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

After the last publication of his “Gleanings,” being arrived at his seventieth year, he found that his sight began to fail him, and that his hand lost its steadiness. He continued, however, some years afterward in his office of librarian; but finding his infirmities to increase, he retired in 1769 from public employment, to a small house which be had purchased at Plaistow: previously to which he disposed of all the copies, as well as plates, of his works to the late Mr. Robson, bookseller in New Bond-street, who published the Linnaean Index, his papers from the Philosophical Transactions, with the plates relative to these subjects all new engraved, in 1776, in a proper size to bind with his other vorks, the whole of which he assigned to Mr. Robson solely, and addressed a letter to the public upon the occasion, dated May 1, 1709. His collection of drawings, amounting to upwards of nine hundred, had before been purchased by the earl of Bute. The conversation of a few select friends, and the perusal of a few choice books, w,ere his amusement in the evening of his life, and he occasionally made excursions to some of the principal cities in England. During his residence at Plaistow, however, he delineated some scarce animals, which were afterwards engraved. His latter years were much embittered by a cancerous complaint which deprived him of the sight of one of his eyes, and by the stone, to which he had been subject at different periods of his life. It was nevertheless remarked, that in the severest paroxysms of misery, he was scarcely known to utter a single complaint. Having completed his eightieth ye?.r, and become emaciated with age and sickness, he died on the 23d of July, 1773, and was Interred in the church-yard of WestHam, his native parish, where his executors erected a stone with a plain inscription, to perpetuate his talents as an artist and zoologist. Dying a bachelor, he left his fortune to two sisters, who did not long survive him.

The early part of Mr. Edwards’s life was chiefly spent in town, and at Pitzhanger in Middlesex. But in 1739 he purchased an estate at Turrick, in the parish of Ellesborough, in Buckinghamshire, where he resided till his decease. This, however, did not prevent his frequent mixture with his literary friends, who were numerous and, respectable, both in rank and character. It appears that he was acquainted with Richard Owen Cambridge, esq. the honourable Philip Yorke (afterwards second earl of Hardwicke), Daniel Wray, esq. the honourable Charles Yorke, Isaac Hawkins Browne, esq. the lord chancellor Hardwicke, archbishop Herring, lord Willoughby of Parham, Mr. Samuel Richardson, George Onslow, esq. (now lord Onslow), Dr. Heberden, the right honourable Arthur Onslow, Mr. Highmore the painter, and other accomplished gentlemen. Dr. Akenside’s regard for him has already been displayed. Three of his letters to Dr. Birch may be perused in the fifty-third volume of the Gentleman’s Magazine;" and Mrs. Chapone, -when Miss Mulso, addressed an elegant ode to him, which he answered by a sonnet.

In 1770, he was presented by the crown to the valuable vicarage of Nuneaton in Warwickshire; which preferment he is understood to have obtained through the interest of the corporation of Coventry, and some private friends, with the earl of Hertford, lord lieutenant of the county. Our author, in 1773,. published a sermon, entitled “The indispensable Duty of contending for the Faith which was once delivered to the Saints,” preached before the university of Cambridge, on the 29th of June, 1766, being commencement Sunday. In 1779, he resigned the mastership of the free grammar-school of Coventry, and the rectory of St. John’s, and retired to Nuneaton, where he resided during the remainder of his life. His last publication was given to the world in the same year. The title of it is “Selecta quaedam Theocrki Idyllia. Recensuit, variorum notas adjecit, suasque animadversiones, partim Latine, partim Anglice, scriptas immiscuit, Thomas Edwards, S. T. P.” 8vo. This work reflects honour on the accuracy and extent of our author’s classical literature. Though, the original text of what is selected from Theocritus consists only of about three hundred and fifty lines, the notes are extended through upwards of two hundred and fifty pages, besides more than twenty pages, consisting of addenda, corrigenda, collationes, &c. Dr. Ed wards’ s reason for his being so minute and particular in many of his animadversions, was, that he might- give every possible kind of assistance to young persons, for whom the book was principally intended. Having written the notes sometimes in Latin, and sometimes in English, as chance or inclination directed, he thought proper to publish them in that promiscuous form. It would, however, undoubtedly have been preferable uniformly to have composed them in the Latin language. There are two appendiculae at the end of the volume; one containing the editor’s reasons for not prefixing the accentual marks to his own and Mr. Warton’s notes; and the other affording hints of a new method which he had discovered, of scanning Greek and Latin hexameters, the usual mode of doing it being, as he thought, erroneous. A fuller explanation of his system was intended to be given by him in avork which he had in contemplation, designed to be entitled “Miscellanea Critica,” but which was not carried into execution. He had also made collections for an edition of Quintus Curtius. 1 In May 1784, Dr. Edwards lost his wife, a lady of distinguished good sense, and of the most engaging manners; and he, who had passed his life in his study, and was totally unacquainted with domestic concerns, and indeed with worldly affairs of every kind, never enjoyed himself after this event. What aggravated his distress was, that, previously to Mrs. Edwards’s death, he had been afflicted with a stroke of the palsy, from which, however, he so far recovered as to be capable of discharging part of his parochial duties. But, within a few months after her decease", he had a second stroke, for which he was advised to go to Bath, but received no benefit from his journey. He departed this life at Nuneaton, on the 30th of June, 1785, in the fifty -sixth year of his age; and on the 7th of July, was interred in the church-yard belonging to the parish of Foleshill, in the same grave with his wife. An inscription on a mural marble, contains nothing of moment excepting the dates already specified.

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

The lord chancellor, having repelled, with credit and success, this extraordinary attack, and being recovered from his indisposition, was, on the 12th of May 1616, constituted lord high steward for the trial of Robert earl of Somerset and Frances his wife, for poisoning sir Thomas Overbury, who were both convicted. After their conviction the chancellor resolutely and consistently refused to affix the great seal to the very extraordinary pardon granted, and already signed by the too indulgent lenity of the king, which was copied from one granted by the pope to cardinal Wolsey, and which ran in these words: “That the king, of his mere motion and special favour, did pardon all and all manner of treasons, misprisions of treasons, murders, felonies, and outrages whatsoever, by the said Robert Carre, earl of Somerset, committed, or hereafter to be committed.”

The lord chancellor was now more than seventy-six years of age, and feeling both the powers of his mind and body shrink under the pressure of old age and infirmity, by the most earnest solicitations he entreated the king to give him an honourable discharge from his high office; partly from a scrupulous apprehension and conscientious diffidence of being competent to bear the fatigues, and to discharge the duties of it as he ought; but principally from an ardent desire to retreat from the busy scenes of office, in order to devote the evening of a life, spent in the honest and faithful discharge of a high profession, to religious meditation. These sentiments he conveyed to the king in two pathetic letters, who at last consented, though he, as well as the prince of Wales, had endeavoured to induce him, as much as possible, to remain in, office. King James parted with an old and faithful servant with all imaginable tenderness, and, as a mark of his royal favour and approbation, advanced him to the dignity of viscount Brackley on the 7th of November, 1616. Though he then resigned the duties of that high and important office of state, the king let him, however, keep the seal in possession till the beginning of Hilary term following, when, according to Camden, on the 3d of March, 1617, his majesty went to visit the chancellor, and received it from his hands with tears of gratitude and respect. On the seventh it was committed to the custody of sir Francis Bacon, the person whom his lordship desired might succeed him. Another author says, that the king sent secretary Winwood for the seal w.ith this gracious message, “That himself would be his underkeeper, and not dispose of it while he lived to bear the title of chancellor,” and that no one received it out of the king’s sight till lord chancellor Egerton’s death, which followed soon after: these accounts are very reconcileable, as the king might both receive it in form from the chancellor’s hands and send his secretary for it afterwards. On the 24th of January he had, for the same reasons, resigned the office of chancellor of the university of Oxford, and was succeeded by the earl of Pembroke.

His lordship’s illness increasing, the king, as a farther testimony of his affection and good- will, sent the earl of Buckingham and sir Francis Bacon on the 15th of March to signify his intention of honouring him with an earldom, accompanied with an annual pension. These honours he did not live to receive, but the king conferred the former upon his son, John Egerton, afterwards created earl of Bridgewater. The age in which he lived was a particular aera of the British annals, distinguished by many great and extraordinary public characters: but, whilst the misconduct or misfortune of a Devereux, a Raleigh, a Bacon, and a Coke, exposed them to public disgrace, or to an ignominious death; the prudence, discretion, and integrity of lord Ellesmere, secured him a safe and honourable retreat from this life; for, he died at York-house, in the Strand, on the 15th of March, 1617, in his seventy-seventh year, “in a good old age, and full of virtuous fame,” and in the words of Camden, “Forte quanto propius reipublicse mala viderat, ut integer honestum finem voluit.” To sum up his character, says bishop Hacket, the biographer of archbishop Williams, he was one “Qui nihil in vita nisi laudandum aut fecit, aut dixit, aut sensit.” He was buried at Doddleston, in Cheshire, on the 6th of April.

, late bishop of Durham, a descendant of the preceding, was the son of Henry Egerton, bishop of Hereford (fifth son of John third earl of Bridgewater, by lady Jane Powlett, first daughter of Charles duke of Bolton), who marrying lady Elizabeth Ariana Bentinck, daughter of William earl of Portland, had by her one daughter and five sons, of whom John was the eldest. He was born in London, on the 30th of November, 1721, was educated at Eton school, and admitted a gentleman commoner in Oriel college, Oxford, upon the 20th of May 1740, under the tuition of the rev. Dr. Bentham, afterwards regius professor of divinity in that university, where he prosecuted his studies extensively and successfully for six or seven years. He was ordained deacon privately by Dr. Benjamin Hoadly, bishop of Worcester, in Grosvenor chapel, Westminster, on the 21st of Dec. 1745, and the following day he was ordained priest, at a general ordination holden by the same bishop in the same place. On the 23d he was collated by his father to the living of Ross in Herefordshire, and on the 28th was inducted by Robert Breton archdeacon of Hereford. On the 3d of January 1746 (a short time before his father’s death, which happened on the 1st of April following), he was collated to the canonry or prebend of Cublington, in the church of Hereford. Upon the 30th of May 1746, he took the degree of bachelor of civil law, for which he went out grand compounder. On the 21st of November 1748 he married Indy Anne Sophia, daughter of Henry de Grey, duke of Kent, by Sophia, daughter of William Bentinck, earl of Portland. He was appointed chaplain in ordinary to the king upon the lyth of March 1749; and was promoted to the deanery of Hereford on the 24th of July 1750. He was consecrated bishop of Bangor on the 4th of July 1756, at Lambeth; and had the temporalities restored to him upon the 22d, previously to which, on the 21st of May, the university of Oxford conferred upon him the degree of LL. D. by diploma, and he was empowered to hold the living of Ross, and the prebend of Cublington, with that bishopric, in commendam, dated the 1st of July. On the 12th of November 1768, he was translated to the see of Lichfield and Coventry, with which he held the prebend of Weldland, and residentiary ship of St. Paul’s, and also the two preferments before mentioned. He was inducted, installed, and enthroned at Lichfield by proxy, upon the 22d of November, and had the temporalities restored upon, the 26th. On the death of Dr. Richard Trevor, he was elected to the see of Durham, upon the 8th of July 1771, and was confirmed on the 20th in St. James’s church, Westminster. Upon the 2d of August following he was enthroned and installed at Durham by proxy. The temporalities of the see were restored to his lordship on the 15th of August, and on the 3d of September he made his public entry into his palatinate. On his taking possession of the bishopric, he found the county divided by former contested elections, which had destroyed the general peace: no endeavours were wanting on his part to promote and secure a thorough reconciliation of contending interests, on terms honourable and advantageous to all; and when the affability, politeness, and condescension, for which he was distinguished, uniting in a person of his high character and station, had won the affections of ll parties to himself, he found less difficulty in reconciling them to each other, and had soon the high satisfaction to see men of the first distinction in the county conciliated by his means, and meeting in good neighbourhood at his princely table. The harmony he had so happily restored, he was equally studious to preserve, which he effectually did, by treating the nobility and gentry of the county at all times with a proper regard, by paying an entire and impartial attention to their native interests, by forbearing to improve any opportunities of influencing their parliamentary choice in favour of his own family or particular friends, and by consulting on all occasions the honour of the palatinate. The same conciliating interposition he had used in the county, he employed in the city of Durham with the same success. At the approach of the general election in 1780 he postponed granting the Mew charter, which would considerably enlarge the number of voters, till some months after the election, that he might maintain the strictest neutrality between the candidates, and avoid even the imputation of partiality; and when he confirmed it, and freely restored to the city all its ancient rights, privileges, and immunities, in the most ample and advantageous form, he selected the members of the new corporation, with great care, out of the most moderate and respectable of the citizens, regardless of every consideration but its peace and due regulation; objects which he steadily held in view, and in the attainment of which he succeeded to his utmost wish, and far beyond his expectation. A conduct equally calculated to promote order and good government, he displayed, if possible, still more conspicuously in the spiritual than in the temporal department of his double office. Towards the chapter, and towards the body of the clergy at large, he exercised every good office, making them all look up to him as their common friend and father: and to those who had enjoyed the special favour of his predecessor, he was particularly kind and attentive, both from a sense of their merit, and that he might mitigate in some degree their loss of so excellent a friend and patron. In the discharge of all his episcopal functions, he was diligent and conscientious. He was extremely scrupulous whom he admitted into orders, in respect of their learning, character, and religious tenets. In his visitations, he urged and enforced the regularity, the decorum, and the well-being of the church, by a particular inquiry into the conduct of its ministers, encouraging them to reside upon their several henetices, and manifesting upon all opportunities, a sincere and active concern for the interests and accommodation of the inferior clergy. His charges were the exact transcripts of his mind. Objections have been made to some compositions of this kind, that they bear the resemblance of being as specious as sincere, and are calculated sometimes, perhaps, rather a little more to raise the reputation of their author as a fine writer, than to edify the ministry and advance religion. Of the charges his lordship delivered, it may truly be said, that, upon such occasions, he recommended nothing to his clergy which he did not practise in his life, and approve of in his closet.

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

His grace died at his house in Cleveland-row, in the morning of March 8, 1803, after a cold which brought on the complaints accompanying the influenza. He was never married; and his celibacy is asserted to have been occasioned (though we do not vouch for the fact) by a circumstance which is said to have occurred in early life. We understand it to be in substance as follows: the duke being on a visit at a friend’s, who was on the eve of marriage, the lady to whom he was betrothed took a fancy to his grace; and, forgetting her own dignity and her sacred engagement to another, made an easy sacrifice of her virtue to him. This occurrence is said to have wrought so strongly on his grace’s mind, as to have indelibly impressed on it an idea of general infidelity in the sex, and to have determined him against ever entering the pale of matrimony. If this statement be true, it affords a striking instance of what is not very uncommon among men; namely, of a great and enlightened mind being led, by a peculiar incident, into a general conclusion; and, in this case, a conclusion which, for the honour of the fair part of our species, we trust and believe, is equally unfounded in. nature and experience, and no less libellous than unwarranted. By his active spirit, and his unshaken perseverance, he amassed immense wealth. But the public grew rich with him; and his labours were not more profitable to himself than they were to his country. His return to the income-tax was 110,000l. a-year the greater part acquired by his own exertions, and derived from circumstances of the highest benefit to the nation. To the loyally loan he subscribed 100,000l. all in ready money, at one time. By his will he left most of his houses, his plate, his pictures, valued at 150,000l. and his estate lately purchased at Woolmers, in Hertfordshire, to earl Gower, together with his canal property in Lancashire, which brings in from 50 to 80,000l. per annum. All this property is entailed on earl Gower’s second son, lord Francis Levison Gower: the first son will inherit the marquis of Stafford’s estates. To general Egerton, now earl of Bridgewater, he bequeathed the estate of Ashridge, in Hertfordshire, and other estates in Bucks, Salop, and Yorkshire, to the amount of 30,000l. per annum. About 600,000l. in the funds he left chiefly to general Egerton, and partly among the countess of Carlisle, lady Anne Vernon, and lady Louisa Macdonald, the chief baron’s lady all of whom were his relations.

