain Dealer, from him a circumstance that cannot detract much from his lordship’s reputation, for Wycherley was a poor judge of men of “strict virtue and piety.” Besides the above work, of which a third edition appeared in 1680, lord Berkeley published, the same year, “A speech to the Levant Company at their annual election, Feb. 9, 1680.”

, a learned English divine of the seventeenth century, was educated in the university of Cambridge, where he took the degree of M. A. and was incorporated to the same degree at Oxford, July 15, 1628. He was probably created D. D. of the university of Dublin, but this has not been exactly ascertained. He was ordained by primate Usher, in 1626, in St. Peter’s church, Drogheda, while he was only B. A. and made his chaplain, and soon after, by his interest, was promoted to the deanery of Ardagh. His Grace having daily opportunities ojf taking notice of the learning and judgment of Mr. Bernard, employed him in making collections for some works he was then meditating, particularly for the antiquities of the British churches; which did not appear till 1639. The primate always expressed great friendship and esteem for him; and upon taking his leave of him at Drogheda in 1640, gave him “A serious preparative against the heavy sorrows and miseries that he should feel before he saw him again, and spoke of them with that confidence, as if they had been within his view.” This serious discourse proved in the event to be a prophecy, as will be noticed in the life of that prelate. The year following, Dr. Bernard published a book and a sermon which gave offence. These were entitled, 1. “The penitent death of a woful Sinner; or, the penitent death of John Atherton, late bishop of Waterford in Ireland, who was executed at Dublin the fifth of December, 1640; with some annotations on several passages,” London, 1641, 4to 1642, 8vo. 2. “A sermon preached at the burial of John Atherton, the next night after his execution, in St. John’s church, Dublin,” Lond. 1641, 4to 1642, 8vo. Dr. Bernard had the best opportunity in the world of knowing the truth of the fact for which bishop Atherton suffered, having attended him in his exemplary preparation for death, and in his last moments, and he gives us his behaviour and confession fairly and honestly. The cause of offence seems, upon the whole, to have been an opinion that this disgraceful affair had better be buried in oblivion. Archbishop Usher, however, who saw Dr. Bernard’s good intentions, did not withdraw from him his favour or countenance. The same year was published a pamphlet of his writing, upon the siege of Drogheda, of which he was an eye-witness. In the summer of 1642, having lost most of his substance, he returned safe to England to attend on the lord primate, and carried with him Usher’s valuable library, which was afterwards removed to Ireland, and is now in Trinity-college, Dublin. Upon his arrival in England, he was presented, by the earl of Bridgwater, to the rich rectory of Whitchurch in Shropshire, and after the declension of the royal cause, was made chaplain to the Protector, one of his almoners, and preacher to the society of Gray’s inn. Being thus comfortably settled, in 1642 he found leisure, from his pastoral charge, to publish “The whole proceedings of the siege of Drogheda,” London and Dublin, 1642, 4to and Dublin, 1736; and “A Dialogue tetweeu Paul and Agrippa,” London, 1642, 4to. After the restoration of king Charles II. in 1660, having no confidence in the settlement of the state of Ireland, he declined returning and taking possession of his deanery, and contilined at VV hitchurch to his death, which iiappened in winter, 1661. His other works were, 1. “A farewell sermon of comfort and concord, preached at Drogheda,” 1651, 8vo. 2. “The life and death of Dr. James Usher, late archbishop of Armagh, primate and metropolitan of all Ireland, in a sermon preached at his funeral in the abbey of Westminster, on the 17th of April, 1656,” London, 1656, 12mo, afterwards enlarged. 3. “The judgment of the late archbishop of Armagh and primate of Ireland concerning first, the extent of Christ’s death and satisfaction secondly, of the Sabbath, and observation of the Lord’s day,” &c. London, 1657, 8vo. This treatise was answered by Dr. Peter Heylyn, in a book entitled “Respondet Petrus or, the answer of Peter Heylyn, D. D. to so much of Dr. Bernard’s book entitled” The judgment of the late primate of Ireland, &c. as he is made a party by the said lord primate in the point of the Sabbath,“London, 1658, 4to. He also published several letters which passed between him and Dr. Heylyn, and published and enlarged several posthumous works of Dr. Usher as,” His judgment on Babylon being the present see of Rome, Rev. xviii. 4, with a sermon of bishop Bedell’s upon the same words,“London, 1659.” Devotions of the ancient church, in seven pious prayers,“&c. London, 1660, 8vo.” Clavi trabales, or nails fastened by some great masters of assemblies, confirming the king’s supremacy, the subject’s duty, and church government by bishops being a collection of some pieces written on these subjects by archbishop Usher, Mr. Hooker, bishop Andrews, and Dr. Hadrian Saravia; with a preface by the bishop of Lincoln," London, 1661, 4to.

The impulse of genius, however, got so far the better of prudential considerations, that he executed, during the course of his life, ten or twelve heads, any one of which would have been sufficient to insure him immortal fame among judges of excellence in this department. Among these were the heads of Thomson the poet, Mary queen of Scots, Oliver Cromwell, Julius Caesar, a young Hercules, and Mr. Hamilton of Bangour, the poet. Of these onlytwo copies were from the antique, and they were executed in the finest style of those celebrated entaglios. The young Hercules in particular, which, if we mistake not, belongs to the earl of Findlater, possessed that unaffected plain simplicity, and natural concurrence in the same expression of youthful innocence through all the features, conjoined with strength and dignity, which is, perhaps, the most difficult of all expressions to be hit off by the most faithful imitator of nature.

, earl of Lindsey, and lord high chamberlain of England in the reign of Charles I. was the eldest son of Peregrine lord Willoughby, of Eresby, by Mary, daughter to John Vere earl of Oxford, and grandson of Richard Bertie, esq. by Catherine, duchess of Suffolk. He was born in 1582, and in 1601, upon the death of his father, succeeded to his title and estate. In the first year of the reign of James I. he made his claim to the earldom of Oxford, and to the titles of lord Bulbech, Sandford, and Badlesmere, and to the office of lord high chamberlain of England, as son and heir to Mary, the sole heir female of that great family; and, after a considerable dispute, had judgment given in his favour for the office of lord high chamberlain, and the same year took his seat in the house of lords above all the barons. On the 22d of November, 1626, he was advanced to the dignity of earl of Lindsey; and four years after made knight of the garter; and the next year constable of England for the trial of the lord Rea and David Ramsey in the court military. In 1635 he was constituted lord high admiral of England; and a fleet of forty ships of war was sent out under him. In 1639, upon the Scots taking arms, he was made governor of Berwick. The year following he was appointed lord high constable of England at the trial of the earl of Strafford. In 1642, he was constituted general of the king’s forces and on the 23d of October the same year received his death’s wound in his majesty’s service at the battle of Edgehill in the county of Warwick.

The fortune, which he inherited from his ancestors, was a very considerable one; and though he did not manage it with such care, as if he desired much to improve it, yet he left it in a very fair condition. He was a man of great honour, and spent his youth and the vigour of his age in military actions and commands abroad. And though he indulged himself in great liberties, yet he still preserved a very great interest in his country; as appears by the supplies, which he and his son brought to the king’s army, the companies of his own regiment of foot being commanded by the principal knights and gentlemen of Lincolnshire, who engaged themselves in the service principally out of their personal affection to him. He was of a very generous nature, and punctual in what he undertook, and in exacting what was due to him which made him bear the restriction so heavily, which was put upon him by the commission granted to prince Rupert, who was general of the horse, in which commission there was a clause exempting him from receiving orders from any but the king himself; and by the king’s preferring the prince’s opinion in all matters relating to the war before his. Nor did he conceal his resentment for the day before the battle, he said to some friends, with whom he had used freedom, that he did not look upon himself as general; and therefore he was resolved, when the day of battle should come, that he would be at the head of his regiment as a private colonel, where he would die. He was carried out of the field to the next village; and if he could then have procured surgeons, it was thought his wound would not have proved mortal. As soon as the other army was composed by the coming on of the night, the earl of Essex about midnight sent sir William Balfour, and some other officers, to see him, and designed himself to visit him. They found him upon a little straw in a poor house, where they had laid him in his blood, w.hich had run from him in great abundance. He said, he was sorry to see so many gentlemen, some whereof were his old friends, engaged in so foul a rebellion wishing them to tell the earl of Essex, that he ought to throw himself at the king’s feet to beg his pardon which if he did not speedily do, his memory would be odious to the nation. He continued his discourse with such vehemence, that the officers by degrees withdrew themselves, and prevented the visit, which the earl of Essex intended him, who only sent him the best surgeons; but in the very opening of his wounds he died, before the morning, by the loss of blood. He had very many friends, and very few enemies, and died generally lamented. His body was interred at Edenham in Lincolnshire.

, earl of, a descendant of the preceding, was born in 1740, anoV succeeded his father William, the third earl, in 1760. His lordship was educated atGeneva, where he probably imbibed some of the democratic principles of the philosophists in that republic. He generally opposed the measures of administration with declamatory vehemence, and his frequent speeches in the house of peers were singularly eccentric, but added little weight or dignity to the cause he supported. The editor, however, of Mr. Wilkes’s speeches (in all probability Mr. Wilkes himself) characterises this noble earl “as one of the most steady and intrepid assertors of liberty in this age. No gentleman was ever more formed to please and captivate in private life, or has been more deservedly, more generally, esteemed and beloved. He possesses true honour in the highest degree, has generous sentiments of friendship, and to superior manly sense joins the most easy wit, with a gaiety of temper which diffuses universal cheerfulness it is impossible not to be charmed with the happy prodigality of nature in his favour; but every consideration yields with him to a warm attachment to the laws and constitution of England.” Much of this character may be just, yet his lordship was less respected as a public character or partizan than he himself thought he deserved. He had, in particular, a very high opinion of his speeches, and that the public might not lose the benefit of them, he sent copies to the different newspapers with a handsome fee, which ensured that prominence in the debate which might not otherwise have been assigned to them. This custom was no doubt gratifying to himself and his friends, but it proved on one occasion peculiarly unfortunate. Having made a violent attack on the character of an attorney belonging to the court of king’s bench, and sent the speech containing it, as usual, to the papers, he was prosecuted and sent to prison for some months, as the publisher of a libel.

In 1777 he published a pamphlet which excited much attention, entitled, “Thoughts on the letter of Edmund Burke, esq. to the sheriffs of Bristol, on the affairs of America,” Oxford, 8vo. This went through six editions, from that time to 1780. An anonymous reply was published, much admired for its force of irony and major Cartwright addressed a letter to the earl, discussing a position relative to a fundamental right of the constitution, 1778: this induced his lordship to add a dedication to his sixth edition, “To the collective body of the people of England.” He is also the reputed author of “A Letter to lady Loughborough, in consequence of her presentation of the colours to the Bloomsbury and Inns of Court Association with a public letter to the university of Oxford,” 1798 a rhapsodical epistle, which the influence of his lordship’s name operating on curiosity, carried through eight or nine editions. His lordship died in 1799.

En lowed with such excellences, it is no wonder that Bettertcrti attracted the notice of his sovereign, the protection of the nobility, and the general respect of all ranks of people. The patentees, however, as there was now only one theatre, began to consider it as an instrument of accumulating wealth to themselves by the labours of others; and this had such an influence on their conduct, that the actors had many hardships imposed upon them, and were oppressed in the most tyrannical manner. Betterton endeavoured to convince the managers of the injustice and absurdity of such a behaviour which language not pleasing them, they began to give away some of his capital parts to young actors, supposing this would abate his influence. This policy hurt the patentees, and proved of service to Betterton for the public resented having plays ill acted, when they knew they might be acted better. The best players attached themselves wholly to Betterton, urging him to turn his thoughts on some method of procuring himself and them justice. Having a general ao quaintance with people of fashion, he represented the affair in such a manner, that at length, by the intercession of the earl of Dorset, he procured a patent for building a new playhouse in Lincoln’s-inn-fields, which he did by subscription. The new theatre was opened in 1695. Mr. Congreve accepted a share with this company, and the first piay they acted was his comedy of Love for Love. The king honoured it with his presence when Betterton spoke a prologue, and Mrs. Bracegirdle an epilogue on the occasion. But notwithstanding all the advantages this company enjoyed, and the favourable reception they at first met with, they were unable to keep up their run of success, above two or three seasons. Vanbrugh and Gibber, who wrote for the other house, were expeditious in their productions and the frequency of new pieces gave such a turn in their favour, that Bctterton’s company, with all their merit, must have been undone, had not the “Mourning Bride” and the “Way of the World” come to their relief, and saved them at the last extremity. In a few years, however, it appearing that they could not maintain tneir independence without some new support from their friends, the patrons of Betterton opened a subscription for building a theatre in the Haymarket, which was finished in 1706. Betterton however being now grown old, and his health being much impaired by constant application, declined the management of this house, resigning it entirely to sir John Vanbrugh and Mr. Congreve; but from the decay of Betterton, many of the old players dying, and other accidents, a re-tmion of the companies seemed necessary, and accordingly took place soon after.

At an hundred and twenty (or, more probably, an hundred and two), he married Catherine Milton, who had a child by him and after that sera of his life he was employed in threshing, and other husbandry work. When he was above an hundred and fifty-two years of age, he was brought up to London, by Thomas, earl of Arundel, and carried to court. The king said to him, “You have lived longer than other men, what have you done more than other men” He replied, “I did penance when I was an hundred years old.” He slept away most of his time while he lived in London, which was only two months. He died in the Strand, on the 15th of November, 1635, and was buried in Westminster-abbey. His death is thought to have been accelerated by the change of his place and mode of living, and by the troublesome concourse of visitors and spectators. There is said to be a portrait of him in Belvoir castle, and another in Ashmole’s museum. The most valuable was in the collection of the duchess of Portland. The fullest account of him extant, is in his “Life,” by Taylor, in the Harleian Miscellany.