, the founder of Queen’s college, Oxford, rector of Burgh or Brough in Westmoreland, and confessor to Philippa, Edward lll.'s queen, deserves a more ample notice than at this distance of time can be procured; nor have we arty particulars to add to the account given in another place. His descent appears to have been honourable, and more than once the county of Cumberland was represented in parliament by a member of the house. They had considerable estates in different parts of that county; and we find that either the founder of the college, or one of the family of the same name, received of Edward III. in exchange for the manor of La I e ham in Middlesex, the manor of Uavenwick or Renwick, in Cumberland, which had been forfeited to the king’s father Ldward II. on the attainder of Andrew de Harcla, earl of Carlisle, in 1323. This manor is now the property of the college.

Elizabeth was at Hatfield, when she heard of her sister’s death, Nov. 17, 1558, and hastening up to London, was received by the multitude with universal acclamations. Even the catholics, it is said, were not sorry at an event which promised greater security to the civil liberties of the nation. On her entrance into the Tower, then a royal palace, she could not refrain from remarking on the difference of her present and her former visit when a prisoner. Not to alarm the partizans of the catholic religion too much, before her power should be completely established, she retained eleven of her sister’s counsellors, but in order to balance their authority, she added eight who were known to be attached to the pwtestant interest, namely the marquis of Northampton, the earl of Bedford, sir Thomas Parry, sir Edward Rogers, sir Ambrose Cave, sir Francis Knolles, sir Nicholas Bacon, whom she created lord keeper, and sir William Cecil, secretary of state. With these counsellors, particularly Cecil, she frequently deliberated concerning the means of restoring the protestant religion, and by his advice, her first measure was to recall all the exiles who had fled from her sister’s tyranny, and give liberty to all prisoners who were confined on account of religion. She next published a proclamation by which she forbade all preaching without a special licence. She also suspended the laws so far as to have a great part of the service read in English, and forbade the host to be any more elevated in her presence. A parliament soon after, in 1539, sanctioned these acts of the prerogative; and in one session the form of religion was established as it has ever since remained; and to show what a deep root the principles of the reformation had taken, even in her bloody sister’s reign, it is upon record, that out of 9400 beneficed clergymen, which was the number of those in the kingdom, only fourteen bishops, twelve archdeacons, fifteen heads ef colleges, and about eighty of the parochial clergy, a number not exceeding 121, chose to quit their preferments rather than give up their religion.

The armada had now reached Calais, and cast anchor before that place; in expectation that the duke of Parma, who had gotten intelligence of their approach, would put to sea and join his forces to them. The English admiral practised here a successful stratagem upon the Spaniards. He took eight of his smaller ships, and filling them with all combustible materials, sent them one after another into the midst of the enemy. The Spaniards fancied that they were fireships of the same contrivance with a famous vessel which had lately done so much execution in the Scheld near Antwerp; and they immediately cut their cables, and took to flight with the greatest disorder and precipitation. The English fell upon them next morning while in confusion; and besides doing great damage to other ships, they took oV destroyed about twelve of the enemy. By this time it was become apparent, that the intention for which these preparations were made by the Spaniards, was entirely frustrated. The vessels provided by the duke of Parma were made for transporting soldiers, not for fighting; and that general, when urged to leave the harbour, positively refused to expose his flourishing army to such apparent hazard; while the English were not only able to keep the sea, but seemed even to triumph over their enemy. The Spanish admiral found, in many rencounters, that while he lost so considerable a part of his own navy, he had destroyed only one small vessel of the English and he foresaw that by continuing so unequal a combat, he must draw inevitable destruction on all the remainder. He prepared therefore to return homewards; but as the wind was contrary to his passage through the channel, he resolved to sail northwards, and making the tour of the island, reach the Spanish harbours by the ocean. The English feet followed him during some time; and had not their ammuniiion fallen short, by the negligence of the offices in supplying them, they had obliged the whole armada to surrender at discretion. The duke of Medina had once taken that resolution; but was diverted from it by the advice of his confessor. This conclusion of the enterprize would have been more glorious to the English; but the event proved almost equally fatal to the Spaniards. A violent tempest overtook the armada after it passed the Orkneys; the ships had already lost their anchors, and were obliged to keep to sea; the mariners, unaccustomed to such hardships, and not able to govern such unwieldy vessels, yielded to the fury of the storm, and allowed their ships to drive either on the western isles of Scotland, or on the coast of Ireland, where they were miserably wrecked^ Not a half of the navy returned to Spain; and the seamen as well as soldiers who remained, were so overcome with hardships and fatigue, and so dispirited by their discomfiture, that they filled all Spain with accounts of the desperate valour of the English, and of the tempestuous violence of that ocean which surrounds them. Such was the miserable and dishonourable conduct of an enterprize which had been preparing for three years, which had exhausted the revenue and force of Spain, and which had long filled all Europe with anxiety or expectation, and which was intended to have destroyed the civil liberties, as well as the reformed religion, in England. Soon after this, which was one of the most important events in the history of Elizabeth, or any other sovereign of England, Elizabeth became the ally of Henry IV. in order to vindicate his title, and establish him firmly on the throne of France, and for some years the Englisii auxiliaries served in France, while several naval expeditions, undertaken by individuals, or by the queen, raised the reputation of England to an extraordinary height. At this period Robert Devereux earl of Essex, the queen’s favourite, highly distinguished himself; but the events of his unfortunate life have been already given. (See Devereux.)

In 1601, Elizabeth held a conference with the marquis de Rosni, who is better known in history as s the celebrated Sully, for the purpose of establishing, in concurrence with England, a new system of European power, with a view of controlling the vast influence of the house of Austria, and producing a lasting peace. The queen coincided with his projects, and the French minister departed in admiration of the solidity and enlargement of her political views. The queen, having suppressed an insurrection in Ireland, and obliged all the Spanish troops sent to its assistance to quit the island, she turned her thoughts towards relieving the burdens of her subjects; she abolished a number of monopolies, and became extremely popular. But the execution o her favourite, the earl of Essex, gave a fatal blow to her happiness. When she learnt from the countess of Nottingham, that he had solicited her pardon, which had been concealed from her, she at first became furious with rage, and when the violence of anger subsided, she fell into the deepest and most incurable melancholy, rejecting all consolation, and refusing food and sustenance of every kind. She remained for days sullen and immoveable, “feeding,” says the historian, “her thoughts on her afflictions, and declaring life and existence an insufferable burden to her.” Few words she uttered, and they were all expressive of some inward grief, which she cared not to reveal: but sighs and groans were the chief vent which she gave to her despondency, and which, though they discovered her sorrows, were never able to ease or assuage them. Ten days and nights she lay upon the carpet, leaning on cushions which her maids brought her, and her physicians could not persuade her to allow herself to be put to bed, much less to make trial of any remedies which they prescribed to her. Her anxious mind at last had so long preyed on her frail body, that her end was visibly approaching; and the council being assembled, sent the keeper, admiral, and secretary, to know her will with regard to her successor. She answered with a faint voice, that, as she had held a regal sceptre, she desired no other than a royal successor. Cecil requesting her to explain herself more particularly, she subjoined, that she would have a king to succeed her, and who should that be, but her nearest kinsman, the king of Scots Being then advised by the archbishop of Canterbury to fix her thoughts upon God, she replied, that she did so, nor did her mind in the least wander from him. Her voice soon after left her her senses failed she fell into a lethargic slumber, which continued some hours, and she expired gently, without farther struggle or convulsion, in the 70th year of her age, and forty-fifth of her reign.

, a physician of Prussia, was born at Pletzaw, in the principality of Anhalt-Bernburgh, in 1689. He received the first rudiments of education at home under a private tutor, and was then sent to the university of Quedlinburgh, and thence to Jena, in 1709. His father intended him for the law; but a passion which he expressed for mathematical and physical researches, soon altered that design, and determined young Eller to follow the profession of physic. As Jena afforded no opportunity for the study of anatomy, he was removed to Halle, and soon after to Ley den, to finish his education under the celebrated Albinus, and the learned Sengerd and Boerhaave. Thence he passed to Amsterdam for the advantage of hearing the lectures of Rau, and examining the preparations of iluysch, and he followed Rau to Leyden, on the latter being appointed to succeed professor Bidloe. Having quitted Leyden, he spent some time in the mines of Saxony and Hartz, where he completed his chemical studies, and made astonishing progress in metallurgy and other parts of natural knowledge. On his visiting Paris, he attended several new courses in chemistry, under Lemery and Homberg, while he was pursuing his anatomical studies under the direction of Pecquet, du Verney, Winslow, and acquiring physiological and practical knowledge by the assistance of Astruc, Helvetius, Jussieu, &c. Though every branch of medical knowledge, and particularly surgery, was successfully practised in Paris, the reputation of Cheselden’s operation for the stone, and the ambition of being known to the immortal Newton, drew Mr. Eller to England, where he arrived in company with the earl of Peterborough, and remained five months. Leaving London in 1721, he returned to his own country, and was immediately honoured with the place of first physician to his sovereign the prince of Anhalt-Bernburgh; but he afterwards removed to Magdeburgh, where he soon attracted the notice of the king of Prussia, Frederick I. by whom he was made physician in ordinary, counsellor of the court, professor of the royal college of physic and surgery at Berlin, physician to the army, and perpetual dean of the superior college of medicine; employments equally honourable and lucrative. On the accession of Frederick II. he was farther promoted, and in 1755 was created a privy counsellor, the greatest honour to which he could possibly arrive, in his career as a scholar; and the same year he was appointed director of the academy called “Curieux de la nature,” where, according to the custom of the society, he was introduced by the name of Euphorbio. These employments and dignities he retained to his death in 1759. After his death was published a work by him, entitled “Observationes de cognoscendis et curandis morbis, praescrtim acutis, 1762, 8vo, which was translated into French by Le Roy, 1774, 12mo. This work is chiefly founded on the results of his long practice. He wrote also various papers in the Transactions of the Academy of Berlin, for the years 1748, 1749, and 1752, which with other pieces by him were collected and published, in German, under the title of” Physical, chemical, and medical treatises," Berlin, 1764, 2 vols. 8vo.

In botany Ellis distinguished himself by an account of two new genera, the Halesia and Gardenia, both American shrubs, the former named after his learned friend the Rev. Dr. Hales, the latter named after Dr. Garden, long resident in Carolina. He published also a pamphlet on the Venus’s Fly-trap; and was the author of a fourth new genus, Gordonia, named after Mr. Gordon of Mile-end, which was described in the 60th vol. of the Philosophical Transactions, along with a new species of Illicium, or Starry Anise, from West Florida. In the 57th vol. of the Trans. Mr. Ellis describes some Confervae, hitherto unknown. One of his most favourite botanical objects was to ascertain the true Varnish-tree of Japan, which he contends, in opposition to Miller (See Philos. Trans, vols. XLIX. and L.), to be distinct from the American Toxicodendron, and the point seems not yet well determined. Our author published separately an historical account of Coffee, with remarks oa its culture and use, and a plate of the shrub; also a description of theMangostan and Bread-fruit, with four plates. These are quarto pamphlets, and the latter contains many useful “directions to voyagers, for bringing over these and other vegetable productions.” This last subject frequently engaged Mr. Ellis’s attention, and makes a separate quarto pamphlet, published in 1770. In the 51st and 58th volumes of the Phil. Trans, are papers of his on the preservation of seeds. Nor were these all the scientific pursuits of his indefatigable mind. He wrote also in the Trans, various other papers on Corals, Sea Pens, and other animals of the same tribe, as well as on the Cochineal insect; on the Coluber cerastes, or horned viper of Egypt; on that singular animal, found by his friend Garden in Carolina, the Siren lacertina of Linnæus, now esteemed a Muracna; on the structure of the windpipes in several birds and in the land tortoise; and even on the method of making sal ammoniac in Egypt. It appears, moreover, by many specimens of his collecting, that he was an assiduous observer of the internal structure or anatomy of vegetables. In Nov. 1768, sir Godfrey Copley’s medal was delivered to him by sir John Pringle, then president; and it being usual to single out some one or two papers in particular for such a compliment, one “on the animal nature of the genus of Zoophytes called Corallina,” in a letter to Linnæus, and another “on the Actinia Sociata,” in a letter to the earl of Hillsborough, both printed in the 57ih vol. of the Transactions, were selected for this purpose.

, or as sometimes improperly spelt Ellis (Sir Richard, Bart.), a gentleman of extensive learning, particularly in biblical criticism and antiquities, descended from an ancient family originally of Wales, but who afterwards obtained possessions in Lincolnshire, was the son of sir William Ellys of Wyham, in that county, by Isabella, grand-daughter of the celebrated Hampden. Of his early history we have little information. His father had been a member of Lincoln college, Oxford, where he proceeded M. A. and his son might probably have been sent to the same university, and left it without taking a degree. From, his extensive acquaintance with the literati of Holland, it is not improbable, as the practice was then common, that he studied at some of the Dutch universities. We are told that he served in two parliaments for Grantham, and in three for Boston in Lincolnshire; but, according to Beatson’s Register, he sat only for Boston in the fifth, sixth, and seventh parliament of Great Britain, namely, from 1715 to 1734; but his father sir William sat for three parliaments for Grantham. Although sir Richard communicated some particulars of his family to Collins, when, publishing his “Baronetage,” the latter has either omitted, or was not furnished with the dates that might have assisted us in ascertaining these facts with certainty. Sir Richard married, first, a daughter and coheiress of sir Thomas Hussey, bart. and, secondly, a daughter and coheiress of Thomas Gould, esq. who survived him, and afterwards married sir Francis Dashwood, bart. (who died lord le Despencer in 1781), and died Jan. 19, 1769. Sir Richard had no issue by either of his wives, and the title of course became extinct on his death, which happened February 21, 1741-2, when he was deeply lamented, not only as a man of great learning and piety, but on account of his many and extensive charities. He entailed his estates, after the death of lady Ellys, on the Hobarts and Trevors, and his seat at Nocton in Lincolnshire is now the chief seat of the earl of Buckinghamshire. Sir Richard had two sisters married to Edward Cheek and Richard Hampden, esqs.

, an eminent Scotch prelate, descended from a noble family in Germany, the counts of Helphinstein, was the son of John, or as some say, William Elphinston and Margaret Douglas, daughter of Douglas of Drumlanrig, and was horn at Glasgow in 1431, or, according to another account, in 1437. He was educated in the newly-erected university of Glasgow, and in the twentieth year of his age became M. A. He then applied himself to the study of divinity, and was made rector of Kirkmichael. After continuing four years in this situation, he went to Paris, where he acquired such reputation in the study of the civil and canon law, as to attract the attention of the university; and he was advanced to the professorship of civil and canon law, first at Park, and afterwards at Orleans, where his lectures were attended by a great concourse of students. The improvement of his own mind, however, being the particular object of his solicitude, he canvassed the most abstruse and difficult parts of his profession with the most eminent and learned doctors of the age. After nine years’ intense study in France, he returned home at the earnest solicitations of his friends, particularly bishop Muirhead, who made him parson of Glasgow, and official of his diocese; and as a mark of respect he was chosen rector of that university in which he had been educated. After the death of his friend and patron, Ivluirbead, he was made official of Lolhian, by archbishop Schevez, of St. Andrew’s; and at the same time was called to parliament, and to a seat in the privycouncil. As his talents were of the most acute and discerning kind, he embraced subjects remote from his religious studies, and became conspicuous as an able politician and skilful negociator. In this capacity he was employed by James III. on an embassy to France, in conjunction with Livingstone, bishop of Dunkeld, and the earl of fiuchan. It is said that he managed so dextrously, that the old league and amity were renewed, and all cause of discord between the two kingdoms removed. The French monarch was so charmed with his conduct and conversation, that he loaded him with valuable presents. When he returned home, he was made archdeacon of Argyle, in 1479, and soon after bishop of Ross; and in 1484, he was translated to the see of Aberdeen. His address in negociation induced the king to send him as one of the commissioners from Scotland to treat of a truce with England, and a marriage between his son and the lady Anne, the niece of Richard III.

When the earl of Richmond came to the crown of England as Henry VII. bishop Elphinston was sent to his court, with other ambassadors, to arrange the terms of a truce, which was accordingly settled for three years on July 3, 1486. The discontent of the nobles threatening to involve the country in a civil war, Elphinston mediated between them and the king; but, finding it impossible to reconcile their jarring interests, he went to England about the latter end of 1487, to solicit the friendly interposition of Henry, as the ally of the Scotish king; and although he did not succeed as he wished and expected, king James was so sensible of the value of his services, that he advanced him in February 1488, to the office of lord high chancellor of Scotland, which he enjoyed until the king’s death, when he retired to his diocese. During the time he remained at Aberdeen, he was occupied in correcting the abuses that had prevailed in the diocese, and in composing a book of canon law. But he was not long permitted to enjoy the calm of retirement, and was again called to the parliament that assembled at Edinburgh, Oct. 6, 1488, to assist at the coronation of James IV. The earl of Bothwell, who then ruled as prime minister, suspecting that bishop Elphinston would not concur in an act of indemnity in favour of those who were concerned in the rebellion of the last reign, contrived to send him on an embassy to the court of Maximilian of Germany, with a proposal for a marriage between the king, and Margaret, the emperor’s daughter; but the mission was ineffectual, as that lady had been previously promised to the prince of Spain, and was married accordingly, before Elphinston arrived at Vienna. Yet although the bishop did not succeed in this embassy, he performed a lasting service to the country in his way home, by settling a treaty of peace and amity between the states of Holland and the Scotch. In 1492, when the bishop returned, he was made lord privy-seal, and the same year appointed one of the commissioners on the part of Scotland, for the prolongation of the truce with England. But the truce was not strictly observed by the Scotch, and a new commission was found to be necessary for the more effectual settlement of all differences. Bishop Elphinston was included in this commission, and the Scotch deputies meeting with the English at Edinburgh, June 2l, they agreed to prolong the truce till fhe last day of April, 1501.

From the extreme care and excellence with which his works are finished, they were not, of course, in his short life, very numerous; and are rarely to be met with. While he was alive, his pictures bore an excessive high price, which was amazingly enhanced after his death: and Houbraken mentions one of them, representing Pomona, which was sold for eight hundred German florins. Sandrart describes a great number of his capital performances; among which are, Tobit and the angel, now at lord Egremont’s Latona and her sons, with the Peasants turned into Frogs the death of Procris and his most capital picture of the flight into Egypt, which needs no description, as there is a print of it extant, engraved by Gaud, the friend and benefactor of Elsheimer. Some of his works were in the collection of the grand duke of Tuscany. The richest collection of them in this country is at the earl of Egremont’s, at Petworth, in Sussex. There are ten pictures by him, eight of which are of one size, viz. about four inches high, by two and a half wide, or perhaps a little more. The subjects are, a St. Peter, St. Paul, St. John Baptist, Tobit and the angel with a fish, an old woman and a girl, an old man with a boy, and a capuchin friar, with a model of a convent in his hand. The figures in all these are about three inches high, yet their characters and expressions are just and excellent; and the drawing of their figures, and the draperies, in the best style of art. Another picture represents the interior of a brothel by fire and candle light, in which there are ten or more figures gaming, and indulging in the licentiousness of such a place, all exquisitely wrought; with some expressions that have never been surpassed, although the figures are not more than two inches and a half high. The last is “Nicodemus’s visit to Christ;” but it is not of so good a quality as the others.

, sister of Mr. William Elstob, and engaged in the same learned pursuits, was born at Newcastle, Sept. 29, 1683. It is said, that she owed the rudiments of her extraordinary education to her mother; of which advantage, however, she was soon deprived; for at the age of eight years she had the misfortune of losing this intelligent parent. Her guardians, who entertained different sentiments, discouraged as much as they were able her progress in literature, as improper for her sex; but she had contracted too great a fondness for literary studies to be diverted from the prosecution of them. During her brother’s continuance at Oxford, she appears to have resided in that city, where she was esteemed and respected by Dr. Hudson and other Oxonians. Upon her brother’s removal to London, she probably removed with him; and, it is certain, that she assisted him in his antiquarian undertakings. The first public proof which she gave of it was in 1709, when, upon Mr. Elstob’s printing the homily on St. Gregory’s day, she accompanied it with an English translation. The preface, too, was written by her, in which she answers the objections made to female learning, by producing that glory of her sex, as she calls her, Mrs. Anna Maria Schurman. Mrs. Elstob’s next publication was a translation of madame Seudery’s “t-ssay on Glory.” She assisted, also, her brother in an edition of Gregory’s pastoral, which was probably intended to have included both the original and Saxon version; and she had transcribed all the hymns, from an ancient manuscript in Salisbury cathedral. By the encouragement of Dr. Hickes, she undertook a Saxon Homilarium, with an English translation, notes, and various readings. To promote this design, Mr. Bowyer printed for her, in 1713, “Some testimonies of learned men, in favour of the intended edition of the Saxon Homilies, concerning the learning of the author of those homilies, and the advantages to be hoped for from an edition of them. In a letter from the publisher to a doctor in divinity.” About the same time she wrote three letters to the lord treasurer, from which it appears, that he solicited and obtained for her queen Anne’s bounty towards printing the homilies in question. Her majesty’s decease soon deprived Mrs. Elstob of this benefit; and she was not otherwise sufficiently patronized, so as to be able to complete the work. A lew only of the homilies were actually printed at Oxford, in folio. Mrs. Elstob’s portrait was given in the initial letter G of “The English. Saxon Homily on the Birth-day of St, George.” In 1715, she published a Saxon grammar, the types for which had been cut at the expence of the lord chief justice Parker, afterwards earl of Macclesfield. Mrs. Elstob had other literary designs in view, but was prevented from the prosecution of them, by her distressed circumstances, and the want of due encouragement. After her brother’s death, she was so far reduced, that she was obliged to retire to Evesham in Worcestershire, where she subsisted with difficulty by keeping a small school. In this situation she experienced the friendship of Mr. George Ballard, and of Mrs. Capon, wife of the rev. Mr. Capon, who kept a boarding-school at Sianton, in Gloucestershire. These worthy persons exerted themselves among their acquaintance, to obtain for Mrs. Elstub some annual provision. At length she was recoiflmended to queen Caroline, who granted her a pension of twenty guineas a year. This being discontinued on the queen’s decease, Mrs. Elstob was again brought into difficulties, and, though mistress of eight languages, besides her own, was obliged to seek for employment as a preceptress of children. She may, however, be considered as having been very fortunate in the situation which she obtained in this capacity; for, in 1739, she was taken into the family of the duchess Dowager of Portland, where she continued till her death, which happened on the 30th of May 1756. She was buried at St. Margaret’s, Westminster. Mr. Rowe Mores describes her as having been the indefessa comes of her brother’s studies, and a female student of the university; and as having originally possessed a genteel fortune, which, by pursuing too much the drug called learning, she did not know how to manage. He adds, that upon visiting her in her sleeping-room at Bulstrode, he found her surrounded with books and dirtiness. She was, however, one of the most extraordinary women of her age, the first, and as far as we know, the last of her sex, who was a Saxon scholar. A more particular account of her Mss. and other productions is given in our first authority.

The works of sir Thomas Elyot were, 1. “The Castle of Health,” Lond. 1541, 1572,“1580, 1595, &c. in 8vo. 2.” The Governor,“in three books, Lond. 1531, 154.4, 1547, 1557, 1580, &c. in 8vo. 3.” Of the Education of Children,“Load, irt 4to. 4.” The Banquet of Sapience,“Lond. in 8vo. 5.” De Rebus Memorabilibus Angliee,“for the completing of which he had perused many old English monuments. 6.” A Defence or Apology for good Women.“7.” Bibliotheca Eliotae: Elyot’s Library, or Dictionary,“Lond. 1541, &c. fol. which woik Cooper augmented and enriched with thirty-three thousand words and phrases, besides a fuller account of the true signification qf word*. Sir Thomas translated likewise, from Greek into English,” The Image of Governance, compiled of the Acts and Sentences by the Emperor Alexander Severus,“Lond. 1556, 1594, &c. in 8vo. Bayle accuses him of having pretended to translate this from a Greek ms. whereas he says he borrowed his materials from Lampridius and Herodian. Selden, however, thought that he translated a Greek ms. composed by a modern writer. It is not on Bayle’s authority that we should chuse to rank such a man as sir T. Elyot among impostors. He also translated from Latin into English, 1.” St. Cyprian’s Sermon of the Mortality of Man,“Lond. 1534, in 8vo. 2.” The Rule of a Christian Life," written by Picus earl of Mirandola, Lond. 1534, in 8vo.

. See Earl.

But while Mr. Erskine was attending to the affairs of religion, he did not neglect the duties which he owed to the public as a magistrate and a military knight. In the war with England, which began in September 1547, the English ships infested the east coast of Scotland, and some of them having landed about eighty men for the purposes of pillage, he collected a force trom the inhabitants, and repelled them with such bravery, that not a third of the eighty were able to regain their ships. In 1555 he had an interview with the celebrated John Knox, who had just arrived from Geneva, and was invited by him to the family-seat at Dun, where he preached and was resorted to by the principal men in that part of the country; and though this atVorded a public avowal of Mr. Erskine’s principles, the popish bishops thought him a man too powerful to be molested; and he still proceeded in his endeavours to promote the reformation. In December 1557, he, along v?ith the earl of Argyle, the earl of Glencairn, and other noble and distinguished characters, subscribed a covenant in which they bound themselves to advance the protestant religion, and to maintain in safety its ministers and professors, (who were now for the first time called the congregation) t by all means in their power, even to the hazard of their lives.

, a Scotch divine, was one of the younger of the thirty- three children of Ralph Erskine, of Shieltield, a family of considerable antiquity in the county of Merse, and descended from the noble family of Marr. He was born at Dryburgh, still the family-seat of the Buchan family, in 1624, where he received the rudiments of his education, and in 1650 took the degree of M. A. in the university of Edinburgh. He was ordained to the ministry by the presbyterians in England, to the Jiving of Cornhill, in Durham, but soon after was ejected by the act of uniformity, on which he returned to his own country; but the persecution carried on at that time in Scotland against the presbyterians, obliged Mr. Erskine to take refuge in Holland, whence the want of the common necessaries of life induced him again to return to his native country, where he was apprehended and committed prisoner to the Bass, a strong fort in the mouth of the Forth. There he continued near three years till, through the interest of the then earl of Marr, his kinsman, he was set at liberty but such was the violence of the times, that he was again driven from Scotland. In 1687, when king James’s toleration, was proclaimed, Mr. Erskine embraced it; and on the re-establishment of presbytery in 1690, he was appointed minister of Churnside in the county of Berwick. He died August 10, 1696, aged sixty-eight, much respected by all who knew him, and left behind him several manuscripts, elucidating difficult passages in scripture; but these having been written in Latin, none of them were ever published.

, a celebrated wit and comic writer in the reigns of king Charles II. and king James II. is said to have been descended of an ancient family in Oxfordshire, or allied to it He was born about 1636, not very distant from London, it is believed, as some of his nearest relations appear to have been settled not far from this metropolis. It is thought he was partly educated at the university of Cambridge, but travelled into France, and perhaps Flanders also, in his younger years. At his retu,rn, he studied for a while the municipal laws at one of the inns of court in London; but the polite company he kept, and his own natural talents, inclining him rather to court the favour of the muses and cultivate the belles lettres, he produced his first dramatic performance in 1664, entitled “The Comical Revenge; or, Love in a tub,” which brought him acquainted, as he himself informs us, with Charles afterwards earl of Dorset, to whom it is dedicated. Its fame also, with his lively humour, engaging conversation, and refined taste in the fashionable gallantries of the town, soon established him in the societies, and rendered him the delight of those leading wits among the quality and gentry of chief rank and distinction, who made pleasure the chief business of their lives, and rendered that reign the most dissolute of any in our history; such as George Villiers duke of Bucks, John Wilmot earl of Rochester, sir Car Scroop, sir Charles Sedley, Henry Savile, &c. Encouraged by his first success, he brought another comedy upon the stage, in 1668, entitled “She would if she could,” which gained him no less applause, and it was supposed he would now make the stage his principal pursuit, but whether from indolence, or his pleasurable engagements, there was an interval of above seven years before the appearance of his next and last dramatic production, entitled “The Man of Mode; or, Sir Fopling Flutter.” It is dedicated by him to the duchess of York, who then was Mary, the daughter of the duke of Modena; in the service of which duchess our author, as he says in his said dedication, then was. This play still exalted his reputation, even above what both the former had done; he having therein, as perhaps he had also partly set himself some example in the others before, shadowed forth (but somewhat disguisedly) some of his noted acquaintance and contemporaries, who were known, or thought to be so, by his said draughts of them, to many of the audience; and this rendered the play very popular. In the famous poem written by the lord Rochester, after the example of sir John, Suckling’s upon the like subject, Apollo finds some plausible pretence of exception to the claim of every poetical candidate for the laurel crown; therefore our poet, by the scheme or drift of it, could escape no less disappointment than the rest: yet his lordship, to do him ample justice, has sufficiently shewed his merits to it, in every thing but his perseverance to exert them; which, after having first of all discarded Mr. Dryden, he next expresses thus:

That his long seven years’ silence is not to be pardon'd." Which shews that the poem in which these lines are written was just before the publication of our author’s last comedy. Sir George was addicted to great extravagances, being too free of his purse in gaming, and of his constitution with women and wine; which embarrassed his fortune, impaired his health, and exposed him to many reflections. Gildon says, that for marrying a fortune he was knighted; but it is said in a poem of those times, which never was printed (ms collection of satires, in the Harleian collection), that, to make some reparation of his circumstances, he courted a rich old widow; whose ambition was such, that she would not marry him unless he could make her a lady; which he was forced by the purchase of knighthood to do. This was probably about 1683. We hear not of any issue he had by this lady; but he cohabited, whether before or after this said marriage is not known, for some time with Mrs. Barry, the actress, and had a daughter by her on whom he settled five or six thousand pounds but she died young. From the same intelligence we have also learnt, that sir George was, in his person, a fair, slender, genteel man; but spoiled his countenance with drinking, and other habits of intemperance; and, in his deportment, very affable and courteous, of a sprightly and generous temper; which, with his free, lively, and natural vein of writing, acquired him the general character of Gentle George and Easy Etherege; in respect to which qualities we may often find him compared with sir Charles Sedley. His courtly address, and other accomplishments, won him the favour of the duchesi of York, afterwards, when king James was crowned, his queen; by whose interest and recommendation he wa sent ambassador abroad. In a certain pasquil that was written upon him, it is intimated as if he was sent upon ome embassy to Turkey. Gildon says, that, being in particular esteem with king James’s consort, he was sent envoy to Hamburgh but it is in several books evident, that he was, in that reign, a minister at Ratisbon at least from 1686 to the time that his majesty left this kingdom, if not later and this appears also from his own letters which he wrote thence some to the earl of Middleton, inverse to one of which his lordship engaged Mr. Dryden to return a poetical answer, in which he invites sir George to write another play; and, to keep him in countenance for his having been so dilatory in his last, reminds him hovr long the comedy, or farce, of the “Rehearsal” had been hatching, by the duke of Buckingham, before it appeared: but we meet with nothing more of our author’s writing for the stage. There are extant some other letters of his in prose, which were written also from Ratisbon; two of which he sent to the duke of Buckingham when he was in his recess. As for his other compositions, such as have been printed, they consist, for the greatest part, of little airy sonnets, lampoons, and panegyrics, of no great poetical merit, although suited to the gay and careless taste of the times. All that we have met with, of his prose, is a short piece, entitled “An Account of the rejoycing at the diet of Ratisbonne, performed by sir George Etherege, knight, residing therefrom his majesty of Great Britain; upon occasion of the birth of the prince of Wales. In a letter from himself.” Printed in the Savoy, 1688. How far beyond this or the next year he lived, the writers on our poets, who have spoken of him, have been, as in many other particulars of his life, so in the time when he died, very deficient. In Gildon’s short and imperfect account of him, it is said, that after the revolution he went for France to his master, and died there, or very soon after his arrival thence in England. But there was a report, that sir George came to an untimely death by an unlucky accident at Ratisbon; for, after having treated some company with a liberal entertainment at his house there, in which having perhaps taken his glass too freely, and being, through his great complaisance, too forward in waiting on some of his guests at their departure, flushed as he was, he tumbled down the stairs and broke his neck. Sir George had a brother, who lived and died at Westminster; he had been a great courtier, yet a man of such strict honour, that he was esteemed a reputation to the family. He had been twice married, and by his first wife had a son; a little man, of a brave spirit, who inherited the honourable principles of his father. He was a colonel in king William’s wars; was near him in one of the most dangerous battles in Flanders, probably it was the battle of Landen in 1693, when his majesty was wounded, 'and the colonel both lost his right eye, and received a contusion on his side. He was offered, in queen Anne’s reign, twenty-two hundred pounds for his commission, but refused to live at home in? peace when his country was at war. This colonel Ktherege died at Ealing in Middlesex, about the third or fourth year of king George I. and was buried in Kensington church, near the altar; where there is a tombstone over his vault, in which were also buried his wife, son, and sister. That son was graciously received at court by queen Anne; and, soon after his father returned from the wars in Flanders under the duke of Marlborough, she gave him an ensign’s commission, intending farther to promote him', in reward of his father’s service but he died a youth and the sister married Mr. Hill of Feversham in Kent but we hear not of any male issue surviving. The editors of the Biographia Dramatica observe, that, as a writer, sir George Etherege was certainly born a poet, and appears to have been possessed of a genius, the vivacity of which had littlecultivation; for there are no proofs of his having been a scholar. Though the “Comical Revenge” succeeded very well upon the stage, and met with general approbation for a considerable time, it is now justly laid aside on account of its immorality. This is the case, likewise, with regard to sir George’s other plays. Of the “She would if she could,” the critic Dennis says, that though it was esteemed by men of sense for the trueness of some of its characters, and the purity, freeness, and easy grace of its dialogue, yet, on its first appearance, it was barbarously treated by the audience. If the auditors were offended with the licentiousness of the comedy, their barbarity did them honour; but it is probable that, at that period, they were influenced by some other consideration. Exclusively of its loose tendency, the play is pronounced to be undoubtedly a very good one; and it was esteemed as one of the first rank at the time in which it was written. However, ShadwelPs encomium upon it will be judged to be too extravagant.