, a learned writer, and bishop, in the end of the sixteenth and beginning of the seventeenth century, was born in the city of Winchester, being the son of Harman Bilson, the same probably who was fellow of Merton-college in 1536, and derived his descent by his grandmother, or great-grandmother, from the duke of t>avaria. He was educated in Winchester school and in 1565 admitted perpetual fellow of New-college, after he had served two years of probation. October 10, 1566, he took his degree of bachelor, and April 25, 1570, that of master of arts; that of bachelor of divinity, June 24, 1579; and the degree of doctor of divinity on the 24th of January 1580. In his younger years, he was a great lover of, and extremely studious in, poetry, philosophy, and physic. But when he entered into holy orders, and applied himself to the study of divinity, which his genius chiefly led him to, he became a most solid and constant preacher, and one of the most accomplished scholars of his time. The first preferment he had was that of master of Winchester-school he was then made prebendary of Winchester, and afterwards warden of the college there. To this college he did a very important service, about the year 1584, by preserving the revenues of it when they were in danger of being swallowed up by a notorious forgery, of which, however, we have only an obscure account. In 1585, he published his book of “The true difference betweene Christian Subjection and unchristian Rebellion,” and dedicated it to queen Elizabeth a work, which, although it might answer her immediate purpose, was of fatal tendency to Charles I. few books being more frequently quoted by the mal-contents to justify their resistance to that prince. In 1593, he published a very able defence of episcopacy, entitled, “The perpetuall Government of Christes Church: wherein are handled, the fatherly superioritie which God first established in the patriarkes for the guiding of his Church, and after continued in the tribe of Levi and the Prophetes and lastlie confirmed in the New Testament to the apostles and their successors: as also the points in question at this day, touching the Jewish Synedrion: the true kingdome of Christ: the Apostles’ commission: the laie presbyterie: the distinction of bishops from presbyters, and their succession from the apostles times and hands: the calling and moderating of provinciall synods by primates and metropolitanes the allotting of dioceses, and the popular electing of such as must feede and watch the flock and divers other points concerning the pastoral regiment of the house of God.” On the 20th of April, 15y6, he was elected v confirmed June the llth, and the 13th of the same month consecrated bishop of Worcester and translated in May following to the bishopric of Winchester, and made a privy-counsellor. In 1599, he published “The effect of certaine Sermons touching the full Redemption of Mankind by the death and bloud of Christ Jesus wherein, besides the merite of Christ’s suffering, the manner of his offering, the power of his death, the comfort of his crosse, the glorie of his resurrection, are handled, what paines Christ suffered in his soule on the crosse together with the place and purpose of his descent to hel after death” &c. Lond. 4to. These sermons being preached at Paul’s Cross in Lent 1597, by the encouragement of archbishop Whitgift, greatly alarmed most of the Puritans, because they contradicted some of their tenets, but they are not now thought consonant to the articles of the church of England. The Puritans, however, uniting their forces, and making their observations, sent them to Henry Jacob, a learned puritan, who published them under his own name. The queen being at Farnham-castle, and, to use the bishop’s words, “taking knowledge of the things questioned between him and his opponents, directly commanded him neither to desert the doctrine, nor to let the calling which he bore in the church of God, to be trampled under foot by such unquiet refusers of trueth and authoritie.” Upon this royal command, he wrote a learned treatise, chiefly delivered in sermons, which was published in 1604, under the title of “The survey^of Christ’s sufferings for Man’s Redemption and of his descent to hades or hel for our deliverance,” Lond. fol. He also preached the sermon at Westminster before king James I. and his queen, at their coronation on St. James’s day, July 28, 1603, from Rom. xiii. L. London, 1603, 8vo. In January 1603-4, he was one of the speakers and managers at the Hampton-Court conference, in which he spoke much, and, according to Mr. Fuller, most learnedly, and, in general, was one of the chief maintainers and supports of the church of England. The care of revising, and putting the last hand to, the new translation of the English Bible in king James Ist’s reign, was committed to our author, and to Dr. Miles Smith, afterwards bishop of Gloucester. His last public act, recorded in history, was the being one of the delegates that pronounced and signed the sentence of divorce between Robert Devereux, earl of Essex, and the lady Frances Howard, in the year 1613 and his son being knighted soon after upon this very account, as was imagined, the world was so malicious as to give him the title of sir Nullity Bilson. This learned bishop, after having gone through many employments, departed this life on the 18th of June, 1616, and was buried in Westminsterabbey, near the entrance into St. Edmund’s chapel, on the south side of the monument of king Richard II. His character is represented to the utmost advantage by several persons. Sir Anthony Weldon calls him “an excellent civilian, and a very great scholler” Fuller, “a deep and profound scholar, excellently well read in the fathers” Bishop Godwin, “a very grave iman and how great a divine (adds he), if any one knows not, let him consult his learned writings” Sir John Harrington, “I find but foure lines (in bishop Godwin’s book) concerning him and if I should give him his due, in proportion to the rest, I should spend foure leaves. Not that I need make him better known, being one of the most eminent of his ranck, and a man that carried prelature in his very aspect. His rising was meerly by his learning, as true prelates should rise. Sint non modo labe mali sed suspicione carentes, not onely free from the spot, but from the speech of corruption.” He wrote in a more elegant style, and in fuller and betterturned periods, than was usual in the times wherein he lived. It is related of our prelate, that once, when he was preaching a sermon* at St. Paul’s Cross, a sudden panic, occasioned by the folly or caprice of one of the audience, seized the multitude there assembled, who thought that the church was falling on their heads. The good bishop, who sympathized with the people more from pity than from fear, after a sufficient pause, reassumed and went through his sermon with great composure.

, was born in Liesena, an island in Dalmatia, in the Gulf of Venice, in 1572, and was introduced by the celebrated sir Henry Wotton, the ambassador there, to the notice of king James I. He was by that prince sent with a secret commission to the duke of Savoy, and was afterwards made a gentleman of the bedchamber, and received the honour of knigfithodct. His elegant “History of the Civil Wars betwixt the houses of York and Lancaster,” which was written in Italian, and translated into English by Henry Carey, earl of Monmouth, gained him great reputation. It should be observed that, like other foreign writers of our English story, he has strangely disfigured the proper names. His history was first printed at Venice, 1637, 3 vols. 4to, and at Bologna in 1647. The English translation appeared in 1641. The subsequent troubles in England prevented him from continuing it as he intended. He also wrote some Italian romances. He married a sister of sir Theodore Mayerne, and went from England to the canton of Berne, where he died in 1644.

How much Mr. Birch was affected by this calamity appears from some verses written by him, August 3d, 1729, on his wife’s coffin, and inserted in Mrs. Rowe’s Miscellaneous Works. That Mrs. Birch was a woman of very amiable accomplishments, is not only evident from the verses now mentioned, but from two Latin epitaphs drawn up for her one by her husband, and the other by Dr. Dale, which last was translated into English by Mr. James Ralph. In both these epitaphs, she is celebrated as having- possessed an uncommon share of knowledge and taste, and many virtues. After this melancholy event, he was ordained deacon by the bishop of Salisbury, Dr. Hoadly, Jan. 17, 1730, and priest by the same prelate, Dec. 21, 1731, and at the same time was presented to the rectory of Siddington St. Mary, and the vicarage of Siddington St. Peter, in Gloucestershire. He had been recommended, by a common friend, to the friendship and favour of the late lord high chancellor Hardwicke, then attorney-general; to whom, and to the late earl of Hardwicke, he was indebted for all his preferments. The chancellor gave him the living of Ulting in the county of Essex, to which he was instituted by Dr. Gibson, bishop of London, on the 20th of May, and he took possession of it on the day following. In 1734, he was appointed one of the domestic chaplains to William earl of Kilmarnock, the unfortunate nobleman who was afterwards beheaded, on the 18th of August, 1746, for having been engaged in the rebellion of 1745. The earl of Kilmarnock was, we believe, in more early life, understood to be a whig; and under no other character could Mr. Birch have been introduced to his lordship’s notice. On the 20th of February, 1734-5, Mr. Birch had the honour of being chosen a member of the royal society, sir Hans Sloane taking a leading part in the election. The same honour was done him on the llth of December 1735, by the society of antiquaries of which he afterwards became director. A few weeks before he was chosen into the latter, the Marischal college of Aberdeen had conferred on him, by diploma, the degree of master of arts. In the Spring of 1743, by the favour of his noble patron before mentioned, he received a more substantial benefit; being presented by the crown to the rectory of Landewy Welfrey in the county of Pembroke. To this benefice, which was a sinecure, he was instituted on the 7th of May, by Dr. Edward Willes, bishop of St. David’s. On the 24th of February, 1743-4, he was presented to the rectories of St. Michael, Wood-street, and St. Mary, Staining, united. His next preferment was likewise in the city of London; being to the united rectories of St. Margaret Pattens, and St. Gabriel, Fenchurch-street, to which he was presented in the beginning of February, 1745-6. In January, 1752, he was elected one of the secretaries of the royal society, in the room of Dr. Cromwell Mortimer, deceased. In January 1753, the Marischal college of Aberdeen created him doctor of divinity and in that year, the same honour was conferred on him by that excellent prelate, Dr. Thomas Herring, archbishop of Canterbury. Our author was also a trustee of the British Museum. The last preferment given to Dr. Birch, was the rectory of Depden in Essex; for which he was indebted to the late earl of Hardwicke. Depden itself, indeed, was in the patronage of Mr. Chiswell, and in the possession of the rev. Dr. Cock. But the benefice in lord Hardwicke’s gift, being at too great a distance from town, to be legally held by Dr. Birch, he obtained an exchange with Dr. Cock. Dr. Birch was instituted to Depden by the late eminent bishop Sherlock, on the 25th of February 1761; and he continued possessed of this preferment, together with the united rectories of St. Margaret Pattens, and St. Gabriel, Fenchurch-street, till his decease. In 1765, he resigned his office of secretary to the royal society, and was succeeded by Dr. Maty. Dr. Birch’s health declining about this time, he was ordered to ride for the recovery of it but being a bad horseman, and going out, contrary to advice, on a frosty day, he was unfortunately thrown from his horse, on the road betwixt London and Hampstead, and killed on the spot. Dr. William Watson, of Lincoln’s Inn Fields, as soon as he heard of the accident of the fall, hastened to the relief of his friend, but in vain. It is not known whether Dr. Birch’s fall might not have been occasioned by an apoplexy. This melancholy event happened on the 9th of January 1766, in the 61st year of his age, to the great regret of the doctor’s numerous literary friends. Some days after his death, he was buried in the chancel of his own church of St. Margaret Pattens. Dr. Birch had, in his life-time, been very generous to his relations; and none that were near to him being living at his decease, he bequeathed his library of books and manuscripts, many of which are valuable, to the British Museum. He, likewise, left the remainder of his fortune, which amounted to not much more than five hundred pounds, to be laid out in government securities, for the purpose of applying the interest to increase the stipend of the three assistant librarians. Thus manifesting at his death, as he had done during his whole life, his respect for literature, and his desire to promote useful knowledge.

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.

Our author has also several verses and translations extant, set to music by Mr. Henry Lawes as particularly Anacreon’s ode, called the Lute, translated from the Greek, and to be sung by a bass alone; and an Anniversary on the nuptials of John earl of Bridgwater, 22d July, 1652. He wrote, likewise, a poem on his staying in London after the Act of Banishment for cavaliers and another called the Jolt, made upon Cromwell the protector’s being thrown out of his coach-box in Hyde-Park. He published Mr. Robert Waring’s “Effigies Amoris, sive quid sit Amor efflagitanti responsum,” London, 1649, 12mo, from the original, at the author’s desire, who was willing to be concealed. The third edition was published after the restoration, by William Griffith, of Oxford, with an epistle before it, written by him to sir John Birkenhead wherein he gives the character of that gentleman, as well as of the author. This was the same piece afterwards translated into English by the famous Mr, Norris of Bemerton, and published under the title of “The Picture of Love unveiled.” We meet also with several copies of verses written by this gentleman, and prefixed to the works of the most eminent wits and greatest poets of his time but satire was his principal excellence, and in genuine powers of ridicule he had no superior, at a time when those powers were called forth, and well rewarded by both parties.

In June 1753, he was admitted fellow of St. John’s, and in April 1754, he took the degree of B. A. and about the same time was ordained to holy orders. He was then settled in the curacy of Headley in Surrey, whither he had removed on account of a declining state of health, but change of air soon restored him, and he continued to dividehis time between Headley and the university, till 1758, when he took the degree of M. A. He then quitted Headley, and came to reside entirely in London, on being elected under-master of Merchant Taylors’ school, July 26. He was appointed also curate of St. Mary Abchurch, and some time afterwards lecturer of St. Christopher-leStocks, a church since taken down for the enlargement of the Bank. In 1762, he published “An Ode to the earl of Lincoln on the duke of Newcastle’s Retirement,” without his name. In 1763 and 1764, he wrote several essays and poems, printed in the Public Ledger, and soon after a volume of Latin poems, partly translated, and partly original, under the title of “Feriae poeticse.” This was published by subscription, beyond which the sale was not considerable. He also appears to have tried his talents for dramatic composition, but not meeting with sufficient encouragement, he very wisely relinquished a pursuit that could have added little dignity to the character of a clergyman and a public teacher. From this period he devoted his talents to the amusement of a few friends, and the laborious duties of his profession, which he continued to discharge with the utmost fidelity, during the prime of his life.

In January 1783, he was elected head-master of Merchant Taylors, the duties of which important station entirely occupied his attention, and in 1789, the company of Merchant Taylors presented him to the living of St. Martin Outwich, as a reward for his long and faithful services. Dr. Warren, bishop of Bangor, a few years before had obtained for him, from the earl of Aylesford, the rectory of Ditton in Kent. But he did not long enjoy these preferments bodily infirmities grew fast upon him, and repeated fits of the gout undermined his constitution. In the beginning of 1795, he was alarmed by an oppression on his breath, which proved to be occasioned by water on the chest, and terminated in his death, Nov. 17, 1795. He left a widow, whose virtues he has affectionately commemorated in many of his poems, and one daughter. The year following his death, his “Poetical Works” were published by subscription, in 2 vols. 4to, with Memoirs of the Life of the Author, by the rev. Thomas Clare, M. A. now vicar of St. Bride’s, Fleet-street, from which the present sketch is taken and in 1798, the same editor published a volume of Mr. Bishop’s “Sermons, chiefly upon practical subjects.” The poems entitle Mr. Bishop to a very distinguished rank among minor poets, and among those who write with ease and elegance on familiar subjects; but we doubt whether his talents could have reached the higher species of the art. He is sometimes nervous, sometimes pathetic, but never sublime yet his vein of humour was well calculated for the familiar verses, epigrams, &c. which are so plentiful in these volumes. His style is always pure, and his imagination uncommonly fertile in those lesser poems which require a variety of the grave, gay, the witty and the instructive.

In 1762, he married miss Sarah Johnston, daughter of Mr. Joseph Johnston, surgeon in Dumfries, a connexion which formed the great solace of his future life. About the same time he was ordained minister of the town and parish of Kircudbright, in consequence of a presentation from the crown, obtained for him by the earl of Selkirk; but the parishioners having objected to the appointment, after a legal dispute of nearly two years, his friends advised him to resign his right, and accept of a moderate annuity in its stead. If their principal objection was to his want of sight, it was certainly not unreasonable. He would probably in the course of a few years have found it very in­* Mr. Jameson was probably igno- cannot recollect. The manuscript was

, physician to king William III. and queen Anne, and a very voluminous writer, was son of Mr. Robert Blackmore, an attorney at law. He received the first part of his education at a country school, from whence he was removed to Westminster in the thirteenth year of his age. He was afterwards sent to St. Edmund’shall, in the university of Oxford, where he continued thirteen years. He is said to have been engaged for some time in the profession of a school -master but it is probable he did not long continue in that situation and, says Dr. Johnson, to have been once a schoolmaster, is the only reproach which all the perspicacity of malice, animated by wit, has ever fixed upon his private life. It appears that he travelled afterwards into Italy, and took the degree of doctor in physic, at the university of Padua. He also visited France, Germany, and the Low Countries, and having spent about a year and a half abroad, he returned again to England. On his arrival in London, he engaged in the practice of physic there, and was chosen, fellow of the royal college of physicians. He early discovered his attachment to the principles of the revolution; and this circumstance, together with the eminence which he had attained in his profession, recommended him to the notice and favour of king William. Accordingly, in 1697, he was appointed one of his majesty’s physicians in ordinary he had also a gold medal and chain bestowed on him by that prince, and received from him the honour of knighthood. Upon the king’s death, he was one of the physicians who gave their opinions at the opening of his majesty’s body. When queen Anne ascended the throne, he was appointed one of her physicians, and continued in that station for some time. Sir Richard Blackmore was the author of a variety of pieces both in prose and verse and the generality of his productions had many admirers in his own time for the third edition of his “Prince Arthur, an heroic poem in ten books,” was published in 1696, fol. The following year he also published in folio “King Arthur, an heroic poem, in twelve books.” In 1700 he published in folio, in verse, “A Paraphrase on the book of Job as likewise on the songs of Moses, Deborah, David on four select Psalms some chapters of Isaiah and the third chapter of Habbakuk.” He appears to have been naturally of a very serious turn, and therefore took great offence at the licentious and immoral tendency of many of the productions of his contemporary authors. To pass a censure upon these was the design of his poem, entitled “A Satire upon Wit,” or rather the abuse of it, which was first published in 1700. But this piece was attacked and ridiculed by many different writers, and there seemed to be a kind of confederacy of the wits against him. How much, however, they felt his reproof, appears from the following circumstance. In Tom Brown’s works are upwards of twenty different satirical pieces in verse against Blackmore, said to be written by colonel Codrington, sir Charles Sedley, colonel Blount, sir Samuel Garth, sir Richard Steele, Dr. Smith, Mr. William Burnaby, the earl of Anglesea, the countess of Sandwich, Mr. Manning, Mr. Mildmay, Dr. Drake, colonel Johnson, Mr. Richard Norton, &c. and most of these pieces are particularly levelled at our author’s “Satire upon Wit.” One topic of abuse against Blackmore was, that he lived in Cheapside. He was sometimes called the “Cheapside Knight,” and the “City Bard;” and Garth’s verses, in the collection just cited, are addressed “to the merry Poetaster at Sadlers Hall in Cheapside.” In Gibber’s lives we are also told, that “sir Richard had, by the freedom of his censures on the libertine writers of his age, incurred the heavy displeasure of Dryden, who takes all opportunities to ridicule him, and somewhere says, that he wrote to the rumbling of his chariot-wheels. And as if to be at enmity with Blackmore had been hereditary to our greatest poets, we find Mr. Pope taking up the quarrel where Dryden left it, and persecuting this worthy man with yet a severer degree of satire. Blackmore had been informed by Curl, that Mr. Pope was the author of a Travestie on the first Psalm, which he takes occasion to reprehend in his ‘ Essay on PoJite Learning,’ vol. II. p. 270. He ever considered it as the disgrace of genius, that it should be employed to burlesque any of the sacred compositions, which, as they speak the language of inspiration, tend to awaken the soul to virtue, and inspire it with a sublime devotion.”