, prince of Savoy, an illustrious general, was born in 1663, and descended from Carignan, one of the three branches of the house of Savoy. His father was Eugene Maurice, general of the Swiss and Grisons, governor of Champaigne in France, and earl of Soissons; his mother donna Olympia Mancini, neice to cardinal Mazarin. In 1670 he was committed to the tuition of a doctor of the Sorbonne; but his father dying before he was ten years of age, after the French king had given him the grant of an abbey as a step to a cardinal’s hat, and the government of Champaigne being given out of his family, occasioned an alteration in his intended profession; which was indeed by no means suitable to his genius, although he gave great and early hopes of proficiency in the belles lettres, and is said to have been particularly fond of Curtius and Cæsar. He was a youth of great spirit, and so jealous of the honour of his family, that when his mother was banished by the king’s order from the French court to the Low Countries, soon after her husband’s decease, he protested against the injustice of her banishment, and vowed eternal enmity to the authors and contrivers of it. After being for a time trained to the service of the church, for which he had no relish, he desired the king, who maintained him according to his quality, to give him some military employment. This, however, was denied him, sometimes on account of the weakness of his constitution, sometimes for want of a vacancy, or a war to employ the troops in. Apprehending from hence that he was not likely to be considered so much as he thought he deserved in France, and perceiving that he was involved in the disgrace of his mother, he resolved to retire to Vienna with one of his brothers, prince Philip, to whom the emperor’s ambassador had, in his master’s name, promised a regiment of horse. They were kindly received by the emperor; and Eugene presently became a very great favourite with his imperial majesty. He had in the mean time many flattering promises and invitations to return to France; but his fidelity to the emperor was unshaken, and he resolved to think no more of France, but to look on himself as a German, and to spend his life in the service of the house of Austria.

In December 1640, he entered the Middle Temple, and at this time his father died of the dropsyin his fiftythird year. The ominous appearance of public affairs in 1641 inclined him to pass some time abroad, and accordingly he set out for Holland, after having witnessed the trial of the earl of Stratford. Having viewed what was most remarkable in the principal towns of Holland, with Brussels, Bruges, &c. and paid a visit to the prince of Orange’s camp before Genap, he returned to Dover by the way of Dunkirk in October. In 1642 he went to Brentford to offer his services to his majesty Charles I. and was assigned to ride volunteer in prince Rupert’s troop; but the king marching to Gloucester, and by that step leaving Surrey and Sussex, where Mr. Evelyn’s estate lay, exposed to the rebels, he was advised to travel, and having obtained his majesty’s leave, went in July 1643 to France, and thence to Italy, in which he spe^t above a year. A thirst of knowledge of every kind was his ruling passion; his mind too at this early period of life, was not unfurnished with science, and he could now contemplate, with consequent improvement, the antiquities, arts, religion, laws, and learning and customs of the countries through which he passed. He has, accordingly, left a large and minute account of what he thought worthy of observation, and nothing seems to have escaped him. At Padua he purchased the rare tables of veins and nerves of Dr. John Athelsteinus Leonaenas; and caused him to prepare a third of the lungs, liver, and nervi sextipar with the gastric veins, which he sent into England, being the first that had been seen here, and which he afterwards presented to the royal society. Another instance of his diligence and curiosity Mr. Boyle has recorded in his works (vol. II. p. 206), who received from Mr. Evelyn, whom he consulted on the occasion, a valuable and minute account of the method by which magazines of snow are preserved in Italy, for the use of the tables of the luxurious. During his stay at Rome, Mr. Evelyn informs us of his having an opportunity of learning the true sentiments of the popish party, on the execution of archbishop Laud, so frequently accused in this country of an inclination towards popery. “I was at Rome,” says he, “in the company of divers of the English fathers, when the news of archbishop Laud’s sufferings, and a copy of his sermon, came thither. They read the sermon, and commented upon it, with no small satisfaction and contempt; and looked on him, as one that was a great enemy to them, and stood in their way, whilst one of the blackest crimes imputed to him was, his being popishly affected.”

Mr. Evelyn’s tour is thus chronicled by himself: “July 26, 1643, he went to France, and having passed the remainder of the year, with the winter and next spring, at Paris, ia which time he made an excursion into Normandy, and saw Rouen, April 25, 1644, he set out for Orleans, and after visiting Blois, Tours, Anjou, and all the fine places on the Loire, together with the town and palace built by the great cardinal Richelieu, and called by his name, he arrived Sept. 2 at Lyons, and went from thence by Avignon to Marseilles, and so along the coast to a little town called Canes, where (in Oct.) he embarked and arrived at Genoa, the curiosities of which having viewed, he proceeded to Pisa, Leghorn, Florence, Sienna, and so came (Nov. 4) to Rome, where he spent the winter in seeing all the antiquities and curiosities of that famous city, making an excursion (Jan. 27, 1644-5) to Naples, and returning Feb. 7. May 18 he left Rome, and passing through Bologna and Ferrara, came (in June) to Venice, where he spent the remaining part of the year, and sometimes going to Padua, where the earl of Arundel was, the great collector of pictures, statues, &c. whom he was acquainted with, and who, at his taking leave of him, gave him directions written with his own hand, what curiosities to inquire after in his travels. March 20, 1646, he left Venice in company with Mr. Waller the poet, and went to Milan, taking Vincenza and Verona in his way; from hence he passed the Alps, and came to Geneva. In July he departed from Geneva, and in October got to Paris again by the way of Orleans.”

and cultivated minds to cherish an affectionate remembrance of the academies where they first pursued their studies, Mr. Evelyn gave a noble testimony of his high respect for his alma mater, Oxford, by using his utmost interest with the lord Henry Howard, in order to prevail upon him to bestow the Arundeliao marbles, then in the garden of Arundel-house in the Strand, upon the university, in which he happily succeeded, and obtained the thanks of that learned body, delivered by Dr. Barlow, and other delegates specially appointed for the purpose. Nor was this the last favour conferred by lord Arundel, at the request of Mr. Evelyn, whom he honoured with his closest friendship, after he arrived at the title of Duke of Norfolk. Of this interest Mr. Evtlyn made no other advantage than giving a right direction to the natural generosity of that excellent person, whence flowed some particular marks of kindness to the royal society, which were very gratefully accepted; and something farther would have been procured, if the duke’s sudden and unexpected death had not frustrated the schemes formed by our author for the service of that learned society, to which, from its very foundation, he was attached with unabated zeal. Mr. Evelyn spent his time, at this juncture, in a manner as pleasing as he could wish. He had great credit at court, and great reputation in the world; was one of the commissioners for rebuilding St. Paul’s, attended the meetings of the royal society with great regularity, undertook readily whatever tasks were assigned him to support that reputation, which, from their first institution, they had acquired, and which, by degrees, triumphed over that envy which it raised. He was punctual in the discharge of his office as a commissioner of the sick and wounded; and when he had leisure retired to his seat at Sayes-court, where the improvement of his garden was his favourite ambition. Yet in the midst of his employments, both public and private, and notwithstanding the continual pains that he bestowed in augmenting and improving the books he hud already published, he found leisure sufficient to undertake fresli labours oi the same kind, without any diminution of the high character he had obtained by his former writings. He made a journey to Oxford in the summer of 1669, where, on the 15th of July, at the opening of the theatre, he was honoured with the degree of doctor of the civil law; at the same time this honour was conferred on the duke of Ormond, their chancellor, and on the earl of Chesterfield. After king Charles II. had tried, with very little effect, to promote trade, according to the advice of persons engaged in it, he thought proper to constitute a particular board for that purpo.se, in Sept. 1672, and named several persons of great rank to be members of that council, and amongst them Mr. Evelyn, who had previously (Feb. 1671) been nominated one of the council of foreign plantations. These preferments were so welcome to a person of his disinterested temper and true public spirit, that he thought he could not express his gratitude better than by digesting, in a short and plain discourse, the chief heads of the history of trade and navigation, dedicated to the king, which was very graciously received, and is allowed to contain as much matter in as small a compass as any that was ever written uprm the topic. Notwithstanding these late auditions to his employments, when the royal society found it requisite to demand the assistance of some of its principal members, and to exact from them the tribute of certain dissertations upon weighty and philosophical subjects, he produced his share with his usual vigour and promptitude, as appears by their TVmisactions. We have now named all the preferments ronferred on him in that reign; and though they were none of them very considerable in respect of profit, yet he was jo easy in his own circumstances, so good an oeconomist, and so true a patriot, that while he daily saw fresh improvements made in every county throughout the kingdom, and the commerce of the nation continually extended, he thought himself amply recompensed, and never failed to express his sentiments in that respect with great cordiality. The severe winter of 1683 gave some interruption to his domestic enjoyments, the frost committing dreadful depredations in his fine gardens at Sayes-court, of which he sent a full and very curious account to the royal society in the beginning of the succeeding spring. After the accession of king James, we find him, in December 1685, appointed with the lord viscount Tiviot of the kingdom of Scotland, and colonel Robert Philips, one of the commissioners for executing the great office of lord privy-seal, in the absence of Henry earl of Clarendon, lord lieutenant of Ireland, which he held till March 11, 1686, when the king was pleased to make Henry baron Arundel of Wardour lord privy seal. While in this office he refused to put the seal to Dr. Obadiah Walker’s licence to print popish books. On May 5, 1695, he was appointed treasurer of Greenwich hospital, and although now much advanced in years, continued his literary labours, with his accustomed zeal, at his leisure hours.

As considerable light is thrown on the history and merits of Mr. Evelyn from the account given of his works, little apology need be made for the length of the article, taken principally from the Biographia Britannica. These were, 1. His treatise “Of Liberty and Servitude,” 1649, 12mo. This was a translation, and in all probability the first essay of our author’s pen. 2. “A Character of England, as it was lately presented in a letter to a nobleman of France, with reflections upon Callus Castratus,” 1651, 16to. The third edition of this book appeared in 1659; at present it is very scarce. 3. “The State of France,” London, 1652, 8vo. 4. “An Essay on the First Book of Titus Lucretius Carus, de renim natura, interpreted, and made into English verse, by J. Evelyn, esq.” London, 1656, 8vo. The frontispiece to this book was designed by his lady, Mary Evelyn. There is a copy of verses by F.dmun.l Waller, esq. of Beaconsfield, prefixed and directed to his worthy friend Mr. Evelyn, perhaps too extravagant. As there are many faults, however, in this work which do not belong to the author, we shall subjoin the transcript of a ms note in his own hand-writing in the copy at Wotton: “Never was book so abominably misused by printer; never copy so negligently surveied by one who undertooke to looke over the proofe-sheetes with all exactnesse and care, naqely Dr. Triplet, well knowne for his abiilitie, and who pretended, to oblige me in Hiv absence, and so readily offer'd himselfe. This good yet I received by it, that publishing it vaiiu-ly, its ill succese at the printer’s discouraged me with troubling the world with the rest.” 5. “The French Gardener, instructing how to cultivate all sorts of fruit-trees and herbs for the garden, together with directions to dry and conserve them in their natural,” &c. Lond. 1658, in 12mo, and several times after. In most of the editions is added, “The English Vineyard vindicated, by John Rose, gardener to his majesty king Charles II. with a' tract of the making and ordering of wines in France.” The third edition of this French Gardener, which came out in 1676, was illustrated with sculptures. 6. “The golden book of St. Oh ry sos torn, concerning the Education of Children.” Lond. 1659, 12mo, in the preface to which is a very interesting account of his son Richard, an amiable and promising child, who died in infancy, Jan. 27, 1657. This little narrative, as Mr. Evelyn’s work is scarce, may be seen in decade first of Barksdale’s Memorials, which, however, is almost as scarce. 7. “An Apology for the Royal Party, c.” 1659, 4to, mentioned above. 8. “The late News or Message from Brussels unmasked,” 1659, 4 to, also mentioned above. 9. A Panegyric at his, majesty king Charles II. his Coronation,' 1 Loncl. 1661, fol. 10. “Instructions concerning the erecting of a Library, written by Gabriel Naude”, published in English, with some improvements,“Lond. 1661, 8vo. ll.” Fumifugium or the inconveniences of the air and the smoke of London dissipated together with some remedies humbly proposed,“London, 1661, 4to, in five sheets, addressed to the king and parliament, and published by hisma jesty’s express command. Of this there was a late edition in 1772. 12.” Tyrannies or the Mode in a discourse of sumptuary laws“Lond. 1661, 8vo. 13.” Sculptnra; or the history a-id art of Chalcography and Engraving in Copper, with an ample enumeration of the most renowned masters and their works; to which is annexed, a new manner of engraving, or mezzo-tinto,. communicated by his highness prince Rupert to the author of this treatise,“Lond. 1662, 8vo. In the dedication to Mr. Robert Boyle, dated: at Sayes-court, April 5th, 1662, he observes, that he wrote this treatise at the reiterated instance of that gentleman. The first chapter treats of sculpture, howderived and distinguished, with the styles and instruments belonging to it. The second, of the original of sculpture in general. la this chapter our author observes, that letters, and consequently sculpture, were lon.g before the flood, Suidas ascribing both letters and all the rest of the sciences to Adam. After the flood, as he supposes, there were but few who make any considerable question, that it might not be propagated by Noah to his posterity, though some admit of none before Moses. The third chapter treats of the reputation and progress of sculpture among the Greeks and Romans down to the middle ages, with a discussion of some pretensions to the invention of copper cuts and their impressions. The fourth, of the invention and progress of chalcography in particular, together with an ample enumeration of the most renowned masters and their works. The fifth, of drawing and design previous to the art of chalcography, and of the use of pictures in order to theeducation of children. In this chapter, our author, in honour of the art upon which he writes, discourses thus:” It was in the former chapter that we made rehearsal of the most renowned gravers and their works, not that we had no more to add to that number, but because we would not mingle these illustrious names and qualities there, which we purposely reserved for the crown of this discourse. We did, therefore, forbear to mention what his highness prince Rupert’s own hands have contributed to the dignity of that art, performing things in graving, of which some enrich our collection, comparable to the greatest masters; such a spirit and address there appears in all that he touches, and especially in that of the mezzotinto, of which we shall speak hereafter more at large, having first enumerated those incomparable gravings of that his new and inimitable style, in both the great and little decollations of St. John the Baptist, the soldier holding a spear and leaning his hand on a shield, the two Mary Magdalens, the old man’s head, that of Titian, &c. after the same Titian, Georgion, and others. We have also seen a plate etched by the present French king, and other great persons; the right honourable the earl of Sandwich, sometimes, as we are told, diverting himself with the burine, and herein imitating those ancient and renowned heroes, whose names are loud in the trumpet of fame for their skill and particular affection to these arts. For such of old were Lucius Manilius, and Fabius, noble Romans, Pacuvius, the tragic poet, nephew to Ennius. Socrates, the wisest of men, and Plato himself, Metrodorus and Pyrrhus the philosopher, did both desigii and paint and so did Valentinian, Adrian, and Severus, emperors so as the great Paulus ^milius esteemed it of such high importance, that he would needs have his son to be instructed in it, as in one of the most worthy and excellent accomplishments belonging to a prince. For the art of graving, Quintilian likewise celebrates Euphranor, a polite and rarely endowed person; and Pliny, in that chapter where he treats of the same art, observes that there was never any one famous in it, but who was by birth or education a gentleman. Therefore he and Galen in their recension of the liberal arts, mention that of graving in particular, amongst the most permanent; and in the same catalogue, number it with rhetoric, geometry, logic, astronomy, yea, r grammar itself, because there is in these arts, say they, more of fancy and invention, than strength of hand, more of the spirit than of the body. Hence Aristotle informs us, that the Grecians did universally institute their children in the art of painting and drawing, for an oeconomique reason there signified, as well as to produce proportions in the mind. Varro makes it part of the ladies 1 education, that they might have the better skill in the works of embroidery, &c. and for this cause is his daughter Martia celebrated among those of her fair sex. We have already mentioned the learned Anna Schurman; but the princess Louisa has done wonders of this kind, and is famous throughout Europe for the many pieces which enrich our cabinets, examples sufficient to vindicate its dignity, and the value that has been set upon it, since both emperors, kings, and philosophers, the great and the wise, have not disdained to cultivate and cherish this honourable quality of old, so nobly reputed, that amongst the Greeks a slave might not be taught it. How passionately does Pereskius, that admirable and universal genius, deplore his want of dexterity in this art Baptista Alberti, Aldus Pomponius, Guaricus Durer, and Rubens, were politely learned and knowing men, and it is hardly to be imagined of how great use and conducible a competent address in this art of drawing and designing is to the several advantages which occur, and especially to the more noble mathematical sciences, as we have already instanced in the lunary works of Hevelius, and are no less obliged to celebrate some of ur own countrymen famous for their dexterity in this incomparable art. Such was that Blagrave, who himself cut those diagrams in his Mathematical Jewel; and such at present is that rare and early prodigy of universal science, Dr. Chr. Wren, our worthy and accomplished friend. For, if the study of eloquence and rhetoric were cultivated by the greatest geniuses and heroic persons which the world has produced, and that, by the suffrage of the most knowing, to be a perfect orator a man ought to be universally instructed, a quality so becoming and useful should never be neglected.“In the sixth chapter he discourses of the new way of engraving or mezzotinto, invented and communicated by prince Rupert and he therein observes,” that his highness did indulge him the liberty of publishing the whole manner and address of this new way of engraving; but when I had well considered it, says he (so much having been already expressed, which may suffice to give the hint to all ingenious persons how it is to be performed), I did not think it necessary that an art so curious, and as yet so little vulgar, and which indeed does not succeed where the workman is not an accomplished designer, and has a competent talent in painting likewise, was to be prostituted at so cheap a rate as the more naked describing of it here would too soon have exposed it to. Upon these considerations then, it is, that vvg leave it thus enigmatical; and yet that this may appear no disingenuous rhodomontade in me, or invidious excuse, I profess myself to be always most ready sub sigillo, and by his highness’s permission, to gratify any curious and worthy person with as full and perfect a demonstration of the entire art as my talent and address will reach to, if what I am now preparing to be reserved in the archives of the royal society concerning it be not sufficiently instructive.“There came, however, into the hands of the communicative and learned Richard Micldleton Massey, M. D. and F. 11. S. the original manuscript, written by Mr. Evelyn, and designed for the royal society, entitled” Prince Rupert’s new way of engraving, communicated by his highness to Mr. Evelyn;“in the margin of which is this note:” This I prepared to be registered in the royal society, but I have not yet given it in, so as it still continues a secret.“In this manuscript he first describes the two instruments employed in this new manner of engraving, viz. the hatcher and the style, and then proceeds to explain the method of using them. He concludes with the following words:” This invention, or new manner of chalcography, was the result of chance, and improved by a German soldier, who, espying some scrape on the barrel of his musket, and being of an ingenious spirit, refined upon it, till it produced the effects you have seen, and which indeed is, for the delicacy thereof, much superior to anyinvention extant of this art, for the imitation of those masterly drawings, and, as the Italians call it, that morhidezza expressed in the best of their designs. I have had the honour to be the first of the English to whom it has been yet communicated, and by a special indulgence of his highness, who with his own hands was pleased to direct me with permission to publish it to the world; but I have esteemed it a thing so curious, that I thought it would be to profane it, before I had first offered it to this illustrious society. There is another way of engraving, by rowelling a plate with an instrument made like that which our scriveners and clerks use to direct their rulers by on parchment, only the points are thicker set into the rowel. And when the plate is sufficiently freckled with the frequent reciprocation of it, upon the polished surface, so as to render the ground dark enough, it is to be abated with the style, and treated as we have already described. Of this sort I have seen a head of the queen Christina, graved, if I mistake not, as big as the life, but not comparable to the mezzotinto of prince Rupert, so deservedly celebrated by J. Evelyn."

Mr. Evelyn’s next publication was the most important of all his works: 15. “Sylva; or, a dicourse of Foresttrees, and the propagation of timber in his majesty’s dominions 5 as it was delivered in the royal society the 15th of October, 1662, Upon occasion of certain queries propounded to that illustrious assembly by the honourable the principal officers and commissioners of the navy.” To which is annexed, “Pomona, or, an appendix concerning fruit-trees, in relation to cider, the making and several ways of ordering it: published by express order of the royal society,” Lond. 1664, fol. This was the first work written by the command, and published in virtue of an order, of the royal society, signed by the lord viscount Brouncker, their president, and dedicated to the king. The second edition of it was published in 1669, with a new dedication to king Charles II. dated from Sayes-court, Aug. 24; the first paragraph of which deserves the reader’s notice. “Sir, This second edition of Sylva, after more than a thousand copies had been bought up and dispersed of the first impression, in much less than two years space (which booksellers assure us is a very extraordinary thing in volumes of this bulk), conies now again to pay its homage to your serene majesty, to whose auspices alone it owes the favourable acceptance which it has received in the world. But it is not that alone which it presumes to tell your majesty, but to acquaint you that it has been the sole occasion for furnishing your almost exhausted dominions with more, I dare say, than two millions of timber-trees, besides infinite others, which have been propagated within the three nations at the instigation and by the direction of this work; and that the author of it is able, if need require, to make it out by a competent volume of letters and acknowledgments, which are come to his hands, from several persons of the most eminent quality, many of them illustrious, and divers of them unknoun to him, in justification of what he asserts; which he the rather preserves with the more care, because they are testimonials from so many honourable persons ‘of the benefit they have received from the endeavours of the royal society, which now-a-days passes through so many censures; but she has yet your majesty for her founder and patron, and is therefore the’ less concerned, since no man of worth can lightly speak ill of an assembly v.hich your majesty has thought fit to dignify by so signal a relation to it.” The third edition, with great additions and improvements, was published in 1G79; the fourth in 1705, and the fifth in 1729, both very incorrect. In 1776 a new edition of the “Sylva” was published in 4to, by Dr. Andrew Hunter, of York, a gentleman eminently qualified for the undertaking. Under the care of this gentleman the work appeared with every possible advantage; and was enriched by the judicious editor with ample and copious notes, and adorned with a set of fine engravings. A head of Mr. Evelyn is prefixed, drawn and engraved by Battolozzi. Dr. Hunter’s edition of the Sylva has been four times reprinted. The edition of 1812 contains the deceased editor’s last corrections . 16. “A parallel of the antient architecture with the modern, in a collection of ten principal authors who have written upon the five orders, viz. Palladio and Scammozzi, Serlio and Vignola D. Barbaro and Cataneo L. B. Alberti and Viola, Bullant and De Lorme compared with one another. The three Greek orders, Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian, comprise the first part of this treatise, and the two Latin, Tuscan and Composite, the latter written in French by Roland Freart, sieur de Chambray made English for the benefit, of builders to which is added, an account of architects and architecture^ in an historical and etymological explanation of certain terms, particularly affected by architects; with Leon Baptista Alberti’s treatise of statues,” London, 1664, folio. This work, as well as the former, is dedicated to king Charles II.; and the dedication dated from Sayes-court, August 20th, contains^some curious facts. After an apology for prefixing his royal name to a translation, our author proceeds thus: “I know none, indeed, to whom I could more aptly inscribe a discourse of building, than to so royal a builder, whose august attempts have already given so great a splendour to our imperial city, and so illustrious an example to the nation It is from this contemplation, sir, that after I had, by the commands of the royal society, endeavoured the improvement of timber and the planting of trees, I have advanced to that of building, as its proper and mutual consequent, not with a presumption to incite or instruct your majesty, which were a vanity unpardonable, but, by it, to take occasion of celebrating your majesty’s great example, who use your empire and authority so worthily, as fortune seems to have consulted her reason, when she poured her favours upon you; so as I never cast my eyes on that generous designation in the epigram, Ut donem pastor K tedificem, without immediate reflection on your majesty, who seem only to value those royal advantages you have above others, that you may oblige, and that you may build. And certainly, sir, your majesty has consulted the noblest way of establishing your greatness, and of perpetuating your memory, since, while stones can preserve inscriptions, your name will be famous to posterity; and, when those materials fail, the benefits that are engraven in our hearts will outlast those of marble. It will be no paradox, but a truth, to affirm, that your majesty has already built and repaired more in three or four years, notwithstanding the difficulties and the necessity of an extraordinary ceconomy for the public concernment, than all your enemies have destroyed in twenty, nay than all your majesty’s predecessors have advanced in an hundred, as I could easily make out, not only by what your majesty has so magnificently designed and carried on at that your ancient honour of Greenwich, under the conduct of your most industrious and worthy surveyor, but in those splendid apartments and other useful reformations for security and delight about your majesty’s palace at Whitehall the chargeable covering first, then paving and reformation of Westminster-hall care and preparation for rebuilding St. Paul’s, by the impiety and iniquity of the late confusions almost dilapidated; what her majesty the queen-mother has added to her palace at Somerset-house, in a structure becoming her royal grandeur, and the due veneration of all your majesty’s subjects, for the lioirnir she has done both this your native city, and the whole nation. Nor may I here omit, what I so much desire to transmit to posterity, those noble and profitable amoenities of your majesty’s plantations, wherein you most resemble the divine architect, because your majesty has proposed in it such a pattern to your subjects, as merit their imitation and protoundest acknowledgments, in one of the most worthy and kingly improvements tbat nature is capable of. 1 know not what they talk of former ages, and of the now contemporary princes with your majesty these things are visible and should I here descend to more particulars, which yet were not foreign to the subject of this discourse, I would provoke the whole world to produce me an example parallel with your majesty, for your exact judgment and marvellous ability in all that belongs to the naval architecture, both as to its proper terms and more solid use, in which your majesty is master of one of the most noble and profitable arts that can be wished, in a prince to whom God has designed the dominion of the ocean, which renders your majesty’s empire universal; where, by exercising your royal talent and knowledge that way, you can bring even the antipodes to meet, and the poles to kiss each other; for so likewise, not in a metaphorical but natural sense, your equal and prudent government of this nation has made it good, whilst your majesty has so prosperously guided this giddy bark, through such a storm, as no hand, save your majesty’s, could touch the helm, but at the price of their temerity.” There is also another dedication to sir John Denham, knight of the bath, superintendent and surveyor of all his majesty’s buildings and works, in which there are several matters of fact worth knowing, as indeed there are in all Mr. Evelyn’s dedications; for, though no man was naturally more civil, or more capable of making a compliment handsomely, yet his merit was always conspicuous in his good manners; and he never thought that the swelling sound of a well-turned period could atone for want of sense. It appears from the dedication of the second edition of the Sylva to king Charles II. that there was a second edition of this work also in the same year, viz. 1669, as there was a third in 1697, which was the last in the author’s life-time. In this third edition, which is very much improved, “the account of Architects and Architecture,” which is an original work of Mr. Evelyn’s, and a most excellent one of its kind, is dedicated to sir Christopher Wren, surveyor to his majesty’s buildings and works; and there is in it another of those incidental passages that concern the personal history of our author. Having said in the first paragraph, that, if the whole art of building were lost, it might be found again in the noble works of that great architect, which, though a very high, is no unjust compliment, more especially, continues our author, St. Paul’s church and the Monument; he then adds, “I have named St. Paul’s, and truly not without admiration, as oft as I recall to mind, as frequently I do, the sad and deplorable condition it was in, when, after it had been made a stable of horses and a den of thieves, you, with other gentlemen and myself, were, by the late king Charles, named commissioners to survey the dilapidations, and to make report to his majesty, in order to a speedy reparation. You will not, I am sure, forget the struggle we had with some who were for patching it up any how, so the steeple might stand, instead of new-building, which it altogether needed: when, to put an end to the contest, five days after (August 27, Sept. 1666), that dreadful conflagration happened, out of whose this phoenix is risen, and was by providence designed for you. The circumstance is too remarkable, that I could not pass it over without notice. I will now add no more, but beg your pardon for this confidence of mine, after I have acquainted you that the parallel to which this was annexed being out of print, I was importuned by the bookseller to add something to a new impression, but to which I was no way inclined; till, not long since, going to St. Paul’s, to contemplate that august pile, and the progress you have made, some of your chief workmen gratefully acknowledging the assistance it had afforded them, I took this opportunity of doing myself this honour.” The fourth edition of this work, printed long after our author’s death, viz. in 1733, was in folio, as well as the rest; to which is added “The Elements of Architecture,” by sir Henry Wotton, and some other things, of which, however, hints were met with in our author’s pieces. 17. “Mwrtyj/ov Tjjj AvaiMos; that is, another part of the mystery of Jesuitism, or the new heresy of the Jesuits, publicly maintained at Paris, in the college of Clermont, the twelfth of December, 1661, declared to all the bishops of France, according to the copy printed at Paris. Together with the imaginary heresy, in three letters; with divers other particulars relating to this abominable mystery never before published in English;” Lond. 1664, 8vo. This, indeed, has not our author’s name to it; but that it is really his, and that he had reasons for not owning it more publicly, appears from a letter from him to Mr. Boyle. 18. “Kalendarium Hortense, or the gardener’s almanac, directing what he is to do monthly throughout the year, and what fruits and flowers are in prime,” Lond. 1664, 8vo. The second edition of this book, which seems to have been in folio, and bound with the Sylva and Pomona, as it was in the third edition, was dedicated to Cowley, with great compliments from our author to that poet, to whom it had been communicated before; which occasioned Cowley’s addressing to John Evelyn, esq. his mixed essay in verse and prose, entitled “The Garden.” This passed through at least nine editions. The author made many additions as long as he lived and the best was that printed by way of appendix to the fourth and last edition of the Sylva in his life-time. 19. “The history of the three late famous impostors, viz. Padre Ottotnano, pretended son and heir to the late grand signior; Mahomet Bei, a pretended prince of the Ottoman family, but, in truth, a Wallachian counterfeit: and Sabbatai Sevi, the supposed Messiah of the Jews, in the year 1666; with a brief account of the ground and occasion of tjie present war between the Turk and the Venetian: together with the cause of the final extirpation, destruction, and exile, of the Jews out of the empire of Persia,” Lond. 1668, 8vo. This piece is dedicated to Henry earl of Arlington, and the dedication is subscribed J. E. and, if Mr. Wood had seen it, he would not have said, “I know nothing yet to the contrary but this may be a translation.” The nature and value of this little piece were much better known abroad: one of the best literary journals, “Act. Eruditorum Lipsiensiutn,” A. D. 1690, p. 605, having given, though at some distance of time, a very just character of it, with this very remarkable circumstance, that the pretended Mahomet Bei was at that very juncture in the city of Leipsic. There is added, at the end of this piece, an account of the extirpation of the Jews in Persia during the reign of Shah Abbas the second, which is not so large or perfect as the rest; of which circumstance the author gives a hint, and does not press any thing farther than he is supported by authorities. He mentions a person, who, the very year that the book was published, took upon him the title of brother to the famous count Serini, and that he had the misfortune to be shipwrecked in the west of England, by which he imposed upon persons of quality, till, by unluckily calling for drink upon the road in very audible English, he discovered the cheat. He farther remarks, with regard to Sabbatai Sevi, that he was the twenty-fifth false Messiah that had attempted to impose upon the Jews, even according to their own account. 20. “Public employment and an active life preferred to solitude, in a reply to a late ingenious essay of a contrary title,” Lond. 1667, in 8vo. This was written in answer to a discourse of sir George Mackenzie’s, preferring solitude to public employment, which was at the time of its publication much admired; and, as our author apprehended this might prove an encouragement to indolence and timidity, he therefore wrote against it. We have in the Transactions of the royal society a character of this, and thie piece before mentioned, which follows the account given of the second edition of the “Sylva,” Philosoph. Trans. No. 53; and the reader will find some ingenious strictures on “Public employment, &c.” in vol. 1. of the Censura Literaria, by one who knows well how to improve solitude. 21. “An idea of the perfection of painting, demonstrated from the principles of art, and by examples conformable to the observations which Pliny and Quintilian have made upon the most celebrated pieces of the ancient painters, paralleled with some works of the most famous modern painters, Leonardo da Vinci, Raphael, Julio Romano, and N. Poussin. Written in French by Roland Freart, Sieur de Cambray, and rendered English by J. E. esquire, fellow of the royal society;” Lond. 1668, 8vo, This translation is dedicated to Henry Howard, of Norfolk, heir apparent to that dukedom and the dedication is dated from Say es-court, June the 24th, 1668, 8vo. This piece, like most of Mr. Evelyn’s works, is now become exceeding scarce. In the preface he observes, that the reader will find in this discourse divers useful, remarks, especially where the author “treats of costume, which we, continues he, have interpreted decorum, as the nearest expression our language would bear to it. And I was glad our author had reproved it in so many instances, because it not only grows daily more licentious, but even ridiculous and intolerable. But it is hoped this may universally be reformed! when our modern workmen shall consider, that neither the exactness of their design, nor skilfulness in colouring, ha.s been able to defend their greatest predecessors from just reproaches, who have been faulty in this particular. I could exemplify in many others, whom our author has omitted; and there is none but takes notice what injury it has done the fame of some of our best reputed painters, and how indecorous it is to introduce circumstances, wholly improper to the usages and genius of the places where our histories are supposed to. have beeq acted.” Mr. Evelyn then remarks, that this was not only the fault of Bassano, who would be ever bringing in his wife, children, and servants, his dog and his cat, and very kitchen-stuff, after the Paduan mode; but of the great Titian himself, Georgipn, Tintoret, and the rest; as Paulo Veronese is observed also to have done, in his story of Pharaoh’s daughter drawing Moses out of the river, attended with a guard of Swisses. Malvogius likewise, in a picture then in the king’s gallery at Whitehall, not only represents our first parents with navels upon their bellies, but has placed an artificial stone fountain, carved with imagery, in the midst of his paradise. Nor does that excellent and learned painter, Rubens, escape without censure, not only for making most of his figures of the shapes of brawny Flemings, but for other sphalmata and circumstances of the like nature, though in some he has acquitted himself to admiration, in the due observation of costume, particularly in his crucifixes, &c. Raphael Urbino was, doubtless, one of the first who reformed these inadvertencies; but it was more conspicuous in his latter than in his former pieces. “As for Michael Angelo,” continues Mr. Evelyn, “though I heartily consent with our critic in reproving that almost idolatrous veneration of his works, who hath certainly prodigiously abused the art, not only in the table this discourse arraigns him for, but several more which I have seen; yet I conceive he might have omitted some of those embittered reproaches he has reviled him with, who doubtless was one of the greatest masters of his time, and however he might succeed as to the decorum, was hardly exceeded for what he performed in sculpture and the statuary art by many even of the ancients themselves, and haply by none of the moderns: witness his Moses, Christus in Gremio, and several other figures at Rome to say nothing of his talent in architecture, and the obligation the world has to his memory, for recovering many of its most useful ornaments and members out of the neglected fragments, which lay so long buried, and for vindicating that antique and magnificent manner of building from the trifling of Goths and barbarians.” He observes next, that the usual reproach of painting has been the want of judgment in perspective, and bringing more into history than is justifiable upon one aspect, without turning the eye to each figure in particular, and multiplying the points of sight, which is a point even monsieur Freart, for all the pains he has taken to magnify that celebrated Decision of Paris, has failed in. For the knowing in that art easily perceive, that even Raphael himself has not so exactly observed it, since, instead of one, as monsieur Freart takes it to be, and as indeed it ought to have been, there are no less than four or five; as du Bosse hath well observed in his treatise of “The converted painter,” where, by the way also, he judiciously numbers amongst the faults against costume, those landscapes, grotesque figures, &c. which we frequently find abroad especially for, in our country, we have few or none of those graceful supplements of steeples painted, horizontally and vertically on the vaults and ceilings of cupolas, since we have no examples for it from the ancients, who allowed no more than a frett to the most magnificent and costly of those which they erected. But, would you know whence this universal caution in most of their works proceeded, and that the best of our modern painters and architects have succeeded better than others of that profession, it must be considered, that they were learned men, good historians, and generally skilled in the best antiquities; such were Raphael, and doubtless his scholar Julio; and, if Polydore arrived not to the glory of letters, he yet attained to a rare habit of the ancient gusto, as may be interpreted from most of his designs and paintings. Leon Baptist Alberti was skilled in all the politer parts of learning to a prodigy, and has written several curious things in the Latin tongue. We know that, of later times, Rubens was a person universally learned, as may be seen in several Latin epistles of his to the greatest scholars of his age. And Nicholas Poussin, the Frenchman, who is so much celebrated and so deservedly, did, it seems, arrive to this by his indefatigable industry “as the present famous statuary, Bernini, now living,” says Mr. Evelyn, “has also done so universal a mastery, that, not many years since, he is reported to have built a theatre at Rome, for the adornment whereof he not only cut the figures and painted the scenes, but wrote the play, and composed the music, which was all in recitative. And I am persuaded, that all this is not yet by far so much as that miracle and ornament of our age and country, Dr. Christopher Wren, were able to perform, if he were so disposed, and so encouraged, because he is master of so many admirable advantages beyond them. I alledge these examples partly to incite, and partly to shew the dignity and vast comprehension of this rare art, and that for a man to arrive to its utmost perfection, he should be almost as universal as the orator in Cicero, and the architect in Vitruvius. But, certainly, some tincture in history, the optics and anatomy, are absolutely requisite, and more, iri the opinion of our author, than to be a steady designer, and skilled in the tempering and applying of colours, which, amongst most of our modern workmen, go now for the only accomplishments of a painter.”