Having now established a reputation by his lectures, which he justly thought might entitle him to some particular notice at the bar, in June 1759, he bought chambers in the Temple, resigned the office of assessor of the vicechancellor’s court, which he had held about six years, and soon after the stewardship of All-Souls college; and in Michaelmas term, 1759, resumed his attendance at Westminster, still continuing to pass some part of the year at Oxford, and to read his lectures there, at such times as did not interfere with the London terms. The year before this he declined the honour of the coif, which he was pressed to accept of by lord chief justice Willes and Mr. justice (afterwards earl) Bathurst.

His marriage having vacated his fellowship at All- Souls, he was, on the 28th of July 1761, appointed by the earl of Westmoreland, at that time chancellor of Oxford, principal of New-inn hall. This was ah agreeable residence during the time his lectures required him to be in Oxford, and was attended with this additional pleasing circumstance, that it gave him rank, as the head of an house in the university, and enabled him, by that means, to continue to promote whatever occurred to him, that might be useful and beneficial to that learned body. An attempt being made about this time to restrain the power given him, as professor, by the Vinerian statutes, to nominate a deputy to read the solemn lectures, he published a state of the case for the perusal of the members of convocation upon which it was dropped.

, was educated at Edinburgh, and was, as already noticed, related to Dr. Hugh Blair. He came to London in company with Andrew Henderson, a voluminous writer, who, in his title-pages styled himself A. M. and for some years kept a bookseller’s shop in Westminster-hall. Henderson’s first employment was that of an usher at a school in Hedge-lane, in which he was succeeded by his friend Blair, who, in 1754, obliged' the world with a valuable publication under the title of “The chronology and history of the world, from the creation to the year of Christ 1753. Illustrated in fifty-six tables; of which four are introductory, and contain the centuries prior to the first olympiad; and each of the remaining fifty-two contain in one expanded view fifty years, or half a century. By the rev. John Blair, LL. D.” This volume, which is dedicated to lord chancellor Hardwicke, was published by subscription, on account of the great expence of the plates, for which the author apologized in his preface, where he acknowledged great obligations to the earl of Bath, and announced some chronological dissertations, in which he proposed to illustrate the disputed points, to explain the prevailing systems of chronology, and to establish the authorities upon which some of the particular seras depend. In Dr. Hugh Blair’s life, it has been noticed that this work was partly projected by him. In January 1755, Dr. John Blair was elected F. R. S. and in 1761, F. A. S. In 1756 he published a second edition of his Chronological Tables. In Sept. 1757, he was appointed chaplain to the princess dowager of Wales, and mathematical tutor to the duke of York; and, on Dr. Townshend’s promotion to the deanry of Norwich, the services of Dr. Blair were rewarded, March 10, 1761, with a prebendal stall at Westminster. The vicarage of Hinckley happening to fall vacant six days after, by the death of Dr. Moires, Dr. Blair was presented to it by the dean and chapter of Westminster and in August that year he obtained a dispensation to hold with it the rectory of Burton Goggles, in Lincolnshire. In September 1763, he attended his royal pupil the duke of York in a tour to the continent; had the satisfaction of visiting Lisbon, Gibraltar, Minorca, most of the principal cities in Italy, and several parts of France and returned with the duke in August 1764. In 1768 he published an improved edition of his Chronological Tables, which he dedicated to the princess of Wales, who had expressed her early approbation of the former edition. To the edition were annexed fourteen maps of ancient and modern geography, for illustrating the tables of chronology and history. To which is prefixed a dissertation on the progress of geography. In March 1771 he was presented by the dean and chapter of Westminster to the vicarage of St. Bride’s, in the city of London which made it necessary for him to resign Hinckley, where he had never resided for any length of time. On the death of Mr. Sims, in April 1776, he resigned St. Bride’s, and was presented to the rectorjr of St. John the Evangelist in Westminster and in June that year obtained a dispensation to hold the rectory of St. John with that of Horton, near Colebrooke, Bucks. His brother, captain Blair *, falling gloriously in the service of his country in the memorable sea-fight of April 12, 1782, the shock accelerated the doctor’s death. He had at the same time the influenza in a severe degree, which put a period to his life June 24, 1782. His library was sold by auction December 1113, 1781; and a course of his “Lectures on the canons of the Old Testament,” has since appeared.

, a German horticulturist, who came to England about the middle of the seventeenth century, was appointed first superintendant of the physic-garden at Oxford, founded in 1632 by Henry earl of Danby. Some writers call him doctor, and some professor of botany, but he was neither, nor was there any professor, properly so called, before Dillenius. The “Catalogus -Plantarum” in this garden, published at Oxford in 1648, 12mo, was drawn up by Bobart, and is a very favourable proof of his zeal and diligence. Under his care and that of his son, the garden at Oxford continued to flourish for many years. The old man, according to Wood, lived in the gardenhouse, and died there Feb. 4, 1679, aged eighty-one. Mr. Granger relates an anecdote that “on rejoicing days old Bobart used to have his beard tagged with silver.” He left two sons, Jacob and Tillemant, who were both employed in the physi-garden. Jacob, who seems to have been a man of some learning, published the second volume of Morison’s “Oxford history of Plants,” 1699, fol. Of him too, an anecdote is told which implies somewhat of a humourous disposition. He had transformed a dead rat into the feigned figure of a dragon, which imposed upon the learned so far, that “several fine copies of verses were wrote on so rare a subject.” Bobart afterwards owned the cheat but it was preserved for some years, as a master-piece of art. Dr. Pulteney thinks Bobart was alive in 1704; but he appears to have lived considerably longer, as Dr. Abel Evans dedicated “Vertumnus,” a poetical epistle, to him in 1713. A descendant of this family, Tillemant Bobart, is still well known to all who wish for civil treatment and a safe carriage on the road to Oxford.

, a learned French Protestant, born at Roan in Normandy, 1599. His father was a Protestant clergyman, and his mother a sister of the celebrated Peter du Moulin. He made a very early progress in learning, particularly in the Greek language, of which we have a proof in the verses he composed at the age of fourteen, in praise of Thomas Dempster, under whom he studied at Paris, and who has prefixed them to his Roman Antiquities. He went through a course of philosophy at Sedan, and studied divinity at Saumur, under Cameronius, whom he followed to London, the academy at Sauinur being dispersed during the civil war. He went also to Oxford, and in Lent term, 1622, was entered as a student at the library, where he laid in a considerable part of that stock of Oriental learning which he afterwards displayed in his works. He afterwards went over to Leyden, and studied Arabic under Erpenius. When returned to France, he was chosen minister of Caen, where, in 1630, he distinguished himself by public disputations with father Veron, a very famous polemic, and champion for the Roman catholic religion, published under the title of “Acte de la conference entre S. B. et Jean Baillebache, &c. d'un part: et Francois Veron, predicateur de controverses,” Saumur, 2 vols. 8vo. The dispute was held in the castle of Caen, in presence of a great number of Catholics and Protestants. Bochart came off with honour and reputation, which was not a little increased upon the publication of his Phaieg and Canaan, which are the titles of the two parts of his “Geographica Sacra,” 1646. While at Caen, he was tutor to Wentworth Dillon, earl of Roscommon, author of the “Essay on Translated verse.” He acquired also great fame by his tl Hierozoicon, printed at London, 1675. The great learning displayed in these works rendered him esteemed, not only amongst those of his own persuasion, but amongst all lovers of knowledge of whatever denomination, especially such as studied the scriptures in their original languages, which was then very common. Dr. Haiceweli, who was contemporary with Bochart, speaking of the knowledge of the oriental languages, observes, that “this last century (the fifteenth) afforded more skilful men that way than the other fourteen since Christ” In 1652, the queen of Sweden invited him to Stockholm, where she gave him many proofs of her regard and esteem. At his return into France, in 1653, he continued his ordinary exercises, and was one of the members of the academy of Caen, which consisted of all the learned men of that place. He died suddenly, when he was speaking in this academy, May 6, 1667, which gave M. Brieux occasion to make the following epitaph on him:

, called also Langhen-Jan, a painter of history and portrait of the Flemish school, was born at Munster, about the year 1610; and removing to Flanders, acquired the art of design and colouring in the school of Jacques Jordaens. He designed well the heads erf his women are generally graceful, and those of his men distinguished by character: his tone of colouring sometimes resembled that of Rubens, but more frequently that of Vandyck. His pictures have great force and harmony, and his skilful management of the chiaro-scuro produces an agreeable effect. An altar-piece at the church of St. James in Ghent, representing the martyrdom of this saint, and a picture of the Annunciation in another church, painted in 1664, are distinguished performances of this master. Descamps mentions another John Van Bockhorst, who was born at Dentekoom in 1661, went when young to London, and was employed by sir Godfrey Kneller on his portraits, and the earl of Pembroke also employed him to paint portraits, history, and battle pieces. He afterwards practised portrait-painting in various parts of Germany, principally at the court of Brandeuburgh and in Cleves, and died in 1724.

After near five years residence in Holland, he obtained leave to return to England to look after his private affairs, but was shortly after remanded back to the Hague. About a year after he came into England again, to communicate some private discoveries to the queen and presently returned to the States for the execution of those councils he had secretly proposed. At length, having succeeded in all his negociations, he obtained his final recal in 1597. After his return, finding his advancement at court obstructed by the jealousies and intrigues of the great men, he retired from the court and all public business, and never could be prevailed with to return and accept of any new employment. His own account of his treatment at this time is too amusing and characteristic to be omitted “I cannot chuse,” says he, “in making report of the principal accidents that have befallen unto me in the course of my life, but record among the rest, that from the very first day 1 had no man more to triend, among the lords of the council, than was the lord treasurer Burleigh for when occasion had been ottered of declaring his conceit, as touching my service, he would always tell the queen (which I received from herself, and some other ear-witnesses) that there was not any man in England so meet as myself to undergo the office of the secretary; and since, his son the present lord treasurer hath signified unto me in private conference, that, when his father first intended to advance him to that place, his purpose was withal to make me his colleague. But the case stood thus in my behalf: Before such time as I returned from the Provinces United, which was in the year 1597, and likewise after my return, the earl of Essex did use me so kindly, both by letters and messages, and other great tokens of his inward favour to me, that, alihough I had no meaning but to settle in my mind my chiefest dependance upon the lord Burleigh, as one that I reputed to be both the best able, and therewithal the most willing, to work my advancement with the queen; yet I know not how the earl, who sought by all devices to divert her love and liking both from the father and the son (but from the son in special), to withdraw my affection from the one and the other, and to win me altogether to depend upon himself, did so often take occasion to entertain the queen with some prodigal speephes of my sufficiency for a secretary, which were ever accompanied with words of disgrace against the present lord treasurer, as neither she herself (of whose favour before I was thoroughly assured) took any great pleasure to prefer me the sooner (for she hated his ambition, and would give little countenance to any of his followers); and both the lord Burleigh and his son waxed jealous of my courses, as if underhand 1 had been induced, by the cunning and kindness of the earl of Essex, to oppose myself against their dealings. And though in very truth they had no solid ground at all of the least alteration in my disposition towards either of them both (for I did greatly respect their persons and places, with a settled resolution to do them any service, as also in my heart I detested to be of any faction whatsoever) yet the now lord treasurer, upon occasion of some talk that I have since had with him of the earl and his actions, hath freely confessed of his own accord to me, that his daily provocations were so bitter and sharp against him, and his comparisons so odious, when he put us in a balance, as he thought thereupon, he had very great reason to use his best means to put any man out of love of raising his fortune, whom the earl with sucn violence, to his extreme prejudice, had endeavoured to dignify. And this, as he affirmed, was all the motive -he had to set himself against me, in whatsoever might redound to the bettering of my state, or increasing my credit and countenance with the queen. When I” had thoroughly now bethought me, first in the earl, of the slender holdfast he had in the queen; of an endless opposition of the chiefest of our statesmen like still to wait upon him; of his perilous, feeble, and uncertain advice, as well in his own, as in all the causes of his friends; and when moreover for myself I had fully considered how very untowardly these two counsellors were affected unto me, (upon whom before in cogitation I had framed all the fabric of my future prosperity); how ill it did concur with my natural disposition, to become, or to be counted a stickler or partaker in any public faction how well I was able, by God’s good blessing, to live of myself, if I could be content with a competent livelihood; how short a time of farther life I was then to expect by the common course of nature when I had, I say, in this manner represented to my thoughts my particular estate, together with the earl’s, I resolved thereupon to possess my soul in peace all the residue of my days; to take my full farewell of state employments; to satisfy my mind with that mediocrity of worldly living that I had of mine own and so to retire me from the court, which was the epilogue and end of all my actions, and endeavours of any important note, till I came to the age of sixty three. Now although after this, by her majesty’s directions, I was often called to the court by the now lord treasurer, then secretary, and required by him, as also divers times since, by order from the king, to serve as an ambassador in France, to go a commissioner from his highness for concluding the truce between Spain and the Provinces, and to negotiate in other very honourable employments yet I would not be removed from my former final resolution insomuch as at length to reduce me the sooner to return to the court, I had an offer made me by the present lord treasurer (for in process of time he saw, as he himself was pleased to tell me more than once, that all my dealing was upright, fair, and direct) that in case I myself were willing unto it, he would make me his associate in the secretary’s office And to the intent I might believe that he intended it bonafide, he would get me out of hand to be sworn of the council. And for the better enabling of my state to maintain such a dignity, whatsoever 1 would ask that might be fit for him to deal in, and for me to enjoy, he woul'd presently solic.t the king to give it passage. All which persuasions notwithstanding, albeit I was often assaulted by him, in regard of my years, and for that I felt myself subject to many indispositions, besides some other reasons, which I reserve unto myself, I have continued still at home my retired course of life, which is now methinks to me as the greatest preferment that the state can afford.“Mr. Camden mentions the affair of sir Thomas’s disappointment in regard to the office of secretary in these words” It raised in him (the earl of Essex) a greater and more apparent discontent, that sir Robert Cecil was chosen secretary in his absence whereas he had some time before recommended sir Thomas Bodley, on the score of his great wisdom and experience in the affairs of the Low Countries, and had run very high in his commendations; but with so much bitterness, and so little reason, disparaged Cecil, that the queen (who had by this time a mean opinion of Essex’s recommendations) was the more inclinable to refuse to make Bodley secretary; neither would she let the lord treasurer join him in commission with his son; both which honours were designed him, till Essex, by too profuse and lavish praises, had rendered him suspected as a creature of his own."

In the same year (1597) he began the munificent work of restoring, or rather founding anew, the public library at Oxford, which was completed in 1599. In his memoirs he has admirably displayed his first thoughts, his first feelings, and his first precautions on this important undertaking. After adverting to the motives which induced him to retire from court and chuse a private life, he goes on thus “Only this I must truly confess of myself, that though I did never yet repent me of those, and some other my often refusals of honourable offers, in respect of emiching my private estate yet somewhat more of late I have blamed myself and my nicety that way, for the love that I bear to my reverend mother the university of Oxon, and to the advancement of her good, by such kind of means, as I have since undertaken. For thus I fell to discourse and debate in my mind tiiat although I might find it fittest for me to keep out of the throng of court contentions, and address my thoughts and deeds to such ends altogether, as I myself could best affect yet withal I was to think, that my duty towards God, the expectation of the world, and my natural inclination, and very morality did require, that I should not wholly so hide those little abilities that 1 had, but that in some measure, in one kind or other, I should do the true part of a profitable member of the state. Whereupon examining exactly for the rest of my life what course I might take, and having sought (as I thought) all the ways to the wood, to select the most proper, I concluded at the last to set up my staff at the library door in Oxon, being thoroughly persuaded, that in my solitude and surcease from the commonwealth affairs, 1 could not busy myself to better purpose, than by reducing that place (which then in every part lay ruined and waste) to the public use of students. For the effecting whereof I found myself furnished, in a competent proportion, of such four kinds of aids, as, unless I had them all, there was no hope of good success. For without some kind of knowledge, as well in the learned and modern tongues, as in sundry other sorts of scholastical literature without some purse-ability to go through with the charge without great store of honourable friends, to further the design and without special good leisure to follow such a work, it could but have proved a vain attempt and inconsiderate. But how well I have sped in all my endeavours, and how full provision I have made for the benefit and ease of all frequenters of the library, that which I have already performed in sight, that which besides I have given for the maintenance of it, and that which hereafter I purpose to add, by way of enlargement of that place (for the project is cast, an. I, whether I live or die, it shall be, God willing, put in full execution), will testify so truly and abundantly for me, as I need not be the publisher of the dignity and worth of my own institution.” Camden, under the year 1598, tells us, that Bodley, being at present unengaged from affairs of state, set himself a task, which would have suited the character of a crowned head, the promotion and encouragement of learning for he began to repair the public library at Oxford, and furnished it with new books. It was set up, he adds, by Humphrey duke of Gloucester, but through the iniquity of the times was, in the reign of Edward VI. stripped of all the books but he (Bodley) having made the choicest collection from all parts of the world of the most valuable books, partly at his own cost, and partly by contributions from others, he first stocked, and afterwards left it so well endowed at his death, that his memory deserves to bear a very lasting date amongst men of worth and letters.“The same author, in his” Britannia,“tells us, duke Humphrey’s library consisted of one hundred and twentynine volumes, procured from Italy at a great expence. His translator adds, that they were valued at above a thousand pounds, and that the duke in 1440 gave one hundred and twenty-six volumes more, and in 1443 a much greater number, besides considerable additions at his death three years after. But, before duke Humphrey’s time, Richard de Bury, alias Aungervil, bishop of Durham, in 1295, gave a great number of books to the university, which were kept in a place for that purpose in the college, now Trinity college, which the monks of Durham had founded in the north suburbs of Oxford; an account whereof may be gathered from a book written by himself, called” Philobiblos, sive de amore librorum, et institutione Bibliothecae.“And after him, in 1320, Thomas Cobham, bishop of Worcester, built another over the old Congregation-house in the north coemetery of St. Mary’s. In 1597, sir Thomas Bodley, taking into his consideration the ruinous condition of duke Humphrey’s library, and resolving to undertake the restoration of it at his own expence, wrote a letter, dated at London, Jan. 23, to Dr. Ravis, dean of Christ church, then vice-chancellor, to be communicated to the university; offering therein to restore the fabric of the said library, and to settle an annual income for the purchase of books, and the support of such officers as might be necessary to take care of it. This letter was received with the greatest satisfaction by the university, and an answer returned, testifying their most grateful acknowledgment and acceptance of his noble offer. On this, sir Thomas immediately set about the work, and in two years time brought it to a good degree of perfection. In 1601, the university had such a sense of his services that he was voted a public benefactor, and his name ordered to be included among the other benefactors repeated in the public prayers. He furnished it with a large collection of books, purchased in foreign countries at a great expence and thi.-, collection in a short time became so greatly enlarged by the generous benefactions of several noblemen, bishops, and others, that neither the shelves nor the room could contain them. &ir Thomas then offering to make a considerable addition to the building, the motion was readily embraced, and, on July 19, 1610, the first stone of the new foundation was laid with great solemnity, the vice-chancellor, Doctors, masters of arts, &c. attending in their proper habits, a speech being made upon the occasion. But sir Thomas Bodley did not live to see this part of his design completed, though he left sufficient means in trust, as he bestowed his. whole estate (his debts, legacies, and funeral charges defrayed) to the noble purposes of this foundation. By this, and the help of other benefactions, in procuring which sir Thomas was very serviceable by his great interest with many eminent persons, the university was enabled to add three other sides to what was already built, forming a noble quadrangle, and spacious rooms for schools of arts. By sir Thomas’s’ will 200l. per annum was settled on the library for ever out of whichhe appointed near forty pounds for the head librarian, ten pounds for the sub-librarian, and eight for the junior. He drew up likewise a body of excellent statutes for the government of the library. In this library is a statue erected to the memory of sir Thomas Bodley, by the earl of Dorset, chancellor of the university, with the following inscription:” Thomas Sackvillus Dorsettia? Comes, Summus Angliae Thesaurarius, et hujus Academise Cancellarius, Thomse Bodleio Equiti Aurato, qui Bibliothecam hanc instituit, honoris causa pie posuit i. e. Thi.mas Sackvile, earl of Dorset, lord high treasurer of England, and chancellor of this university, piously erected this monument to the honour of sir Thomas Bodley, knt. who founded this library.“King James I. we are told, when he came to Oxford in 1605, and, among other edifices, took a view of this famous library, at his departure, in imitation of Alexander, broke out into this speech” If I were not a king, I would be an university man and if it were so that I must be a prisoner, if I might have my wish, 1 would have no other prison than that library, and be chained together with so many good authors." A catalogue of the printed books in the Bodleian library was published in 1674 by Dr. Thomas Hyde, then chief librarian another of the manuscripts was printed in 1697; and a more ample catalogue of the books was printed at Oxford, in 1738, in two volumes, folio.

In Dr. Birch’s Memoirs of the reign of queen Elizabeth, there are extracts of several letters written by sir Thomas Bodley to the earl of Essex, the lord treasurer Burghley, sir Robert Cecil, and Mr. Anthony Bacon, chiefly during sir Thomas’s residence in Holland. From these, therefore, and from other passages in that work, we shall select a few particulars, which may serve to render the account of his life somewhat more complete. In 1583, when Mr. Stafford (afterwards sir Edward Stafford) was appointed ambassador to France, it was said that Mr. Bodley was to go with him as chief secretary but no evidence appears of his having actually served the ambassador in that capacity. The letters we have mentioned exhibit a farther proof of the fidelity and diligence with which he discharged his duty, in the management of queen Elizabeth’s affairs in the United Provinces. As some of the facts the letters relate to r are too minute to require a particular discussion in this place, it may be sufficient to refer generally to Dr. Birch’s Memoirs. One principal business of Mr. Bodley in Holland, was to obtain satisfaction from the States General, for certain sums of money due from them to the queen, for the expence she had been at, in assisting and supporting their republic and though he conducted himself in this negociation with his usual ability, and, in general, gave high satisfaction to her majesty, yet he once greatly displeased her, by returning to England, in order to lay before her, a secret proposition, from some leading members of the States, relative to the payments demanded.

Among the other aids which sir Thomas Bodley received, in his noble design of restoring the public library at Oxford, his great friend, the earl of Essex, made him a present of a considerable part of the very valuable library that had belonged to the celebrated Jerom Osorius, successively bishop of Sylvas, and of Algarva, in which last see he died in 1580. This library had fallen to the earl’s share, among the booty which had been taken in the famous expedition against Cadiz, in 1596. King James I. likewise, enriched the Bodleian library at Oxford at the expence of his own for he gave a warrant to sir Thomas Bodley, under the privy seal, for any books, which that gentleman should like in any of his houses or libraries. However, his majesty amply supplied this loss, by purchasing lord Lumley’s library, which contained not only his own collection, but that of his father-in-law, Henry Fitz-Alan, earl of Arundel, who had lived in the reign of king Henry the eighth, when, upon the dissolution of the monasteries, he had great opportunities of collecting manuscripts. Many of these manuscripts, as well as of the printed books in the Royal library, have the name of Arundel and Lumley written in them and now constitute a part of the noble collection in the British Museum. In Hearne’s “Johannis Glastoniensis Historia de Rebus Glastoniensibus,” are two letters to sir Robert Cotton, which peculiarly belong to this article, as one of them gave rise to a very ridiculous report. They will be found in the note .

It would requirea volume to enumerate the many important additions made to the Bodleian library by its numerous benefactors, or to give even a superficial sketch of its ample contents in every branch of science. Among the earliest benefactors were, Robert Devereux, earl of Essex Thomas Sackville, lord Buckhurst and earl of Dorset Robert Sidney, lord Sidney of Penshurst viscount Lisle and earl of Leicester; George Carey,- lord Hunsdon William Gent, esq. Anthony Browne, viscount Montacute John lord Lumley Philip Scudamore, of London, esq. and Lawrence Bodley, younger brother to the founder. All these contributions were made before the year 16 Oo. In 1601, collections of books and manuscripts were presented by Thomas Allen, some time fellow of Trinity college Thomas James, first librarian Herbert Westphaling, bishop of Hereford sir John Fortescue, knt. Alexander Nowell, dean of St. Paul’s John Crooke, recorder of London, and chief justice of the Common Pleas and Nicholas Bond, D. D. president of Magdalen college. The most extensive and prominent collections, however, are those of the earl of Pembroke, Mr. Selden, archbishop Laud, sir Thomas Roe, sir Kenelm Digby, general Fairfax, Dr. Marshall, Dr. Barlow, Dr. Rawlinson, Mr. St. Amand, Dr. Tanner, Mr. Browne Willis, T. Hearne, and Mr. Godwin. The last collection bequeathed, that of the late eminent and learned antiquary, Richard Gough, esq. is perhaps the most perfect series of topographical science ever formed, and is particularly rich in topographical manuscripts, prints, drawings, and books illustrated by the manuscript notes of eminent antiquaries. Since 1780, a fund of more than 4001. a year has been esablished for the purchase of books. This arises from a small addition to the matriculation fees, and a moderate contribution annually from such members of the university as are admitted to the use of the library, or on their taking their first degree.

, second wife of king Henry VIII. was born in 1507. She was daughter of sir Thomas Bolen, afterwards earl of Wiltshire and Ormonde, by Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas Howard, duke of Norfolk. When she was but seven years of age, she was carried over to France with the king’s sister Mary, who was married to Lewis XII. And though, upon the B'rench king’s death, the queen dowager returned to England, yet Anne Bolen was so highly esteemed at the court of France, that Claude, the wife of Francis I. retained her in her service for some years; and after her death in 1524, the duchess of Alenzon, the king’s sister, kept her in her court during her stay in that kingdom. It is probable, that she returned from thence with her father, from his embassy in 1527; and was soon preferred to the place of maid of honour to the queen. She continued without the least imputation upon her character, till her unfortunate fall gave occasion to some malicious writers to defame her in all the parts of it. Upon her coming to the English court, the lord Percy, eldest son of the earl of Northumberland, being then a domestic of cardinal Wolsey, made his addressee to her, and proceeded so far, as to engage himself to marry her; and her consent shews, that she had then no aspirings to the crown. But the cardinal, upon some private reasons, using threats and other methods, with great difficulty put an end to that nobleman’s design. It was prohably about 1528, that the king began to shew some favour to her, which caused many to believe, that the whole process with regard to his divorce from queen Catherine was moved by the unseen springs of that secret passion. But it is not reasonable to imagine, that the engagement of the king’s affec tion to any other person gave the rise to that affair; for so sagacious a courtier as Wolsey would have infallibly discovered it, and not have projected a marriage with the French king’s sister, as he did not long before, if he had seen his master prepossessed. The supposition is much more reasonable, that his majesty, conceiving himself in a manner discharged of his former marriage, gave a full liberty to his affections, which began to settle upon Mrs. Bolen; who, in September 1532, was created marchioness of Pembroke, in order that she might be raised by degrees to the height for which she was designed; and on the 25th of January following was married to the king, the office being performed by; Rowland Lee, afterwards bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, with great privacy, though in the presence of her uncle the duke of Norfolk, her father, mother, and brother. On the 1st of June, 1533, she was crowned queen of England with such pomp and solemnity, as was answerable to the magnificence of his majesty’s temper; and every one admired her conduct, who had so long managed the spirit of a king so violent, as neither to surfeit him with too much fondness, nor to provoke with too much reserve. Her being so soon with child gave hopes of a numerous issue; and those, who loved the reformation, entertained the greatest hopes from her protection, as they knew she favoured them. On the 13th or 14th of September following, she brought forth a daughter, christened Elizabeth, afterwards the renowned queen of England, Cranmer, archbishop of Canterb ry, being her god-father. But the year 1536 proved fatal to her majesty; and her ruin was in all probability occasioned by those who began to be distinguished by the name of the Romish party. For the king now proceeding both at home and abroad in the point of reformation, they found that the interest which the queen had in him was the grand support of that cause. She had risen, not only in his esteem, but likewise in that of the nation in general; for in the last nine months of her life, she gave above fourteen thousand pounds to the poor, and was engaged in several noble and public designs. But these virtues could not secure her against the artifices of a bigoted party, which received an additional force from several other circumstances, that contributed to her destruction. Soon after queen Catharine’s death in Jan. 1535-6, she was brought to bed of a dead son, which was believed to have made a bad impression on the king’s mind; and as he had concluded from the death of his sons by his former queen, that the marriage was displeasing to God, so he might upon this misfortune begin to have the same opinion of his marriage with queen Anne. It was also considered by some courtiers, that now queen Catharine was dead, his majesty might marry another wife, and be fully reconciled with the pope and the emperor, and the issue by any other marriage would never be questioned; whereas, while queen Anne lived, the ground of the controversy still remained, and her marriage being accounted null from the beginning, would never be allowed by the court of Rome, or any of that party. With these reasons of state the king’s own passions too much concurred; for he now entertained a secret love for the lady Jane Seymour, who had all the charms of youth and beauty, and an humour tempered between the gravity of queen Catharine, and the gaiety of queen Anne. Her majesty therefore perceiving the alienation of the king’s heart, used all possible arts to recover that affection, the decay of which she was sensible of; but the success was quite contrary to what she designed. For he saw her no more with those eyes which she had formerly captivated; but gave way to jealousy, and ascribed her caresses to some other criminal passion, of which he began to suspect her. Her chearful temper indeed was not always limited within the bounds of exact decency and discretion; and her brother the lord Rochford’s wife, a woman of no virtue, being jealous of her husband and her, possessed the king with her own apprehensions. Henry Norris, groom of the stole, William Brereton, and sir Francis W'eston, who were of the king’s privy chamber, and Mark Smeton, a musician, were by the queen’s enemies thought too officious about her; and something was pretended to have been sworn by the lady Wingfield at her death, which determined the king; but the particulars are not known. It is reported likewise, that when the king held a tournament at Greenwich on the 1st of May, 1536, he was displeased at the queen for letting her handkerchief fall to one, who was supposed a favourite, and who wiped his face with it. Whatever the case was, the king returned suddenly from Greenwich to Whitehall, and immediately ordered her to be confined to her chamber, and her brother, with the four persons abovementioned, to be committed to the Tower, and herself to be sent after them the day following. On the river some privy counsellors came to examine her, but she made deep protestations of her innocence; and as she landed at the Tower, she fell down on her knees, and prayed Heaven so to assist her, as she was free from the crimes laid to her charge.“The confusion she was in soon raised a storm of vapours within her; sometimes she laughejj, and at other times wept excessively. She was also devout and light by turns; one while she stood upon her vindication, and at other times confessed some indiscretions, which upon recollection she denied. All about her took advantage from any word, that fell from her, and sent it immediately to court. The duke of Norfolk and others, who came to examine her, the better to make discoveries, told her, that Morris and Smeton had accused her; which, though false, had this effect on her, that it induced her to own some slight acts of indiscretion, which, though no ways essential, totally alienated the king from her. Yet whether even these small acknowledgments were real truths, or the effects of imagination and hysterical emotions, is very uncertain. On the 12th of May, Morris, Brereton, Weston, and Smeton, were tried in Westminster-hall. Smeton is said by Dr. Burnet to have confessed the fact; but the lord Herbert’s silence in this matter imports him to have been of a different opinion; to which may be added, that Cromwell’s letter to the king takes notice, that only some circumstances were confessed by Smeton. However, they were all four found guilty, and executed on the 17th of May. On the 15th of which month, the queen, and her brother the lord Rochford, were tried by their peers in the Tower, and condemned to die. Yet all this did not satisfy the enraged king, who resolved likewise to illegitimate his daughter Elizabeth; and, in order to that, to annul his marriage with the queen, upon pretence of a precontract between her and the lord Percy, now earl of Northumberland, who solemnly denied it; though the queen was prevailed upon to acknowledge, that there were some just and lawful impediments against her marriage with the king; and upon this a sentence of divorce was pronounced by the archbishop, and afterwards confirmed in the convocation and parliament. On the 19th of May, she was brought to a scaffold within the Tower, where she was prevailed upon, out of regard to her daughter, to make no reflections on the hardships she had sustained, nor to say any thing touching the grounds on which sentence passed against her; only she desired, that” all would judge the best." Her head being severed from her body, they were both put into an ordinary chest, and buried in the chapel in the Tower.