, third son of the former, was born at his father’s house at Sayes-court, near Deptford, January 14, 1654-5, and was there very tenderly educated in his infancy, being considered (after the death of his brother Richard Evelyn, January 27, 1657, who, though but five years of age, was esteemed a kind of prodigy) as the heir of the family. He was likewise universally admired for the pregnancy of his parts, of which he gave a pleasing proof in a Latin letter written to his father in Dec. 1665, and which induced his father to send him in 1666 to Oxford, where he remained in the house of the ingenious and learned Dr. Ralph Bathurst, then president of Trinity-college, before he was admitted a gentleman-commoner, which was in Easter term 1663. It is not clear at what time he left Oxford; but Mr. Wood seems to be positive that he took no degree there, but returned to his father’s house, where he prosecuted his studies under the directions of that great man. There is, however, good reason to believe that it was during his residence in Trinity-college, and when he was not above fifteen years of age, that he wrote that elegant Greek poem which is prefixed to the second edition of the Sylva, and is a noble proof of the strength of his genius, and wonderful progress in learning in the early part of his life. In Nov. 1675, he set out for Paris with lord Berkley, ambassador to the French court; and in May 1676, returned to England. He discovered his proficiency soon afterwards, both in the learned and modern languages, by his elegant translations, as well as his intimate acquaintance with the muses, in some original poems which were very justly admired. If we consider the father’s turn of mind, we need not wonder that he should employ his pen first upon gardening, especially in the easy way of translation, and from a book so justly as well as generally admired as the French Jesuit’s has ever been. The title of our author’s little treatise was, 1. “Of gardens, four books, first written in Latin verse, by Renatus Rapinus; and now made English by John Evelyn, esq.” 1673, 8vo. His father annexed the second book of this translation to his “Sylva,” and it must be allowed that the sense is very faithfully rendered, and the poetry is more easy and harmonious than could have been expected from a youth of his age. 2. “The life of Alexander the great,” translated from the Greek of Plutarch, printed in the fourth volume of Plutarch’s lives by several hands. 3. “The history of the grand visiers, Mahomet and Achmet Coprogli; of the three last grand signiors, their sultanas, and chief favourites; with the most secret intrigues of the seraglio,” &c. Lond. 1677, 8vo. This was a translation from the French, and has been esteemed an entertaining and instructive history. Our author wrote also several poems occasionally, of which two are printed in Dryden’s Miscellanies, and more are in Nichols’s Collection of Poems. The one entitled “On virtue,” has been esteemed excellent in its kind by the best judges and the other, styled “The remedy of love,” has been also much admired. On Feb. 24, 1679-80, he married Martha, daughter and coheiress of Richard Spenser, esq. Turkey merchant, whose widow married sir John Stonehouse, of Radley, in Berks, bart. Mr. Evelyn, who had a turn for business as well as study, and had been introduced to the prince of Orange in 1688, was in 1690 made one of the chief clerks of the treasury, and quitting that situation in 1691, became one of the commissioners of the revenue in Ireland, which country he visited in 1692. He would probably have been advanced to higher employments if he had not been cut off in thd flower of his age, dying at his house in Berkeleystreet, London, March 24, 1698, in the forty-fifth year of his age. He had by his wife two sons and three daughters. His eldest son, Richard, -died an infant at Sayes-court, as did his eldest daughter Martha Mary. His second daughter, Elizabeth, married Simon Harcourt, esq. eldest son and heir of Simon lord viscount Harcourt, lord high chancellor of Great Britain, by whom she became mother to the first earl Harcourt. Jane, his third daughter, died an infant at his house in the parish of St. Martin’s in the fields, and was interred at Kensington. John Evelyn, his second and only surviving son, born at Sayes-court, March 2, 1681, succeeded to his grandfather’s estate. He was married at Lambeth chapel, September 18,- 1705, to Anne, daughter of Edward Boscawen, of Worthivil, co. Cornwall, esq. He was by letters-patent bearing date July 30, 1713, created a baronet. This worthy gentleman, who inherited the virtue and learning as well as the patrimony of his ancestors, made several alterations and additions to the family-seat at Wotton, in 1717, one of which was the erecting a beautiful library, forty-five feet long, fourteen feet broad, and as many high, for the reception of that large ajtd curious collection of books made by his grandfather, his father, and himself, and where they still remain. He was long one of the commissioners of the customs, a fellow of the royal society, and was succeeded by his eldest son, John, who dying in 1767, was succeeded by sir Frederick Evelyn, on whose death, in 1812, the title descended to Mr. John Evelyn, the grandson of Charles, a younger son of the first baronet of the Wotton branch.

St. Evremond now thought of passing the remainder of his days in Holland but, in 1670, sir William Temple delivered to him letters from the earl of Arlington, by which he was informed, that king Charles -II. desired his return to England. This induced him to change his intentions; and, on his arrival in England, the king conferred on him a pension o:' three hundred pounds a-year. In 1675, the duchess of Mazarin arrived in England; and we are told, that “her house was the usual rendezvous of the politest persons in England; and in these assemblies the people of fashion found an agreeable amusement, and the learned an excellent pattern of politeness.” It is added, that, in her house, “all manner of subjects were discoursed upon, as philosophy, religion, history, pieces of wit and gallantry, plays, and authors ancient and modern.” St. Evremond spent much of his time at the house of the duchess of Mazarin, and appears to have had a great friendship for her. He was also on very friendly terms with the celebrated Ninon de PEnclos, with whom he often corresponded. He sometimes passed the summer season with the court at Windsor, where he conversed much with Isaac Vossius, who had been made one of the prebendaries of Windsor by king Charles II. By the death of that prince, St. Evremond lost his pension; but, in 1686, the earl of Sunderland proposed to king James II. to create for him an office of secretary of the cabinet, whose province should be to write the king’s private letters to foreign princes. The king agreed to the proposal, but St. Evremond declined accepting the office. He made his acknowledgments to lord Sunderland, and to the king; and said, “he should account himself very happy to be able to serve his majesty; but that a man of his age ought to think of nothing, but how to husband the little time he had to live, and to spend it in ease and tranquillity.” After the Revolution, he was so well treated in England by king William, that he declined returning again to his own country, though the French king now gave him permission, and even promised him a favourable reception. Yet king William’s characteristic address to him, when first introduced at court, could not be very acceptable to a man who valued himself on his literary reputation “I think you was a major-general in the French service” About 1693, the abbot de Chaulieu sent a poem to the duchess of Mazarin, accompanied with a letter in verse, which contained a high compliment to St. Evremond, whom he compared to Ovid. St. Evremond made some remarks on the abbot’s poetical epistle, in which he objected to the comparison between himself and the Roman poet. “Ovid,” said he, “was the most witty and the most unfortunate man of his time. I am not like him, either as to wit or misfortunes. He was exiled among barbarians, where he made fine verses; but so doleful and melancholy, that they excite as much contempt for his weakness as compassion for his disgrace. Where I am, I daily see the duchess of Mazarin. I lire among sociable people, who have a great deal of merit and a great deal of wit. I make very indifferent verses; but so gay, that they make my humour to be envied, while they make my poetry to be laughed at. I have too little money but I love to be in a country where there is enough besides, the nse of it ends with our lives and the consideration of a greater evil is a sort of remedy against a lesser. Thus you see I have several advantages over Ovid. It is true, that he was more fortunate at Rome with Julia than I have been at London with Hortensia: but the favours of Julia were the occasion of his misfortune; and the rigours of Hortensia do not make a man of my age uneasy.”

By his wiil, St. Evremond, who died worth about 800l. left 20l. to the poor French refugees; and the same sura to “the poor Roman catholics, or of any other religion.” His manuscripts he left to Dr. Sylvestre. The earl of Galway was his executor.

The fame of this discovery soon spread over Flanders and into Italy; and when he grew old, but not till then, he imparted his secret to several painters, both Flemish and Italian. And it must be confessed the art of painting is very highly indebted to him for this foundation of the wonderful success with which succeeding ages have profited by this very useful discovery. As a painter he possessed very good talents, considering the early period of the art. He copied his heads generally from rtature; his figures are seldom well composed or drawn. But his power of producing richness of positive colours is surprising, and their durability no less so. He paid great attention evidently to nature, but saw her in an inferior style. He la-> boured his pictures very highly, particularly in the ornaments, which he bestowed with a lavish hand, but with alf the Gothic taste of the time and country in which he lived. In the gallery of the Louvre is a picture of the “Divine Being,” as he chose to call it, represented by an aged man with a long beard, crowned with the pope’s tiara, seated in a chair with golden circles of Latin inscriptions round his head, but without the least dignity of character, or evident action or intention. It is the very bathos of the art. At the earl of Pembroke’s, at Wilton house, is a small picture which does him more credit. -It represents the nativity of our Saviour, with the adoration of the shepherds, and the composition consists of four figures, besides the Saviour and four angels, and has in the back ground the anomaly of the angels at the sa.me time appearing to the shepherds. It is in oil, and the colours are most of them very pure, except those of the flesh. The garment of Joseph is very rich, being glazed thick with red lake, which is as fresh as if it were new. Almost all the draperies are Sg glazed with different colours, and are still very clear, except the virgin’s, which, instead of maintaining its blue colour, is become a blackish green. There is a want of harmony in the work, but it is more the effect of bad arrangement of the colours than the tones of them. The glory surrounding the heads of the virgin and child is of gold. We have been the more particular in stating these circumstances of this picture, because our readers will naturally be curious to know how far the original inventor of oil painting succeeded in his process, and they will see by this account that he went very far indeed, in what relates to the perfection of the vehicle he used, which, if he had happily been able to employ as well as he understood, the world would not have seen many better painters. He lived to practise his discovery for thirty-one years, dying in 1441, at the advanced age of seventy-one. Although in the preceding sketch we have principally followed the first authority in our references^ it must not remain unnoticed that the learned antiquary, Mr. Raspe, has proved, in the opinion of sir Joshua Reynolds beyond all contradiction, that the art of painting in oil was invented and practised many ages betbre Van Eyck was born.

, a very active man in the parliaments service during the civil wars, and at length general of their armies, was the eldest son of Ferdinando, lord Fairfax, by Mary his wife, daughter of Edmund Sheffield earl of Mulgrave. He was born at Denton within the parish of Otley, in Yorkshire, in January, 1611. After a proper school education, he studied sometime in St. John’s college, in Cambridge, to. which, in his latter days, he became a benefactor. He appears to have been a lover of learning, though he did not excel in any branch, except it was in the history and antiquities of Britain, as will appear in the sequel. Being of a martial disposition even in his younger years, but finding no employment at home, he went and served in Holland as a volunteer under the command of Horatio lord Vere, in order to learn the art of war. After some stay there (but how long we cannot learn) he came back to England; and, retiring to his father’s house, married Anne, fourth daughter of lord Vere. Here he contracted a strong aversion for the court; either by the instigation of his wife, who was a zealous presbyterian, or eLe by the persuasions and example of his father, who, as Clarendon says, grew “actively and factiously disaffected to the king.” When the king first endeavoured to raise a guard at York for his own person, he was entrusted by his party to prefer a petition to the king, beseeching him to hearken to his parliament, and not to take that course of raising forces, and when his majesty seemed to shun receiving it, Fairfax followed him with it, on Heyworth-moor, in the presence of near 100,000 people, and presented it upon the pommel of his saddle. Shortly after, upon the actual breaking out of the civil wars, in 1642, his father having received a commission from the parliament to be general of the forces in the North, he had a commission under him to be general of the horse. His first exploit was at Bradford in Yorkshire, which he obliged a body of royalists to quit, and to retire to Leeds. A few days after, he and captain Hotham, with some horse and dragoons marching thither, the royalists* fled in haste to York. And the former having advanced to Tadcaster, resolved to keep the pass at Wetherby, for securing the West Riding of Yorkshire, whence their chief supplies came. Sir Thomas Glemham attempted to dislodge them thence; but, after a short and sharp encounter, retired. On this, Will, am Cavendish earl of Newcastle, and Henry Clifford earl of Cumberland, united their forces at York, amounting to 9000 men, and resolved to fall upon Tadcaster: which being judged untenable, the lord Fairfax, and his son sir Thomas, drew out to an advantageous piece of ground near the town: but, alter a six hours fight, were beaten, and withdrew in the night to Selby. Three days after, sir Thomas marched in the night by several towns Inch the royalists lay, and came to Bradford, where he entrenched himself. But having too many soldiers to lie idle, and too few to be upon constant duty, he resolved to attack his enemies in their garrisons. Accordingly, coming before Leeds, he carried that town (Jan. 23, 1642-3) after a hot dispute, and found a good store of ammunition, of which he stood in great want. He next defeated a party of 700 horse and foot at Gisborough, under the command of colonel Slingsby; and then Wakefield and Doncaster yielded themselves to the parliament. But, For these overt acts, William earl of Newcastle, the king’s general, proclaimed sir Thomas and his father traitors, and the parliament did the like for the earl. In the mean time, the lord Fairfax, being denied succour from Hull and the East Riding, was forced to forsake Selby, and retire to Leeds: of which the earl of Newcastle having intelligence, lay with his army on Clifford-moor, to intercept him in his way to Leeds. On this sir Thomas was ordered, by his father, to bring what men he could to join with him at Sherburne, on purpose to secure his retreat. To amuse the earl, sir Thomas made a diversion at Tadcaster, which 'the garrison immediately quitted, but lord Goring marching to its relief, with twenty troops of horse and dragoons, defeated sir Thomas upon Bramham-moor: who also received a second defeat upon Seacroft-moor, where some of his men were slain, and many taken prisoners, and himself made his retreat with much difficulty to Leeds, about an hour after his father was safely come thither. Leeds and Bradford being all the garrisons the parliament had in the North, sir Thomas thought it necessary to possess some other place: therefore with about 1100 horse and foot, he drove, on the 21st of May, the royalists out of Wakefield, which they had seized again; and took 1400 prisoners, 80 officers, and great store of ammunition. But, shortly after, the earl of Newcastle coming to besiege Bradford, and sir Thomas and his father having the boldness, with about 3000 men, to go and attack his whole army, which consisted of 10,000, on Adderton-moor; they were entirely routed by the earl r on the 30th of June, with a considerable loss. Upon that, Halifax and Beverly being abandoned by the parliamentarians, and the lord Fairfax having neither a place of strength to defend himself in, nor a garrison in Yorkshire to retire to, withdrew the same night to Leeds, to secure that town. By his order, sir Thomas stayed in Bradford with 800 foot, and 60 horse, but being surrounded, he was obliged to force his way through: in which desperate attempt, hjs lady, and many Bothers, were taken prisoners. At his coming to Leeds, he found things in great distraction; the council of war having resolved to quit the town, and retreat to Hull, which was sixty miles off; with many of the "king’s garrison in the way, but he got safely to Selby, where there was a ferry, and hard by one of the parliament’s garrisons at Cawood. Immediately after his coming to Selby, being attacked by a party of horse which pursued him, he received a shot in the wrist of his left arm, which made the bridle fall out of liis hand, and occasioned such an effusion of blood, that he was ready to fall from his horse. But, taking the reins in the other hand in which he had his sword, he withdrew himself out of the crowd; and after a very troublesome and dangerous passage, he came to Hull. Upon these repeated disasters, the Scots were hastily solicited to send 20,000 men to the assistance of the parliamentarians, who were thus likely to be overpowered. Lord Fairfax, after his coming to Hull, made it his first business to raise new forces, and, in a short time, had about 1500 foot, and 700 horse. The town being little, sir Thomas was sent to Beverly, with the horse and 600 foot: for, the marquis of Newcastle looking upon them as inconsiderable, and leaving only a few garrisons, was marched with his whole army into Lincolnshire; having orders to go into Essex, and t>lock up London on that side. But he was hastily recalled northward, upon lord Fairfax’s sending out a large party to make an attempt upon Stanford-bridge near York. The marquis, at his return into Yorkshire, first dislodged, from Beverly, sir Thomas, who retreated into Hull, to which the marquis laid siege, but could not carry the place. During the siege, the horse being useless, and many dying every day, sir Thomas was sent with them over into Lincolnshire, to join the earl of Manchester’s forces, then commanded by major-general Cromwell. At Horncastle, or Winsby, they routed a party of 5000 men, commanded by sir John Henderson: and, at the same time, the besieged in Hull making a sally upon the besiegers, obliged them to retire. These two defeats together, the one falling heavy upon the horse, the other upon the foot, kept the royalists all that winter from attempting any thing; and the parliamentarians, after the taking of Lincoln, settled themselves in winter quarters. But sir Thomas had not long the benefit of them; for, in the coldest season of the year, he was commanded by the parliament to go and raise the siege of Nantwich in Cheshire, which lord Byron, with an army from Ireland, had reduced to great extremity. He set forward from Lincolnshire, December 29, and, being joined by sir William Brereton, entirely routed, 911 the 21st of January, lord Byron, who was drawn out to meet them. After that, they took in several garrisons in Cheshire, particularly Crew-house, &c. Sir Thomas, having stayed in those parts till the middle of March, was ordered back by his father into Yorkshire, that by the conjunction of their forces he might be abler to take the field. They met about Ferry-bridge; and colonel Bellasis, governor of York, having advanced to Selby to hinder their junction, they found means, notwithstanding, to join, and entirely defeated him, on the llth of April, 1644. This good success rendered sir Thomas master of the field in Yorkshire, and nothing then hindered him from marching into Northumberland, as he had been ordered by the parliament, to join the Scots, which were kept from advancing southward by the superior forces of the marquis of Newcastle, quartered at Durham. But that stroke having thrown York into the utmost distraction, the inhabitants speedily sent to the marquis to haste back thither; by which means a way was left open for the Scots, who, with cold, and frequent alarms, were reduced to great extremity. They joined the lord Fairfax at Wetherby, on the 20th of April, and, marching on to York, laid siege to that city *, wherein the marquis of Newcastle had shut himself up, being closely pursued, on the way thither, by sir Thomas, and major-general Desley. And, when prince Rupert was advancing out of Lancashire to the relief of that place, they marched with 6000 horse and dragoons, and 5000 foot, to stop his progress: but he, eluding their vigilance, and bringing round his army, which consisted of above 20,000 men, got into York. Whereupon the parliamentarians raised the siege, and retired to Hessey-moor. The English were for fighting, and the Scots for retreating; which last opinion prevailing, they both marched away to Tadcaster, there being great differences and jealousies between the two nations. But the rash and haughty prince, instead of harassing and wearing them out by prudent delays, resolved, without consulting the marquis of New­* fa our account cf Dodsworth (vol. XII. p. 181), will be found some circumstances favourable to sir Thomas Fairfax’s character in the conduct of this. castle, or any of his officers, to engage them, on Marstonmoor, eight miles from York, on the 2d of July: where that bloody battle was fought which entirely ruined the king’s affairs in the north. In this battle, sir Thomas Fairfax commanded the right wing of the horse. The prince, after his defeat, retiring towards Lancashire, and the marquis, in discontent, sailing away to Hamburgh, the three parliament-generals came and sat down again before York, which surrendered the 15th of July: and the North was now wholly reduced by the parliament’s forces, except some garrisons. In September following, sir Thomas was sent to take Helmesley-castle, where he received a dangerous shot in one of his shoulders, and was brought back to York, all being doubtful of his recovery for some time. Some time after, he was more nearly killed by a cannonshot before Pomfret-castle.

Hitherto he had acquitted himself with undaunted bravery, and with great and deserved applause from his party. Had he stopped here, or at such times at least as the king’s concessions were in reason and equity a just ground for peace (which was more than once), he might have been honourably ranked among the rest of those patriots, who took up arms only for the redress of grievances. But his boundless ambition, and his great desire to rule, made him weakly engage, with the utmost zeal, in the worst and most exceptionable parts of the rebellion. When the parliamentarians thought fit to new-model their army, and to lay aside the earl of Essex, they unanimously voted sir Thomas Fairfax to be their general in his room, he being ready to undertake or execute any thing that he was ordered. To him Oliver Cromwell was joined with the title of lieutenant-general, but with intention of being his governor, exercising the superiority of deep art over a comparatively weak mind. Sir Thomas, being thus voted commander-in-chief of the parliament’s army on the 21st of January, 1644-5, received orders from the parliament speedily to come up from the north to London, where he arrived privatcsly, Feb. 18, and, the next day, was brought by four of the members into the house of commons, where he was highly complimented by the speaker, and received his commission of general. The 15th of the same month, an ordinance was made, for raising and maintaining of forces under his command: it having been voted, a few days before, that he should nominate all the commanders in his army, to be taken out of any of the other armies, with the approbation of both houses. March 25, the parliament ordered him 1500l. The 3d of April, he went from London to Windsor, where he appointed the general rendezvous and continued there till the last day of that month, new-framing and modelling the army or rather Cromwell doing it in his name. April 16, he was appointed, by both houses, governor of Hull. In the mean time, Taupton, in Somersetshire, one of the parliament’s garrisons, being closely besieged by the royalists, sir Thomas Fairfax received orders to hasten to its relief, with 8000 horse and foot. He began his march May 1, and by the 7th had reached Blandford in Dorsetshire: but, the king taking the field from Oxford, with strong reinforcements brought by the princes Rupert and Maurice, sir Thomas was ordered by the parliament to send 3000 foot and 1500 horse to relieve Taunton, and himself to return, with the rest of Juis forces, to join Oliver Cromwell and major-general Browne, and attend the king’s motions. The 14th of May he was come back as far as Newbury; where having rested three nights, he went and faced Dennington-castle, and took a few prisoners. Thence he proceeded to lay siege to Oxford, as he was directed by the committee of both kingdoms, and sat down before it the 22d. But, before he had made any progress in this siege, he received orders to draw near the king, who had taken Leicester by storm, May 31, and was threatening the eastern associated counties. Sir Thomas therefore rising from before Oxford, June 5, arrived the same day at Marsh-Gibbon, in Buckinghamshire on the llth he was at Wootton, and the next day at Gilsborough, in Northamptonshire where he kept his head-quarters till the 14th, when he engaged the king’s forces, at the fatal and decisive battle of Naseby, and obtained a complete victory. The king, after that, retiring into Wales, sir Thomas went and laid siege on the 16th to Leicester, which surrendered on the 18th. He proceeded, on the 22d, to Warwick; and thence (with 'a disposition either to go over the Severn towards the king, or to move westward as he should be ordered) he marched on through Gloucestershire towards Marlborough, where he arrived the 28th. Here he received orders from the parliament, to hasten to the relief of Taunton, which was besieged again by the royalists; letters being sent at the same time into the associated comities for recruits, and tfce arrears of pay for his army; but on his arrival at Bland ford, he was informed, that lord Goring had drawn off his horse from before Taunton, and left his foot in the passage to block up that place, marching himself with the horse towards Langport. Sir Thomas Fairfax, therefore, advancing against him, defeated him there on the 10th of July; and the next day^ went and summoned Bridgewater, which was taken by storm on the 22d. He became also master of Bath the 30th of the same month; and then laid close siege to Sherborne-castle, which was likewise taken by storm August 15. And, having besieged the city of Bristol from the 22d of August to the 10th of September, it was surrendered to him by prince Rupert. After this laborious expedition, the general rested some days at Bath, having sent out parties to reduce the castles of the Devises and Berkley, and other garrisons between the west and London; and on the 23d moved from Bath to the Devises, and thence to Warminster on the 27th, where he stayed till October 8, when he went to Lyme in Dorsetshire. From this place he came to Tiverton, of which he became master on the 19th; and then, as he could not undertake a formal siege in the winter season, he blocked up the strong city of Exeter, which did not surrender till the 13th of April following: in the mean time, he took Dartmouth by storm, January 18, 1645-6; and several forts and garrisons at different times. Feb. 16, he defeated thelord Hopton near Torrington. This nobleman retreating with his broken forces into Cornwall, sir Thomas followed him: in pursuit of whom he came to Launceston Feb. 25, and to Bodmin March 2. On the 4th, Mount Edgecornbe was surrendered to him; and Fowey about the same time. At last the parliament army approaching Truro, where lord Hopton had his head-quarters, and he being so hemmed in as to remain without a possibility of escaping, sir Thomas, on the 5th of March, sent and offered him honourable terms of capitulation, which after some delays, lord Hoptoit accepted, and a treaty was signed by commissioners on both sides, March 14 in pursuance of which, the royalists, consisting of above 5000 horse, were disbanded and took an oath never to bear arms against the parliament. But, before the treaty was signed, lord Hopton, and Arthur lord Capel, retired to Scilly, whence they passed into Jersey, April 17, with Charles prince of Wales, sir Kdtvard Hyde, and other persons of distinction. Thus the king’s army in the west being entirely dispersed by the vigilance and wonderful success of general Fairfax, he returned, March 31, to the siege of Exeter, which surrendered to him upon articles, the 13th of April, as already observed: and with the taking of this city ended his western expedition. He then marched, with wonderful speed, towards Oxford, the most considerable garrison remaining in the king’s hands, and arriving on the 1st of May, with his army, began to lay siege to it. The king, who was there, afraid of being enclosed, privately, and in disguise, departed thence on the 27th of April; and Oxford surrendered upon articles, June 24, as did Wallingford, July 22. After the reduction of these places, sir Thomas went and besieged Ragland-castle, in Monmouthshire, the property of Henry Somerset, marquis of Worcester, which yielded Aug. 19. His next employment was to disband major-general Massey’s brigade, which he did at the Devises. About that time he was seized with a violent fit of the ston, unjder which he laboured many days. As soon as he was recovered, he took a journey to London; where he arrived November 12, being met some miles off by great crowds of people, and the city militia. The next day, both houses of parliament agreed to congratulate his coming to town, and to give him thanks for his faithful services and wise conduct: which they did the day following, waiting upon him at his house in Queen-street*. Hardly had he had time to rest, when he was called upon to convoy the two hundred thousand pounds that had been granted to the Scotish army; the price of their delivering up their sovereign king Charles. For that purpose he set out from London, December 18, with a sufficient force, carrying at the same time 50,000l. for his own army. The king being delivered by the Scots to the parliament’s commissioners at Newcastle, Jan. 30, 1646-7, sir Thomas went and met him, Feb. 15, beyond Nottingham, in his way to Holmby; and his majesty stopping his horse, sir Thomas alighted, and kissed his hand; and afterwards mounted, and discoursed with him as they rode along. The 5th of March following, after long debate in parliament, he was toted general of the forces that were to be continued. He came to Cambridge the 12th of the same month, where he was highly caressed and complimented, and created master of arts.