, Lord Delamer, the son of William Booth, esq. and grandson of sir George Booth, bart. rendered himself remarkable by heading an insurrection in Cheshire, about a year after the death of Oliver Cromwell. He received a commission from king Charles II. under his signet and sign-manual, bearing date July 22, 1659, by which he was constituted commander in chief of all forces to be raised for his majesty’s service in Cheshire, Lancashire, and North Wales. A duplicate of this was dated at Brussels, Aug. 9, the same year, but sir George did not openly profess to act by the king’s authority, or with a view to his restoration, but only in opposition to the tyranny of the parliament. He assembled about four thousand men, took possession of Chester, and was joined by the earl of Derby, sir Thomas Middleton, and major Brook. Bui the parliamentary forces pursued sir George and his adherents so closely, that they could not avoid coming to an action; and, after a sharp contest, on the 19th of August, 1659, Lambert totally routed sir George Booth’s troops, pursued them a considerable way, and killed and took many of them. Ludlow informs us, that “Sir George Booth, after his defeat, put himself into a woman’s habit, and with two servants hoped to escape to London, riding behind one of them. The single horseman going before, went to an inn on the road; and, as he had been ordered, bespoke a supper for his mistress, who, he said, was coming after. The pretended mistress being arrived, either by alighting from the horse, or some other action, raised a suspicion in the master of the house, that there was some mystery under that dress. And thereupon resolving to make a full inquiry into the matter, he got together some of his neighbours to assist him, and with them entered the room vyhere the pretended lady was. But sir George Booth suspecting their intentions, and being unwilling to put them to the trouble of a farther search, discovered himself. Whereupon they took him into their custody, and sent him up to London, where the parliament committed him prisoner to the Tower.” Sir George made applications to many of the parliament and council, by his friends, for favour; was examined by Haselrig and Vane, who referred his examination to the council of state; and applications were made from the lord Say, and others, to save his life.

He was afterwards set at liberty, upon giving bail; and being member of parliament for Chester, he was the first of the twelve members sent by the house of commons, in May 1660, to carry to king Charles II. the answer of that house to his majesty’s letter, as appears by the journals of the house of commons, May 7, 1660. And on the 13th of July following, the house of commons ordered, that the sum of ten thousand pounds should be conferred on him, as a mark of respect for his eminent services, and great sufferings for the public. In this resolution the lords afterwards concurred. It appears, that the first motion was for twenty thousand pounds, which the house of commons was about to agree to, had not sir George Booth himself, in his place, requested of the house, that it might be no more than ten; declaring, that what he had done was purely with intention of serving his king and country, as became him in duty to do, without view of any reward. After the restoration, his services were also considered as so meritorious, that the king gave him liberty to propose six gentlemen to receive the honour of knighthood, and two others to have the dignity of baronet conferred on them. He was also himself created baron Delamer of Dunham-Massey; and on the 30th of July, 1660, he was appointed custos rotulorum for the county of Cheshire, but on the 30th of May, 1673, he resigned this office to Henry, his son and heir. “After this,” says Collins, “he not being studious to please the court in those measures which were taken in some parts of that reign, both he and his family were soon afterwards disregarded by the king, and ill used by his successor king James the Second.” His lordship died at Dunham-Massey, in the 63d year of his age, on the 8th of August, 1684, and was buried in a very splendid manner at Bowdon, in the burial-vault of the family. He was twice married: his first wife was the lady Catherine Clinton, daughter and co-heir to Theophilus earl of Lincoln, who died in child-bed in 1643, by whom he had issue one daughter, Vere, who Belied unmarried at Canonbury-house, in 1717, in the seventy-fourth year of her age, and was buried in Islington church. His second wife was the lady Elizabeth Grey, eldest daughter of Henry earl of Stamford, by whom he had issue seven sons and five daughters. His eldest son, William, died young, and he was succeeded in his honours and estate by his second son, Henry, who is the subject of the following article.

, earl of Warrington, and baron Delamer of Dunham Massey, an upright senator and distinguished patriot, was born on the 13th of January, 1651. He was the second son of the preceding George lord Delamer, by the lady Elizabeth Grey. In the life-time of his father, he was custos rotulorum for the county palatine of Chester, and also knight of the shire for that county, in several parliaments during the reign of king Charles ths Second. He very early rendered himself conspicuous by his zeal for the protestant religion, and the liberties of his country. When the bill for excluding the duke of York from the throne was brought into parliament, Mr. Booth was very active in the promotion of it, and also made a spirited speech in support of the necessity of frequent parliaments, and against governing by favourites; and he opposed, with a becoming spirit, the unjust and arbitrary power assumed by the privy council, of imprisoning men contrary to law.

Mr. Booth was also extremely zealous against the papists; and this circumstance, together with the vigorous opposition that he made in parliament to the arbitrary measures of the court, occasioned him to be put out of the commission of the peace, and removed from the office of custos rotulorum of the county of Chester. In 1684, by the death of his father, he became lord Delamer; but about this time he was committed close prisoner to the Tower of London. The pretence probably was, that he was suspected of being concerned in some practices against the crown; but we have met with no particular account of the accusation against him: and as no parliament was then, sitting, it may be presumed, that less attention was paid to any illegality in the proceedings respecting him. He was, however, set at liberty, after a few months imprisonment. But soon after the accession of king James II. he was again committed prisoner to the Tower. After being confined for some time, he was admitted to bail; but was, shortly after, a third time committed to the Tower. This was on the 26th of July, 1685; and a parliament being assembled in the November following, on the first day of the session he stated his case in a petition to the house of peers. He represented to their lordships, that the king, by his proclamation, had required him. to appear before him in council within ten days. He had accordingly surrendered himself to lord Sunderland, then principal secretary of state; and being brought before his majesty, then sitting in council, he was neither confronted by any person who accused him, nor otherwise charged with any kind of treason, but only questioned about some inferior matters, and which were of such a nature, that, if he had been really guilty of them, he ought by law to have been admitted to bail: notwithstanding which, he had been committed close prisoner to the Tower, by a warrant from the secretary of state, in which he was charged with high, treason. After some debate, it was resolved, that the lords with white staves should wait upon his majesty, “to know the reason why the lord Delamer, a member of their house, was absent from his attendance there.” The day following, the earl of Rochester, lord treasurer, reported to the house, “That he, with the other lords, having waited on his majesty with their message, his majesty was pleased to answer, That the lord Delamer stood committed for high treason, testified upon oath; and that his majesty had already given directions, that he should be proceeded against according to law.”

After this he lived for some time in a retired manner, at his seat at Dunham-Massey; but matters being at length ripe for the revolution, he exerted himself in the promotion of that great event. Upon the prince of Orange’s landing, he raised, in a very few days, a great force in Cheshire and Lancashire, with which he marched to join that prince. On his first appearance in arms, besides assigning other reasons for his conduct, he is said to have made this declaration: “I am of opinion, that when the nation is delivered, it must be by force, or miracle: it would be a great presumption to expect the latter; and, therefore, our deliverance must be by force; and I hope this is the time for it.” After he had joined the prince, he was sent by his highness, together with the marquis of Halifax, and the earl of Shrewsbury, on the 17th of December, 1688, with a message to king James, intimating to him, that he must remove from Whitehall. Lord Delamer, though little attached to that prince in his prosperity, was too generous to insult him in his distress; and therefore, on this occasion, treated him with respect. And James was so sensible of this instance of his lordship’s civility to him, that, after his retirement into France, he said, that <c the lord Delamer, whom he had used ill, had then treated him with much more regard than the other two lords, to whom he had been kind, and from whom he might better have expected it."

Though lord Delamer was removed from the administration, it was thought necessary to confer on him some mark of royal favour. Accordingly, by letters-patent, bearing date at Westminster, April 17, 1690, he was created earl of Warrington, in the county of Lancaster, to continue to him and the heirs-male of his body. A pension likewise of two thousand pounds per annum was granted to him, for the better support of that dignity. And it was said, in the preamble of the patent for his earldom, that it was conferred on him, “for his great services in raising and bringing great forces to his majesty, to rescue his country and religion from tyranny and popery.” On the 3d of January, 1692-3, the earl of Warrington signed a protest against the rejection of the bill for incapacitating persons in office under the crown, either civil or military, from sitting in the house of commons. Two other protests were also signed by him on different occasions. But this patriotic peer did not live long to enjoy his new dignity; for he died at London on the 2d of January, 1693-4, having not quite completed the forty-second year of his age. He was interred in the family vault in Bowdon church, in the county of Chester, on the 14th of the same month. Mr. Granger says, that lord Delamer was “a man of a generous and noble nature, which disdained, upon any terms, to submit to servitude; and whose passions seemed to centre in the love of civil and religious liberty.” In every part of his life, indeed, he appears to have been actuated by the same principles; and in his “Advice to his Children,” printed in his works, he says, “There never yet was any good man who had not an ardent zeal for his country.” He was not only illustriously distinguished by his public spirit, and his noble ardour in defence of the liberties of his country; but in his private life he appears to have been a man of strict piety, and of great worth, honour, and humanity. He married Mary, sole daughter and heiress to sir James Langham, of Cottesbrooke, in the county of Northampton, knight and baronet, by whom he had four sons, and two daughters. His first son died an infant, and his second son, George, upon the death of his father, became earl of Warrington. He died on the 2d of August, 1758, and leaving no heirs male, the earldom became extinct, but was revived in his daughter’s husband.

The works of Henry earl of Warrington, the subject of this article, were published in 1694, in one volume 8vo. They consist chiefly of speeches made by him in parliament, prayers used by his lordship in his family, some short political tracts, and the case of William earl of Devonshire. He published also, “The late lord Russel’s case, with observations upon it,” 1689, fol.

The son of the preceding, who, we have just mentioned, died in 1758, has obtained a place among the royal and noble authors, for having published, but without his name, “Considerations upon the institution of Marriage, with some thoughts concerning the force and obligation of the marriage contract; wherein is considered, how far divorces may or ought to be allowed. By a gentleman. Humbly submitted to the judgment of the impartial,” Lond. printed for John Whiston, 1739. Jt is an argument for divorce on disagreement of temper, which was the aim of Milton in his “Tetrachordon,” and would, if we may conjecture from the effects of the experiment in a neighbouring nation, create more dissoluteness and misery than it was intended to remove. He also wrote a letter to the writer of the “Present state of the Republic of Letters” in, August 1734, vindicating his father from some reflections cast on him in Burnett’s “History of his own times.” His only daughter married Henry earl of Stamford, in whose son, the title of Earl of Warrington was revived in 1796.

a painter, engraver, and antiquary, was born at Brussels in 1583, but when in his third year, the war obliged his parents to remove into Germany. From his earliest years he discovered a taste for painting, which induced his father to place him under Giles Van Valkenberg. He afterwards studied in Italy, and travelling over Germany, settled first at Franhendal, and in 1627 at Francfort on the Maine. His paintings, principally fruit and flowers, were much admired, but he perhaps had more reputation as an antiquary, in which capacity, the earl of Arundel sent him into Italy to Mr. Petty, who was then collecting for his lordship, and retained him in his service as long as he lived. After the death of this patron, Vander Borcht was employed by the prince of Wales (afterwards Charles II.) and lived in esteem at London several years, till he returned to Antwerp, where he died in 1660. As an engraver we have some few etchings by him; among the rest the “Virgin and Child,” a small upright print, from Parmigiano, engraved at London in 1637; a “Dead Christ, supported by Joseph of Arimathea,” from the same master, and “Apollo and Cupid,” a small upright oval from Perin del Vago.

, son of sir John Borlace, master of the ordnance, and one of the lords justices of Ireland, was born in the seventeenth century, and educated at the university of Dublin. Then he travelled to Leyden, where he commenced doctor of physic in 1650, and was afterwards admitted to the same degree at Oxford. At last he settled at Chester, where he practised physic with great reputation and success; and where he died in 1682, Among several books which he wrote and published, are, 1. “Latham Spaw in Lancashire: with some remarkable cases and cures effected by it,” Loud. 1670, 8vo, dedicated to Charles earl of Derby. 2. “The Reduction of Ireland to the Crown of England: with the governors since the conquest by king Henry II. anno 1172, and some passages in their government. A brief account of the rebellion, ann. Dom. 1641. Also the original of the university of Dublin, and the college of physicians,” Lond. 1675, a large octavo. 3. “The History of the execrable Irish Rebellion, traced from many preceding acts to the grand eruption, Oct. 23, 1641; and thence pursued to the act of settlement, 1672,” Lond. 1680, folio. Wood tells us, that much of this book is taken from another, entitled “The Irish Rebellion; or, The History of the beginnings and first progress of the general rebellion raised within the kingdom of Ireland, Oct. 23, 1641,” Lond. 1646, 4to, written by sir John Temple, master of the rolls, one of his majesty’s privy council in Ireland, and father of the celebrated sir William Temple. 4. “Brief Reflections on the earl of Castlehaven’s Memoirs of his engagement and carriage in the War of Ireland. By which the government of that time, and the justice of the crown since, are vindicated from aspersions cast upon both,” Lond. 1682, 8vo.

When Mr. Borlase was fixed at Ludgvan, which was a retired, but delightful situation, he soon recommended himself as a pastor, a gentleman, and a man of learning. The duties of his profession he discharged with the most rigid punctuality and exemplary dignity. He was esteemed and respected by the principal gentry of Cornwall, and lived on the most friendly and social terms with those of his neighbourhood. In the pursuit of general knowledge he was active and vigorous; and his mind being of an inquisitive turn, he could not survey with inattention or indifference the peculiar objects which his situation pointed to his view. There were in the parish of Ludgvan rich copper works, belonging to the late earl of Godolphin. These abounded with mineral and metallic fossils, which Mr. Borlase collected from time to time; and his collection increasing by degrees, he was encouraged to study at large the natural history of his native county. While he was engaged in this design, he could not avoid being struck with the numerous m'onuments of remote antiquity that are to be met with in several parts of Cornwall; and which had hitherto been passed over with far less examination than they deserved. Enlarging, therefore, his plan, he determined to gain as accurate an acquaintance as possible with the Druid learning, and with the religion and customs of the ancient Britons, before their conversion to Christianity. To this undertaking he was encouraged by several gentlemen of his neighbourhood, who were men of literature and lovers of British antiquities; and particularly by sir John St. Aubyn, ancestor of the present baronet of that family, and the late rev. Edward Collins, vicar of St. Earth. In the year 1748, Mr. Borlase, happening to attend the ordination of his eldest son at Exeter, commenced an acquaintance with the Rev. Dr. Charles Lyttelton, late bishop of Carlisle, then come to be installed into the deanry, and the Rev. Dr. Milles, the late dean, two eminent antiquaries, who, in succession, have so ably presided over the society of antiquaries in London. Our author’s correspondence with these gentlemen was a great encouragement to the prosecution of his studies; and he has acknowledged his obligations to them, in several parts of his works. In 1750, being at London, he was admitted a fellow of the royal society, into which he had been chosen the year before, after having communicated an ingenious Essay on the Cornish Crystals. Mr. Borlase having completed, in 1753, his manuscript of the Antiof Cornwall, carried it to Oxford, where he finished the whole impression, in folio, in the February following. A second edition of it, in the same form, was published at London, in 1769. Our author’s next publication was, “Observations on the ancient and present state of the Islands of Scilly, and their importance to the trade of Great Britain, in a letter to the reverend Charles Lyttelton, LL. D. dean of Exeter, and F. R. S.” This work, which was printed likewise at Oxford, and appeared in 1756, in quarto, was an extension of a paper that had been read before the royal society, on the 8th of February 1753, entitled, “An Account of the great Alterations which the Islands of Scilly have undergone, since the time of the ancients, who mention them, as to their number, extent, and position.” It was at the request of Dr. Lyttelton, that this account was enlarged into a distinct treatise. In 1757, Mr. Borlase again employed the Oxford press, in printing his “Natural History of Cornwall,” for which he had been many years making collections, and which was published in April 1758. After this, he sent a variety of fossils, and remains of antiquity, which he 'had described in his works, to be placed in the Ashmolean museum; and to the same repository he continued to send every thing curious which fell into his hands. For these benefactions he received the thanks of the university, in a letter from the vice-chancellor, dated November 18, 1758; and in March, 1766, that learned body conferred on him the degree of doctor of laws, by diploma, the highest academical honour.

* Dr. Welsted, a physician, was also The primate maintained a son of the of this golden election, and when he doctor’s, as a commoner, at Hart-halt became poor in the latter part of his in Oxford; and would effectually have life, the archbishop, though he was no provided for him, if the young gentlerelation, gave him, at the least, two man had not died before he had taken hundred pounds a year, till his death, a degree. Dr. Welsted was one of the Nor did his grace’s kindness to the editors of the Oxford Pindar, and doctor’s family end with his decease-, esteemed an excellent Greek scholar. and some time after he was preferred to the same honour by Dr. Thomas Tenison, archbishop of Canterbury. In these stations he was under a necessity of appearing often at court, where his merit obtained him the patronage of Charles Spencer, earl of Sunderland, principal secretary of state, by whose interest he was advanced to the rectory of St. Olave in Southwark, and to the archdeaconry of Surrey. The parish of St. Olave was very populous, and for the most part poor, and required such a liberal and vigilant pastor as Dr. Boulter, who relieved their wants, and gave them instruction, correction, and reproof. When king George I. passed over to Hanover in 1719, Dr. Boulter was recommended to attend him in quality of his chaplain, and also was appointed tutor to prince Frederic, to instruct him in the English tongue; and for that purpose drew up for his use “A set of Instructions.” This so recommended him to the king, that during his abode at Hanover, the bishopric of Bristol, and deanery of Christchurch, Oxford, becoming vacant, the king granted to him that see and deanery, and he was consecrated bishop of Bristol, on the fifteenth of November, 1719. In this last station he was more than ordinarily assiduous in the visitation of his diocese, and the discharge of his pastoral duty; and during one of these visitations, he received a letter by a messenger from the secretary of state, acquainting him, that his majesty had nominated him to the archbishopric of Armagh, and primacy of Ireland, then vacant by the death of Dr. Thomas Lindsay, on the 13th of July, 1724-, and desiring him to repair to London as soon as possible, to kiss the king’s hand for his promotion. After some, consultation on this affair, to which he felt great repugnance, he sent an answer by the messenger, refusing the honour the king intended him, and requesting the secretary to use his good offices with his majesty, in making his excuse, but the messenger was dispatched back to him. by the secretary, with the king’s absolute commands that he should accept of the post, to which he submitted, though not without some reluctance, and soon after addressed himself to his journey to court. Ireland was at that juncture not a little inflamed, by the copper-coin project of one Wood, and it was thought by the king and ministry, that the judgment, moderation, and wisdom of the bishop of Bristol would tend much to allay the ferment. He arrived in Ireland on the third of November, 1724, had no sooner passed patent for the primacy, than he appeared at all the public boards, and gave a weight and vigour to them; and, in every respect, was indefatigable in promoting the real happiness of the people. Among his other wise measures, in seasons of great scarcity in, Ireland, he was more than once instrumental in averting a pestilence and famine, which threatened the nation. When the scheme was set on foot for making a navigation, by a canal to be drawn from Lough -Neagh to Newry, not only for bringing coal to Dublin, but to carry on more effectually an inland trade in the several counties of the north of Ireland, he greatlv encouraged and promoted the design, not only with his counsel but his purse. Drogheda is a large and populous town within the diocese of Armagh, and his grace finding that the ecclesiastical appointments were not sufficient to support two clergymen there, and the cure over-burthensome for one effectually to discharge, he allotted out of his own pocket a maintenance for a second curate, whom he obliged to give public service every Sunday in the afternoon, and prayers twice every day. He had great compassion for the poor clergy of his diocese, who were disabled from giving their children a proper education, and maintained several of the sons of such in the university, in order to qualify them for future preferment, He erected four houses at Drogheda for the reception of clergymen’s widows, and purchased an estate for the endowment of them, after the model of primate Marsh’s charity; which he enlarged in one particular: for as the estate he purchased for the maintenance of the widows, amounted to twenty-four pounds a year more than he had set apart for that use, he appointed that the surplus should be a fund for setting out the children of such, widows apprentices, or otherwise to be disposed of for the benefit of such children, as his trustees should think proper. He also by his will directed, which has since been performed, that four houses should be built for clergymen’s widows at Armagh, and endowed with fifty pounds a year. During his life, he contracted for the building of a stately market-house at Armagh, which was finished by his executors, at upwards of eight hundred pounds expence. He was a benefactor also to Dr. Stevens’s hospital in the city of Dublin, erected for the maintenance and cure of the poor. His charities for augmenting small livings, and buying of glebes, amounted to upwards of thirty thousand pourids, besides what he devised by his will for the like purposes in England. Though the plan of the incorporated society for promoting English protestant working schools, cannot be imputed to primate Boulter, yet he was the chief instrument in forwarding the undertaking, which he lived to see carried into execution with consider, able success. His private charities were not less munificent, but so secretly conducted, that it is impossible to give any particular account of them: it is affirmed by those who were in trust about him, that he never suffered an object to leave his house unsupplied, and he often sent them away with considerable sums, according to the judgment he made of their merits and necessities. With respect to his political virtues, and the arts of government, when his health would permit him he was constant in his attendance at the council-table, and it is well known what weight and dignity he gave to the debates of that board. As he always studied the true interest of Ireland, so he judged, that the diminishing the value of the gold coin would be a means of increasing silver in the country, a thing very much wanted in order to effect which, he supported a scheme at the council- table, which raised the clamours of unthinking people, although experience soon demonstrated its wisdom. He was thirteen times one of the lords justices, or chief governors of Ireland; which office he administered oftener than any other chief governor on record. He embarked for England June 2, 1742, and after two days illness died at his house in St. James’s place, Sept. 27, and was buried in Westminster-abbey, where a stately monument has been erected to his memory. His deportment was grave, his aspect venerable, and his temper meek and humble. He was always open and easy of access both to rich and poor. He was steady to the principles of liberty, both in religion and politics. His learning was universal, yet more in substance than shew; nor would his modesty permit him to make any ostentation of it. He always preserved such an equal temper of mind that hardly any thing could ruffle, and amidst obloquy and opposition, steadily maintained a resolution of serving his country, embraced every thing proposed for the good of it, though by persons remarkable for their opposition to him: and when the most public-spirited schemes were introduced by him, and did not meet with the reception they deserved, he never took offence, but was glad when any part of his advice for the public good was pursued, and was always willing to drop some points, that he might not lose all; often saying, “he would do all the good to Ireland he could, though they did not suffer him to do all he would.” His life was mostly spent in action, and therefore it is not to be expected that he should have left many remains of his learning behind him nor do we know of any thing he bath written, excepting a few Charges to his clergy at his visitations, which are grave, solid, and instructive, and eleven Occasional Sermons, printed separately. In 1769, however, were published, at Oxford, in two volumes 8vo, “Letters written by his excellency Hugh Boulter, D. D. lord primate of all Ireland, &c. to several ministers of state in England, and some others. Containing an account of the most interesting transactions which passed in Ireland from 1724 to 1738.” The originals, which are deposited in the library of Christ church, in Oxford, were collected by Ambrose Philips, esq. who was secretary to his grace, and lived in his house during that space of time in which they bear date. They are entirely letters of business, and are all of them in Dr. Boulter’s hand-writing, excepting some few, which are fair copies by his secretary. The editor justly remarks, that these letters, which could not be intended for publication, have been fortunately preserved, as they contain the most authentic history of Ireland, for the period in which they were written: “a period,” he adds, “which will ever do honour to his grace’s memory, and to those most excellent princes George the first and second, who had the wisdom to place confidence in so worthy, so able, and so successful a minister; a minister who had the rare and peculiar felicity of growing still more and more into the favour both of the king and of the people, until the very last day of his life,” It is much to be regretted that in some of his measures, he was opposed by dean Swift, particularly in that of diminishing the gold coin, as it is probable that they both were actuated by an earnest desire of serving the country. In one affair, that of Wood’s halfpence, they appear to have coincided, and in that they both happened to encourage a public clamour which had little solid foundation. The writer of archbishop' Boulter’s Life in the Biog. Brit, seems to doubt whether he assisted Ambrose Philips in the paper called the “Freethinker;” but of this we apprehend there can be no doubt. It was published while he held the living of St. Olave’s.

, lord Berners, was born about 1467, son and heir of sir Humphrey Bourchier by Elizabeth, daughter and heir of sir Frederick Tilney (widow of sir Thomas Howard), which Humphrey was killed at Barnet-field, on Edward IVth’s part, and buried in Westminster abbey, during the life of his father, who was sir John Bourchier, K. G. fourth son of William earl of Ewe, and baron Berners, by marriage with Margery, daughter and heir of Richard lord Berners. Lord Bourchier succeeded his grandfather, May 16, 1474, being then only seven years old. He was educated in Baliol college, Oxford, and afterwards travelled abroad, and returned a master of seven languages, and a complete gentleman. In 1405 he obtained the notice of Henry VII. by his valour in quelling the fury of the rebels in Cornwall and Devonshire, under the conduct of Michael Joseph, a blacksmith. In 1513 he was captain of the pioneers at the siege of Therouenne. In 1514, being made chancellor of the king’s exchequer for life, he attended the lady Mary, the king’s sister, into France, to her marriage with king Lewis XII. and in 1527 obtained i grant from the king of several manors. Afterwards he vas made lieutenant of Calais and the marches adjoining to France, and spending most of his time there, wrot< several learned works in that situation. There he made his will, March 3, 1532, bequeathing his body to be bur'ud in the chancel of the parish church of our lady, within the town of Calais, and appointing that an honest priest shouldsing mass there for his soul, by the space of three years, ie died March 16th following, leaving by Katherine his wie, daughter of John duke of Norfolk, Joane his daughter nd heir, married to Edmund Knyvet of Ashwelthorpe inNorfolk, esq.

, 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."

Being thus disengaged from his literary employment, though he had not then received back his money from the Jesuits, he, on the 25th of March 1747, put forth the proposals for his “History of the Popes;” a work, winch, he says, he undertook some years since at Rome, and then brought it down to the pontificate of Victor, that is, to the close of the second century. In the execution of this work at that period he professes to have received the first unfavourable sentiments of the pope’s supremacy. On the 13th of May 1748, he presented to the king the first volume; and on the death of Mr. Say, keeper of queen Caroline’s library (10th of September), one of his friends (Mr. Lyttelton, afterwards lord Lyttelton) applied to Mr. Pelham for that place for him, and obtained it. The next year, 1749, on the 4th of August, he married a niece of bishop Nicolson, and daughter of a clergyman of the church of England, a younger son of a gentleman’s family in Westmoreland, who had a fortune of 4000l. sterling, and then had a child by a former husband; which child he afterwards deposed on oath was no way injured by his marriage. He had been engaged in a treaty of marriage, which did not take effect, in 1745. In 1751, the second volume of the History of the Popes made its appearance. In the same year, 1751, Mr. Bower published by way of supplement to his second volume, seventeen sheets, which were delivered to his subscribers gratis; and about the latter end of 1753 he produced a third volume, which brought down his history to the death of pope Stephen, in 757. His constant friend Mr. Lyttelton, at this time become a baronet, in April 1754 appointed him clerk of the buck warrants, instead of Henry Read, esq. who held that place under the earl of Lincoln. This office was probably of no great emolument. His appointment to it, however, serves to shew the credit he was in with his patron.

In 1744, Mr. Bowyer is supposed to have written a small pamphlet on the present state of Europe, taken principally from Pufendorff. In 1746, he projected, what during his whole life he had in view, a regular edition of Cicero’s Letters, in a chronological order, on a plan which it is to be lamented that he did not complete; as an uniform series thus properly arranged would have formed a real history of Tully’s life, and those which cannot be dated might be thrown to the end without any inconvenience. In the same year he published “The Life of the Emperor Julian,” translated from the French of M. Bleterie, and improve^ with twelve pages of curious notes, and a genealogical table. The notes were not entirely Mr. Bowyer’s, but were drawn up, in part, by Mr. Clarke and other learned men. The translation, by Miss Anne Williams (Dr. Johnson’s inmate), and the two sisters of the name of Wilkinson, was made under Mr. Bowyr’s immediate inspection. In this year also, he printed, and is supposed to have assisted in thp composition of, “A Dissertation, in which the objections of a late pampinet (by bishop Ross) to the writings of the anci nits, after the mariner of Mr. Maryland, are clearly answered: those passages in Tuily corrected, on which some of the objections are founded; with Amendments of a few pieces of criticism in Mr. Maryland’s Epistola Critica,” 8vo. On the 2d of August, 1747, Mr. Bowyer entered a second time into the matrimonial state, with a most benevolent and worthy woman, Mrs. Elizabeth Bill, by whom he had no children. In 1750, he had the honour of sharing, with Dr. Burton, in the invectives most liberally bestowed by Dr. King, in his “Elogium Famse inserviens Jacci Etouensis, sive Gigantis: or, the Praises of Jack of Eaton, commonly called Jack the Giant.” Dr. King’s abuse was probably owing to his having heard that our learned printer had hinted, in conversation, his doubts concerning the doctor’s Latiriity. Mr. Bowyer drew up strictures in his own defence, which he intended to insert at the conclusion of a preface to Montesquieu’s Reflections, &c.; but, in consequence ol Mr. Clarke’s advice, they were omitted. In the same year, a prefatory critical dissertation, and some valuable notes, were annexed, by our author, to Kuster’s Treatise “De vero usu Verborum Mediorum;” a new edition of which work, with further improvements, appeared in 1773. He wrote, likewise, about the same time, a Latin preface to Leedes’s “Veteres Poeta? citati, &c.” Being soon after employed to print an edition of colonel Bladen’s translation of Cæsar’s Commentaries, that work received considerable improvements from. Mr. Bowyer’s hands, and the addition of such notes in it as are signed Typogr. In the subsequent editions of this work, though printed by another person, and in our author’s life-time, the same signature, contrary to decorum, and even justice, was still retained. In 1751, he wrote a long preface to Montesquieu’s “Reflections on the Rise and Fall of the Rouian Empire;” translated the Dialogue between Sylla and Socrates; made several corrections to the work from the Baron’s “Spirit of Laws,” and improved it with his own notes. A new edition, with many; new notes, was printed in 1759. He gave likewise to the public, in 1751, with a preface, the first translation that was made of Rousseau’s paradoxical oration on the effects of the arts and sciences, which gained the prize at the academy of Dijon, in 1750; and which first announced that singular genius to the attention and admiration of Europe. On the publication of the third edition of lord Orrery’s “Remarks on the Life and Writings of Dr. Swift,” in 1752, Mr. Bowyer wrote and printed, but never published, “Two Letters from Dr. Bentley in the shades below, to lord Orrery in a land of thick darkness.” The notes signed B, in the ninth quarto volume of Swift’s works, are extracted from these Letters, which are reprinted at large in his “Tracts.” In 1752, when Bp. Clayton published his “Vindication of the Histories of the Old and New Testament, in answer to the Objections of Lord Bolingbroke,” Mr. Bowyer drew up an analysis of the same, with an intention of sending it to the Gentleman’s Magazine: it is now printed in Mr. Nichols’s “Anecdotes.” In 1753, to allay the ferment occasioned by the Jew bill, he published, in quarto, “Remarks on a Speech made in Common Council, on the Bill for permitting persons professing the Jewish Religion to be naturalized, so far as Prophecies are supposed to be affected by it.” The design of this sensible little tract, which was written with spirit, and well received by those who were superior to narrow prejudices, was to shew, that whatever political reasons might be alleged against the Bill, Christianity would in no degree be prejudiced by the indulgence proposed to be gVanted to the Jews. In the same year, some of Mr. Bowyer’s notes were annexed to bishop Clayton’s translation of “A Journal from Grand Cairo to Mount Sinai, and back again.” In 1754, with a view of lessening his fatigue, he entered into partnership with a relation; but some disagreements arising, the connection was dissolved in 1757, and he resumed the active part of business. In 1760 he superintended a second edition of Arnald’s “Commentary on the Book of Wisdom,” and enriched it with the remarks of Mr. Markland. Upon the death of Mr. Richardson, in 1761, Mr. Bowyer, through the patronage of the late earl of Macclesfield, was appointed printer to the Royal Society; and, under the friendship of five successive presidents, had the satisfaction of continuing in that employment till his death. In the same year (1761), appeared “Verses on the Coronation of their late majesties, king George the Second and queen Caroline, October 4, 1727, spoken by the Scholars of Westminster school (some of them now the ornaments of the Nation) on January 15th following, being the Day of the Inauguration of Queen Elizabeth, their foundress with a Translation of all the Latin copies The whole placed in order of the transactions of that important day. Adorned with the Coronation Medals pf the Royal Pair, and a bust of our present king. To which is subjoined the Ceremonial of the august Procession, very proper to be compared with the approaching one; and a Catalogue of the Coronation Medals of the Kings and Queens of England.” The original part of this pamphlet, in which a great deal of humour is displayed, was entirely Mr. Bowyer' s: the Latin verses were translated partly by him, but principally by Mr. Nichols. Our learned printer’s next publication was of a more serious and weighty nature, an excellent edition of the Greek Testament, in two volumes, 1763, 12mo, under the following title: “Novum Testamentum Greecum, ad Fidem GrascorUm solum Codicum Mss. nunc primum expressum, adstipulante Joanne Jacobo Wetstenio, juxta Sectiones Jo. Albert! Bengelii divisum; et nova Interpunctione saepius illustratum. Accessere in altero Volumine Emendationes conjecturales virorum doctorum undecunque collectse.” This sold with great rapidity; though Mr. Bowyer, in his advertisements of it in the public papers, was pleased to add, that it boasted neither elegance of type nor paper, but trusted to other merits. The conjectural emendations are a very valuable addition to the Greek Testament, and were extremely well received by the learned. In a letter of thanks, from the president and fellows of Harvard college, in Cambridge, New-England, to Mr. Bowyer, in 1767, for several benefactions of his to that college, they express themselves as follows: “It is a particular pleasure to us to mention your very curious edition of the Greek Testament, in two volumes, with critical notes, and many happy conjectures, especially as to the punctuation, an affair of the utmost importance as to ascertaining the sense. This work, though small in bulk, we esteem as a rich treasure of sacred learning, and of more intrinsic value than many large volumes of the commentators.” A second edition of the Conjectures on the New Testament, with very considerable enlargements, was separately published, in one volume, 8vo, in 1772, a third in 4to, 1782, and a fourth from the interleaved -copy of Dr. Owen, which he bequeathed to the honourable and right reverend Dr. Shute Barrington, bishop of Durham, is just published (1812). Bishop Wavbnrton having censured apassage in the first edition, Mr. Bowyer sent him a copy of the second, with a conciliatory letter. In 1765, at the request of Thomas Hollis, esq. our learned printer wrote a short Latin preface to Dr. Wallis’s “Grammatica Linguae Anglicanse.” A larger English preface, which was written by him, and intended for that work, is printed in his “Tracts.” Some copies of this book were sent by him to the rev. Edward Clarke, when, chaplain to the earl of Bristol at Madrid, to be given to the Spanish literati. Towards the latter end of the same year, in consequence of overtures from a few respectable friends at Cambridge, Mr. Bowyer had some inclination to have undertaken the management of the University press, by purchasing a lease of its exclusive privileges. He went, accordingly, to Cambridge for this purpose; but the treaty proved fruitless, and he did not much regret the disappointment. In the beginning of 1766, by engaging in a partnership with Mr. Nichols, he was again enabled to withdraw, in some degree, from that close application, which had begun to be prejudicial to his health. His new associate had been trained by him to the profession, and had assisted him several years in the management of business. He was very happy in this connection; and it is unnecessary to add how successfully Mr. Nichols has trod in the steps of his worthy and learned friend and partner. In, that year (1766) Mr. Bowyer wrote an excellent Latin preface to “Joannis Harduini, Jesuitae, ad Censuram Scriptorum veterum Prolegomena; juxta Autographum.” In this preface he gives an account of the nature of the work, and of the manner in which it had been preserved. Mr. De Missy’s remarks on the celebrated Jesuit’s extraordinary production were published about the same time, in a letter to Mr. Bowyer, written in Latin. In 1767, he was appointed to print the Journals of the House of Lords, and the Rolls of Parliament. The noble peer to whom he was indebted for this appointment, and his gratitude to whom is testified in the inscription which he left behind him, to be placed in Stationers Hall, was the earl of Marchmont. Mr. Bowyer was now compelled, from the want of sufficient room, to exchange White Fryars for Red Lion-passage; and it was not without reluctance that he quitted a residence to which he had been accustomed from his infancy. His new printing-house was opened with the sign of his favourite Cicero’s Head: under which was inscribed, “M, T, Cicero, A Quo Primordia Preli,” in allusion to the well-known early editions of Tally’s Offices. Having printed this year Mr. Clarke’s excellent and learned work on “The Connexion of the Roman, Saxon, and English Coins,” he wrote some notes upon it, which are interspersed throughout the volume with those of the author. Part of the dissertation on the Roman Sesterce was, likewise, Mr. Bowyer’s production; and the index, which is an uncommonly good one, and on which he did not a little pride himself, was drawn up entirely by him. On the 14th of January, 177 J, he lost his second wife, who died at the age of seventy. His old friend, Mr. Clarke, who had administered consolation to him, on a similar occasion, nearly forty years before, again addressed him with tenderness on this event. In the Philosophical Transactions for 1771, was printed a very ingenious “Enquiry intothe value of the antient Greek and Roman Money,” by the late Matthew Raper, esq. The opinions advanced by this respectable gentleman, on these subjects, not coinciding with those of Mr. Bowyer, he printed a small pamphlet, entitled, “Remarks, occasioned by a late Dissertation on the Greek and Roman Money.” The pamphlet was intended as an appendix to Mr. Clarke’s Treatise on Coins. The opinions of many excellent writers in Germany and France having been ably controverted in that elaborate work, Mr. Bowyer transmitted a copy of it to the French king’s library, and inscribed his little appendix,

, a nobleman of Scotland, of whose early years we have no account, began to make a figure in public life towards the end of the reign of James II. of Scotland. Being a man of great penetration and sound judgment, courteous and affable, he acquired the esteem and confidence of all ranks of people, as well as of his prince, who created him a baron by the title of lord Boyd, of Kilmarnock. In 1459, he was, with several other noblemen, sent to Newcastle, with the character of plenipotentiary, to prolong the truce with England, which had just fhen expired. On the death of James II. who was killed at the siege of Roxburgh, lord Boyd was made justiciary, and one of the lords of the regency, in whose hands the administration was lodged during the minority of the young king. His lordship had a younger brother who had received the honour of knighthood, sir Alexander Boyd of Duncow, a man in great credit with the king, whom he was appointed to teach the rudiments of military discipline; and between them, the two brothers found means to engross most of the places and preferments about the court. Sir Alexander began to instil into the young king, then twelve years old, that he was now capable of governing without the help of guardians and tutors, and that he might free himself from their restraint. This advice was readily listened to, and the king resolved to take upon himself the government, which, however, was no other than transferring the whole power, from the other regents, to the Boyds. The king was at this time at Linlithgow, and it was necessary to remove him to Edinburgh, to take upon him the regal government, which the Boyds effected, partly by force, and partly by stratagem. Haying got the king- to Edinburgh, lord Boyd began to provide for his own safety, and to avert the danger which, threatened him and his friends, for what they had done in the face of an act of parliament; and accordingly prevailed upon the king to call a parliament at Edinburgh, in October 1466; in which lord Boyd fell down upon his knees before the throne, where the king sat, and in an elaborate harangue, complained of the hard construction put upon the king’s removal from Linlithgow, and how ill this was interpreted by his enemies, who threatened that the advisers of that affair should one day suffer punishment; humbly beseeching his majesty to declare his own sense and pleasure thereupon, and that if he conceived any illwill or disgust against him for that journey, that he would openly declare it. The king, after advising a little with the lords, made answer, that the lord Boyd was not his adviser, but rather his companion in that journey; and therefore that he was more worthy of a reward for his courtesy, than of punishment for his obsequiousness or compliance therein; and this he was willing to declare in a public decree of the estates, and in the same decree provision should be made, that this matter should never be prejudicial to the lord Boyd or his companions. His lordship then desired, that this decree might be registered in the acts of the assembly, and confirmed by letters patent under the great seal, which was also complied with. At the same time also the king, by advice of his council, gave him letters patent, whereby he was constituted sole regent, and had the safety of the king, his brothers, sisters, towns, castles, and all the jurisdiction over his subjects, committed to him, till the king himself arrived to the age of twenty-one years. And the nobles then present solemnly promised to be assistant to the lord Boyd, and also to his brother, in all their public actions, and that they would be liable to punishment, if they did not carefully, and with faithfulness, perform what they then promised, to which stipulation the king also subscribed. Lord Boyd next contrived to be made Jord great chamberlain, and after this had the boldness to procure the lady Mary Stewart, the late king’s eldest daughter, in marriage for his son sir Thomas Boyd, notwithstanding the care and precaution of the parliament. The lord Boyd’s son was a most accomplished gentleman, and this match and near alliance to the crown, added to his own distinguished merit, raised him to a nearer place in the affection as well as confidence of his sovereign, by whom he was soon after created earl of Arran, and was now himself considered as the fountain from whence all honours and preferments must flow. The lord chamberlain, by this great accession of honour to his family, seemed to have arrived at the highest pinnacle of power and grandeur; but what seemed to establish his power, proved the very means of its overthrow. About this time, a marriage having been concluded, by ambassadors sent into Denmark for that purpose, between the young king of Scotland, and Margaret, a daughter of the king of Denmark, the earl of Arran was selected to go over to Denmark, to espouse the Danish princess in the king his brother-in-law’s name, and to conduct her to Scotland. The earl of Arran, judging all things safe at home, willingly accepted this honour; and, in the beginning of the autumn of 1469, set sail for Denmark with a proper convoy, and a noble train of friends and followers. This was, however, a fatal step, for the lord chamberlain, the earl’s father, being now much absent from the court in the necessary discharge of his office, as well as through age and infirmities, which was the case also of his brother sir Alexander Boyd; the earl of Arran had no sooner set out on his embassy, than every endeavour was tried to alienate the king’s affection from the Boyds. Every public miscarriage was laid at their door; and the Kennedies, their ancient enemies, industriously spread abroad reports, to inflame the people likewise against them. They represented to the king, that the lord Boyd had abused his power during his majesty’s minority; that his matching his son, the earl of Arran, with the princess Mary, was staining the royal blood of Scotland, was an indignity to the crown, and the prelude to the execution of a plot they had contrived of usurping even the sovereignty itself; for they represented the lord chamberlain as an ambitious, aspiring man, guilty of the highest offences, and capable of contriving and executing the worst of villanies: with what justice, history does not inform us. Buchanan only says the Boyds were the occasion of the king’s degeneracy into all manner of licentiousness, by their indulgence of his pleasures. The king, however, young, weak, credulous, and wavering, and naturally prone to jealousy, began to be alarmed, and was prevailed on to sacrifice, not only the earl of Arran, but all his family, to the resentment of their enemies, notwithstanding their ancestors’ great services to the crown, and in spite of the ties of blood which united them so closely. At the request of the adverse faction, the king summoned a parliament to meet at Edinburgh, the 20th of November, 1469, before which lord Boyd, the earl of Arran, though in Denmark, and sir Alexander Boyd of Duncow, were summoned to appear, to give an account of their administration, and answer such charges as should be exhibited against them. Lord Boyd, astonished at this sudden blow, betook himself to arms; but, finding it im-r possible to stem the torrent, made his escape into England; but his brother, sir Alexander, being then sick, and trusting to his own integrity, was brought before the parliament, where he, the lord Boyd, and his son the earl of Arran, were indicted of high-treason, for having laid hands on the king, and carried him, against an act of parliament, and contrary to the king’s own will, from Linlithgow to Edinburgh, in 1466. Sir Alexander alleged in his defence, that they had not only obtained the king’s pardon for that'offence in a public convention, but it was even declared a good service by a subsequent act of parliament; but no regard was had to this, because it was obtained by the Boyds when in power, and masters of the king’s person: and the crime being proved against them, they were found guilty by a jury of lords and barons; and sir Alexander Boyd, being present, was condemned to lose his head on the Castle-hill of Edinburgh, which sentence was executed accordingly. The lord Boyd would have undergone the same fate, if he had not inade his escape into England, where, however, he did not long survive his great reverse of fortune, dying at Alnwick in 1470. The earl of Arran, though absent upon public business, was declared a public enemy, without being granted a hearing, or allowed the privilege of defending himself, and his estates confiscated. Things were in this situation, when he arrived from Denmark, with the espoused queen, in the Frith of Forth. Before he landed he received intelligence of the wreck and ruin of his family, and resolved to retire into Denmark; and without staying to attend the ceremonial of the queen’s landing, he took the opportunity of one of those Danish ships which convoyed the queen, and were under his command, and embarking his lady, set sail for Denmark, where he met with a reception suitable to his high birth. From thence he travelled through Germany into France, and went to pay a visit to Charles duke of Burgundy, who received him most graciously, and being then at war with his rebellious subjects, the unfortunate lord offered him his service, which the duke readily accepted, and finding him to be a brave and wise man, he honoured and supported him and his lady, in a manner becoming their rank. But the king their brother, not yet satisfied with the miseries of their family, wrote over to Flanders to recal his sister home; and fearing she would not be induced to leave him, he caused others to write to her, and give her hopes that his anger towards her husband might be appeased, and that if she would come over and plead for him in person, there was no doubt but she might prevail with her brother to restore him again to his favour. The countess of Arran, flattered with these hopes, returned, and was no sooner arrived in Scotland, than the king urged her to a divorce from her husband, cruelly detained her from going back to him, and caused public citations, attested by witnesses, to be fixed up at Kilmarnock, the seat of the Boyds, wherein Thomas earl of Arran was commanded to appear in sixty days, which he not doing, his marriage with the king’s sister was declared null and void, and a divorce made (according to Buchanan), the earl still absent and unheard; and the lady Mary was compelled, by the king, to marry James lord Hamilton, a man much inferior to her former husband both in point of birth and fortune. This transaction was in 1474; and the earl of Arran, now in the last stage of his miseries, and borne down with the heavy load of his misfortunes, soon al'ter, died at Antwerp, and was honourably interred there. The character of him and of his father is variously represented. That they were ambitious, and regardless of the means of gratifying that ambition, cannot well be denied, nor are we permitted to censure with great asperity their enemies who effected their ruin by similar measures and with similar motives. Their fall undoubtedly holds out an useful lesson, but the experience of others, especially of examples in history, seldom checks the progress of that ambition that has once commenced in success.

, a descendant of the preceding, and fourth and last earl of Kilmarnock, was born in 1704, and was but thirteen years old when his father died: he discovered early a genius not unequal to his birth, but found the family estate pretty much encumbered, and great part of the patrimony alienated, which was by no means answerable to his lordship’s generous and noble disposition. It was also his misfortune to be too soon let loose among the gaieties and pleasures of life. As he grew up, instead of applying himself to study, he launched out into the world in pursuit of pleasures which were more expensive than his fortune could support, and by this means considerably reduced his estate, which, from the most probable conjecture, was the true reason of his taking up arms against the king. Indeed, his lordship himself owns in his confession to Mr. Foster (while under sentence), that his rebellion was a kind of desperate scheme, proceeding originally from his vices, to extricate himself from the distress of his circumstances; for he says, “the true root of all was his careJess and dissolute life, by which he had reduced himself to great and perplexing difficulties; that the exigency of his affairs was in particular very pressing at the time of the rebellion; and that, besides the general hope he had of mending his fortune by the success of it, he was also tempted by another prospect of retrieving his circumstances, by following the Pretender’s standard.” It does not appear that his lordship was in the original design of the rebellion: on the contrary, he declared both in his speech at the bar of the house of lords, and in his petition to the king after his sentence, that it was not tilt after the battle of Preston Pans that he became a party in it, having, till then, neither influenced his tenants or followers to assist or abet the rebellion; but, on the contrary, influenced the inhabitants of the town of Kilmarnock, and the neighbouring boroughs, to rise in arms for his majesty’s service, which had so good an effect, that two hundred men from Kilmarnock very soon appeared in arms, and remained so all the winter at Glasgow and other places. It is said, that when the earl joined the Pretender’s standard, he was received by him with great marks of esteem and distinction; was declared of his privy-council, made colonel of the guards, and promoted to the degree of a general (though his lordship himself says, he was far from being a person of any consequence among them). How he behaved in these stations (quite new to him, and foreign from his former manner of life), we cannot determine; but common fame says, he displayed considerable courage till the fatal battle of Culloden, when he was taken, or rather surrendered himself, prisoner, to the king’s troops, though involuntarily, and with a design to have facilitated his escape: for he acknowledged to Mr. Foster, whilst under sentence, that when he saw the king’s dragoons, and made towards them, he thought they had been Fitz-James’s horse; and that if he could have reached them by mounting behind one of the dragoons, his escape would have been more certain, than when he was on foot. Yet, in his speech to the house of lords, he made a merit of having surrendered himself, at a time when he said he could easily have made his escape, and in this he owned, when in a state of repentance, that he had not spoken truth. His lordship was brought to the Tower, and on Monday the 28th of July, 174-6, was, together with the earl of Cromartie, and lord Balmerino, conducted to Westminster-hall, and at the bar of the lord high-steward’s court, arraigned, and pleaded guilty to his indictment, submitting himself to his majesty’s mercy and clemency. On the Wednesday following, the three lords were again brought from the Tower to receive sentence, when the lord Kilmarnock being asked by the lord high-steward, if he had any thing to offer why sentence of death should not be passed upon him, his lordship, addressing himself to his grace and the whole august assembly, then consisting of an hundred and thirty-six peers, delivered an eloquent speech, after which, sentence of death was pronounced upon him, and he returned to the Tower. After this, he presented petitions to the king, the prince of Wales, and duke of Cumberland, wherein he set forth his family’s constant attachment to the revolution interest, and that of the illustrious house of Hanover; his father’s zeal and activity in support of both in the rebellion in 1715, and his own appearing in arms (though then but young) under his father, and the whole tenour of his conduct ever since that time. But the services of his forefathers could not satisfy the public demand for justice, nor avail him so far as to procure him pardon. He was beheaded on Towerhill, August 18, 1746, and was interred in the Tower church, with this inscription upon his coffin, viz. “Gulielmus Comes de Kilmarnock, decollat. 18 Augusti, 1746, aetat. suae 42.” His lordship’s whole deportment, from the time he was condemned till his execution, was suitable to one in his unhappy circumstances. He gave the most lively marks of a sincere humiliation and repentance for all his miscarriages, and his behaviour in the hour of death was resigned, but strictly decent and awful. He had himself observed, with great truth, that for a man who had led a dissolute life, and yet believed the consequences of death, to put on an air of daringness and absolute intrepidity, must argue him either to be very stupid or very impious. He was a nobleman of fine address and polite behaviour; his person was tall and graceful; his countenance mild, but his complexion pale; and he had abilities, which, if they had been properly applied, might have rendered him capable of bringing an increase of honour to his family, instead of ruin and disgrace. His lordship lived and died in the public profession of the church of Scotland, and left behind him a widow (who was the lady Anne Livingston, daughter of James earl of Linlithgow and Callander (attainted in 1715), with whom he had a considerable fortune), and three sons, the eldest of whom his lordship had educated in the principles of duty and loyalty to his majesty, and in whose service he fought against the rebels. He succeeded, upon the death of Mary, countess of Errol, in 1758, to her estate and honours, his mother having been undoubted heir of line of that noble family, and he was the sixteenth earl of Errol. He died June 3, 1778, leaving issue.

, an eminent Scotch divine, of the same family as the preceding, being a descendant of Robert Boyd, earl of Arran, sometime protector of Scotland, from whom descended James Boyd, baron of Trochrig, the father of the subject of this article. He was born in 1578, and educated at the university of Edinburgh, where he took his master’s degree. In 1604, according to the custom of the times, he travelled into France, and studied for some time under Rivet, improving himself in Greek and Hebrew, and in French, which he spoke with great fluency. He was afterwards invited by tt:e university of Montauban to be professor of philosophy, and in the mean time himself studied divinity, dnd was ordained according to the forms of the French reformed church. In 1608 he was removed to a professorship at Saumur, which he filled until 1614, and both as a preacher and teacher was much admired and eagerly followed. His fame reaching the ears of his sovereign, king James, he sent him a pressing invitation to fill the divinity chair in the university oi Glasgow, in consequence of which he removed thither in 1615, to the great sorrow of his friends at SaumiT, and the university at large. He was enabled soon, in conjunction with some able colleagues, to raise the reputation of the Glasgow university, the mode of study in which he reformed from the useless and disputatious modes of the schools. His situation, however, afcerwards became embarrassed from the disputes which arose respecting the scheme of king James to assimilate the churches of England and Scotland, which was highly unpopular in the latter country. Boyd’s education, and especially his associations abroad, had inclined him to the presbyterian form of church government, and finding that he could not under such circumstances retain his situation as preacher and professor at Glasgow, he resigned both, and went to live privately on an estate which he possessed. Endeavours were made to fix him in Edinburgh, and afterwards to recall him to Glasgow, but these not being successful, he finally retired from public life to Carrick, his estate, where he died Jan. 5, 1627. He wrote in very elegant Latin, a commentary on the epistle to the Ephesians, which was published under the title “Roberti Bodii Scoti Praelectiones in Epistolam ad Ephesios,” Lond. 1652, fol.

, a celebrated statesman, descended from an ancient and honourable family, and distinguished by the title of the great earl of Cork, was the youngest son of Mr. Roger Boyle of Herefordshire, by Joan, daughter of Robert Naylor of Canterbury, and born in the city of Canterbury, Oct. 3, 1566. He was instructed in grammar learning by a clergyman of Kent; and after having been a scholar in Ben'et college, Cambridge, where he was remarkable for early rising, indefatigable study, and great temperance, became student in the Middle Temple. He lost his father when he was but ten years old, and his mother at the expiration of other ten years; and being unable to support himself in the prosecution of his studies, he entered into the service of sir Richard Manwood, chief baron of the exchequer, as one of his clerks: but perceiving few advantages from this employment, he resolved to travel, and landed at Dublin in June 1588, with a very scanty stock, his whole property amounting, as he himself informs us, to 271. 3s. in money, two trinkets which his mother gave him as tokens, and his wearing apparel. He was then about two-and-twenty, had a graceful person, and all the accomplishments for a young man to succeed in a country which was a scene of so much action. Accordingly he made himself very useful to some of the principal persons employed in the government, by penning for them memorials, cases, and answers; and thereby acquired a perfect knowledge of the kingdom and the state of publia affairs, of which he knew well how to avail himself. In 1595 he married at Limeric, Joan, the daughter and coheiress of William Ansley of Pulborough, in Sussex, <esq. who had fallen in love with him. This lady died 1599, in labour of her first child (born dead) leaving her husband an estate of 500l. a year in lands, which was the beginning of his fortune. Some time after, sir Henry Wallop, of Wares, sir Robert Gardiner, chief justice of the king’s bench, sir Robert Dillam, chief justice of the common pleas, and sir Richard Binghim, chief commissioner of Connaught, envious at certain purchases he had made in the province, represented to queen Elizabeth that he was in the pay of the king of Spain (who had at that time some thoughts of invading Ireland), by whom he had been furnished with money to buy several large estates; and that he was strongly suspected to be a Roman catholic in his heart, with many other malicious suggestions equally groundless. Mr. Boyle, having private notice of this, determined to come over to England to justify himself: but, before he could take shipping, the general rebellion in Minister broke out, all his lands were wasted, and he had not one penny of certain revenue left. In this distress he betook himself to his former chamber in the Middle Temple, intending to renew his studies in the law till the rebellion should be suppressed. When the earl of Essex was nominated lord-deputy of Ireland, Mr. Boyle, being recommended to him by Mr. Anthony Bacon, was received by his lordship very graciously; and sir Henry Wallop, treasurer of Ireland, knowing that Mr. Boyle had in his custody several papers which could detect his roguish manner of passing his accounts, resolved utterly to depress him, and for that end renewed his former complaints against him to the queen. By her majesty’s special directions, Mr. Boyle was suddenly taken up, and committed close prisoner to the Gatehouse: all his papers were seized and searched; and although nothing appeared to his prejudice, yet his confinement lasted till two months after his new patron the earl of Essex was gone to Ireland, At length, with much difficulty, he obtained the favour of the queen to be present at his examination; and having fully answered whatever was alledged against him, he gave a short account of his behaviour since he first settled in Ireland, and concluded with laying open to the queen and her council the conduct of his chief enemy sir Henry Wallop. Upon which her majesty exclaimed with, her usual intemperance of speech, “By God’s death, these are but inventions against this young man, and all his sufferings are for being able to do us service, and these complaints urged to forestal him therein. But we find him to be a man fit to be employed by ourselves; and we will employ him in our service: and Wallop and his adherents shall know that it shall not be in the power of any of them, to wrong him. Neither -shall Wallop be our treasurer any longer.” Accordingly, she gave orders not only for Mr. Boyle’s present enlargement, but also for paying all the charges and fees his confinement had brought upon him, and gave him her hand to kiss before the whole assembly. A few days after, the queen constituted him clerk of the council of Munster, and recommended him to sir George Carew, afterwards earl of Totness, then lord president of Munster, who became his constant friend; and very soon, after he was made justice of the peace and of the quorum, throughout all the province. He attended in that capacity the lord president in all his employments, and was sent by his lordship to the queen with the news of the victory gained in December 1601, near Kinsate, over the Irish, and their Spanish auxiliaries, who were totally routed, 1200 being slain in the field, and 800 wounded. “I made,” says he, “a speedy expedition to the court, for I left my lord president at Shannon -castle, near Cork, on the Monday morning about two of the clock; and the next day, being Tuesday, I delivered my packet, and supped with sir Robert Cecil, being then principal secretary of state, at his house in the Strand; who, after supper, held me in discourse till two of the clock in the morning; and by seven that morning called upon me to attend him to the court, where he presented me to her majesty in her bedchamber.” A journey so rapid as this would be thought, even in the present more improved modes of travelling, requires all his lordship’s authority to render it credible.

In 1602, Mr. Boyle, by advice of his friend sir George Carew, paid his addresses to Mrs. Catherine Fenton, daughter of sir Geoffry Fenton, whom he married on the 25th of July, 1603, her father being at that time principal secretary of state. “I never demanded,” says he, “any marriage portion with her, neither promise of any, it not being in my considerations; yet her father, after my marriage, gave me one thousand pounds in gold with her. But that gift of his daughter to me, I must ever thankfully acknowledge as the crown of all my blessings; for she was a most religious, virtuous, loving, and obedient wife to me all the days of her life, and the mother of all my hopeful children .” He received on his wedding day, July 23, 1603, the honour of knighthood from his friend sir George Carew, now promoted to be lord-deputy of Ireland: March 12, 1606, he was sworn a privy counsellor to king James, for the province of Munster Feb. 15, 1612, he was sworn a privy counsellor of stete of the kingdom of Ireland Sept. 29, 1616, he was created lord Boyle, baron of Youghall: Oct. 16, 1620, viscount of Dungarvon, and earl of Cork. Lord Falkland, the lord-deputy, having represented his services in a just light to king Charles I. his majesty sent his excellency a letter, dated Nov. 30, 1627, directing him to confer the honours of baron and viscount upon the earl’s second surviving son Lewis, though he was then only eight years old, by the title of Baron of Bandonbridge, and viscount Boyle of Kinalmeaky in the county of Cork.