Hitherto, the crafty and ambitious Cromwell had permitted him to enjoy in all respects the supreme command, at least to outward appearance. And, under his conduct, the army’s rapid success, after their new model, had much surpassed the expectation of the most sanguine of their masters, the parliament* The question now was, to disband the majority of them after their work was done, and to employ a part of the rest in the reduction of Ireland. But either of the two appeared to all of them intolerable. For, many having, from the dregs of the people, risen to the highest commands, and by plunderings and violence amassing daily great treasures, they could not bear the thoughts of losing such great advantages. To maintain themselves therefore in the possession of them, Cromwell, and his son-in-law Ireton, as good a contriver as himself, but a much better writer and speaker, devised how to raise a mutiny in the army against the parliament. To this end they spread a whisper among the soldiery, “that the parliament, now they had the king, intended to disband them; to cheat them of their arrears; and to send them, into Ireland, to be destroyed by the Irish.” The army, enraged at this, were taught by Ireton to erect a council among themselves, of two soldiers out of every troop and every company, to consult for the good of the army, and to assist at the council of war, and advise for the peace and safety of the kingdom. These, who were called adjutators, or agitators, were wholly under Cromwell’s influence and direction, the most active of them being his avowed creatures. Sir Thomas saw with uneasiness his power on the army usurped by these agitators, the forerunners of confusion and anarchy, whose design (as he observes) was to raise their own fortunes upon the public ruin; and that made him resolve to lay down his commission. But he was over-persuaded by the heads of the Independent faction to hold it till he had accomplished their desperate projects, of rendering themselves masters not only of the parliament, but of the whole kingdom; for, he joined in the several petitions and proceedings of the army that tended to destroy the parliament’s power. About the beginning of June, he advanced towards London, to awe the parliament, though both houses desired his army might not come within fifteen miles of the same; June 15, he was a party in the charge against eleven of the members of the house of commons; in August, he espoused the speakers of both houses, and the sixty -six members that had fled to the army, and betrayed the privileges of parliament: and, entering London, August 6, restored them in a kind of triumph; for which he received the thanks of both houses, and was appointed constable of the Tower. On the other hand it is said that he was no way concerned in, the violent removal of the king from Holmby, by cornet Joyce, on the 3d of June; and waited with great respect upon his majesty at sir John Cutts’s house near Cambridge. Being ordered, on the 15th of the same month, by the parliament, to deliver the person of the king to such persons as both houses should appoint; that he might be brought to Richmond, where propositions were to be presented to him for a safe and well-grounded peace; instead of complying (though he seemed to do so) he carried his majesty from place to place, according to the several motions of the army, outwardly expressing, upon most occasions, a due respect for him, but, not having the will or resolution to oppose what he had not power enough to prevent, he resigned himself entirely to Cromwell. It was this undoubtedly that made him concur, Jan. 9, 1647-8, in that infamous declaration of the army, of “No further addresses or application to the king; and resolved to stand by the parliament, in what should be further necessary for settling and securing the parliament and kingdom, without the king and against him.” His father dying at York, March 13, he became possessed of his title and estate and was appointed keeper of Pontefract-castle, custos rotulorum of Yorkshire, &c. in his room. But his father’s death made no alteration in his conduct, he remaining the same servile or deluded tool to Cromwell’s ambition. He not only sent extraordinary supplies, and took all pains imaginable for reducing colonel Poyer in Wales, but also quelled, with the utmost zeal and industry, an insurrection of apprentices and others in London, April 9, who had declared for God and king Charles. The 1st of the same month he removed his head-quarters to St. EdmundV bury; and, upon the royalists seizing Berwick and Carlisle, and the apprehension of the Scots entering England, he was desired, May 9, by the parliament, to advance in person into the North, to reduce those places, and to prevent any danger from the threatened invasion. Accordingly he began to march that way the 20th. But he was soon recalled to quell an insurrection in Kent, headed by George Goring, earl of Norwich, and sir William Waller. Advancing therefore against them from London in the latter end of May, he defeated a considerable party of them at Maidstone, June 2, with his usual valour. But the earl and about 500 of the royalists, getting over the Thames at Greenwich into Essex, June 3, they were joined by several parties brought by sir Charles Lucas, and Arthur lord Capel, which made up their numbers about 400; and went and shut themselves up in Colchester on the 12th of June. Lord Fairfax, informed of their motions, passed over with his forces at Gravesend with so much expedition, that he arrived before Colchester June 13. Immediately he summons the royalists to surrender; which they refusing, he attacks them the same afternoon with the utmost fury, but, being repulsed, he resolved, June 14, to block up the place in order to starve the royalists into a compliance. These endured a severe and tedious siege of eleven weeks, not surrendering till August 28, and feeding for about five weeks chiefly on horse-flesh; all their endeavours for obtaining peace on honourable terms being ineffectual. This affair is the most exceptionable part in lord Fairfax’s conduct, if it admits of degrees, for he granted worse terms to that poor town than to any other in the whole course of the war he endeavoured to destroy it as much as possible he laid an exorbitant fine, or ransom, of J2,000l. upon the inhabitants, to excuse them from being plundered; and he vented his revenge and fury upon sir Charles Lucas and sir George Lisle, who had behaved in the most inoffensive manner during the siege, sparing that buffoon the earl of Norwich, whose behaviour had been quite different: so that his name and memory there ought to be for ever detestable. After these mighty exploits against a poor and unfortified town, he made a kind of triumphant progress to Ipswich, Yarmouth, Norwich, St. Edmund’s-bui y, Harwich, Mersey, and Maldon. About the beginning of December he came to London, to awe thatcity and the parliament, and to forward the proceedings against the king quartering himself in the royal palace of Whitehall: and it was by especial order from him and the council of the army, that several members of the house of commons were secluded and imprisoned, the 6th and 7th of that month; he being, as Wood expresses it, lulled in a kind of stupidity. Yet, although his name stood foremost in the list of the king’s judges, he refused to act, probably by his lady’s persuasion. Feb. 14, 1648-9, he was voted to be one of the new council of state, but on the 19th he refused to subscribe the test, appointed by parliament, for approving all that was done concerning the king and kingship. March 31 he was voted general of all the forces in England and Ireland; and in May he inarched against the levellers, who were grown very numerous, and began to be troublesome and formidable in Oxfordshire, and utterly routed them atBurford. Thence, on the 22d of the same month, he repaired to Oxford with Oliver Cromwell, and other officers, where he was highly feasted, and created LL.D. Next, upon apprehension of the like risings in other places, he went and viewed the castles and fortifications in the Isle of Wight, and at Southampton, and Portsmouth; and near Guildford had a rendezvous of the army, which he exhorted to obedience. June 4, he was entertained, with other officers, &c. by the city of London, and presented with a large and weighty bason and ewer of beaten gold. In June 1650, upon the Scots declaring for king Charles II. the juncto of the council of state having taken a resolution to be beforehand, and not to stay to be invaded from Scotland, but to carry first the war into that kingdom; general Fairfax, being consulted, seemed to approve of the design: but afterwards, by the persuasions of his lady, and of the presbyterian ministers, he declared himself unsatisfied that there was a just ground for the parliament of England to send their army to invade Scotland and resolved to lay down his commission rather than engage in that affair and on the 26th that high trust was immediately committed to Oliver Cromwell, who was glad to see him removed, as being no longer necessary, but rather an obstacle to his farther ambitious designs. Being thus released from all public employment, he went and lived quietly at his own house in Nun-Appleton in Yorkshire; always earnestly wishing and praying (as we are assured) for the restitution of the royal family, and fully resolved to lay hold on the first opportunity to contribute his part towards it, which made him always looked upon with a jealous eye by the usurpers of that time. As soon as he was invited by general Monk to assist him against Lambert’s army, he cheerfully embraced the occasion, and appeared, on the 3d of December 1659, at the head of a body of gentlemen of Yorkshire and, upon the reputation and authority of his name, the Irish brigade of 1200 horse forsook Lambert’s army, and joined him. The consequence was, the immediate breaking of all Lambert’s forces, which gave general Monk an easy inarch into England. The 1st of January 1659-60, his lordship made himself master of York; and, on the 2d of the same month, was chosen by the rump parliament one of the council of state, as he was again on the 23d of February ensuing. March '29 he was elected one of the knights for the county of York, in the healing parliament; and was at the head of the committee appointed May 3, by the house of commons, to go and attend king Charles II. at the Hague, to desire him to make a speedy return to his parliament, and to the exercise of his kingly office. May 16 he waited upon his majesty with the rest, and endeavoured to atone in some measure for all past offences, by readily concurring and assisting in his restoration. After the dissolution of the short healing parliament, he retired again to his seat in the country, where he lived in a private manner till his death, which happened November 12, 1671, in the sixtieth year of his age. Several letters, remonstrances, and other papers, subscribed with his name, are preserved in Rushworth and other collections, being published during the time he was general; but he disowned most of them. After his decease, some “short memorials, written by himself,” were published in 1699, 8vo, by Brian Fairfax, esq. but do his lordship no great honour, either as to principle, style, or accuracy. Lord Fairfax, as to his person, was tall, but not above the just proportion, and of a gloomy and melancholy disposition. He stammered a little, and was a bad orator ou the most plausible occasions. As to the qualities of his mind, he was of a good natural disposition; a great lover of learning, having contributed to the edition of the Polygiott, and other large works; and a particular admirer of the History and Antiquities of Great Britain, as appears by the encouragement he gave to Mr. Dodsvrorth. In religion he professed Presbyterianismn, but where he first learned that, unless ia the army, does not appear. He was of a meek and humble carriage, and but of few words in discourse and council; yet, when his judgment and reason were satisfied, he was unalterable; and often ordered things expressly contrary to the judgment of all his council. His valour was unquestionable. He was daring, and regardless of self-interest, and, we are told, in the field he appeared so highly transported, that scarcely any durst speak a word to him, and he would seem like a man distracted and furious. Had not the more successful ambition and progress of Cromwell eclipsed lord Fairfax’s exploits, he would have been considered as the greatest of the parliamentary commanders; and one of the greatest heroes of the rebellion, had not the extreme narrowness of his genius, in every thing but war, obstructed his shining as a statesman. We have already noticed that he had some taste for literature, and that both at York and at Oxford he endeavoured to preserve the libraries from being pillaged. He also presented twenty-nine ancient Mss. to the Bodleian library, one of which is a beautiful ms. of -Cower' s “Confessio Amantis.” When at Oxford we do not find that he countenanced any of the outrages committed there, but on the contrary, exerted his utmost diligence in preserving the Bodleian from pillage; and, in fact, as Mr. Warton observes, that valuable repository suffered less than when the city was in' the possession of the royalists. Lord Orford has introduced lord Fairfax among his “Royal and Noble Authors,” “not only as an historian, but a poet. In Mr. Thoresby’s museum were preserved in manuscript the following pieces:” The Psalms of David;“”The Song of Solomon“” The Canticles;“and” Songs of Moses, Exod. 15. and Deut. 32.“and other parts of scripture versified.” Poem on Solitude.“Besides which, in the same collection were preserved” Notes of Sermons by his lordship, by his lady, and by their daughter Mary,“the wife of the second duke of Buckingham; and” A Treatise on the Shortness of Life.“But, of all lord Fairfax’s works, by far the most remarkable were some verses which he wrote on the horse on which Charles the Second rode to liis coronation, and which had been bred and presented to the king by his lordship. How must that merry monarch, not apt to keep his countenance on more serious occasions, have smiled at this awkward homage from the old victorious hero of republicanism and the covenant” Besides these, several of his Mss. are preserved in the library at Denton, of which Mr. Park has given a list in his new edition of the “Royal and Noble Authors.”

Being in England at the breaking-out of the civil war, he declared early for the crown, and was employed in several important matters of state. In 1644, attending the court at Oxford, he had the degree of D. C. L. conferred upon him, and was appointed secretary at war to the prince of Wales, whom he attended into the western parts of England, and thence into the islands of Scilly and Jersey. In 1648 he was appointed treasurer to the navy under prince Rupert, which office he held till 1650, when he was created a baronet, and sent to Madrid to represent the necessitous situation of his master, and to beg a temporary assistance from Philip IV. He was then sent for to Scotland, and served there in the capacity of secretary of state to the great satisfaction of all parties, although he took neither covenant nor engagement . About this time he was recommended by the king to the York party, who received him with great kindness, and entrusted him with the broad seal and signet. In 1651 he was taken prisoner at the battle of Worcester, and committed to close custody in London; but, having contracted a dangerous sickness, he had liberty allowed him, upon giving bail, to go for the recovery of his health to any place he should chtise, provided he stirred not five miles thence without leave from the parliament. In 1654 he was at Tankersley park in Yorkshire, which place he hired of his friend lord Sirafford, to whom he dedicated his translation of the “Lusiad of Camoens,” written during his residence there. In February 1659 (under pretence of travelling abroad with the eldestson of Philip earl of Pembroke), he obtained his bail to be returned, and repaired to king Charles II. at Breda, who knighted him in April following; and appointed him master of requests, and secretary of the Latin tongue.

Soon after this, having now no inducement to remain at Dublin, he went to London, where, in 1696, the celebrated actor Wilks prevailed upon him to write a play, and, knowing his humour and abilities, assured him, that he was considered by all as fitter to furnish compositions for the stage, than to act those of other writers. Another encouragement, which suffered him to exercise his genius at leisure, he owed to the earl of Orrery, a patron as well as a master of letters, who conferred a lieutenant’s commission upon him in his own regiment in Ireland, which Farquhar held several years, and gave several proofs both of courage and conduct. In 1698, his first comedy, called “Love in a Bottle,” appeared on the stage; and for its sprightly dialogue and busy scenes, was well received by the audience. In 1700 he produced his “Constant Couple, or, Trip to the Jubilee,” it being then the jubilee year at Rome, when persons of all countries flocked thither, for pardons or amusements. In the character of sir Harry Wildair, our author drew so gay and airy a character, so suited to Wilks’s talents, and so animated by his gesture and vivacity of spirit, that the player gained almost as much reputation as the poet. Towards the end of this year, Farquhar was in Holland, probably upon his military duty: and he has given a very facetious description of those places and people, in two of his letters, dated from the Brill and from Leyden: in a third, dated from the Hague, he very humourously relates how merry he was there, at a treat made by the earl of Westmoreland; while not only himself, but king William, and others of his subjects, were detained there by a violent storm. There is also among his poems, an ingenious copy of verses to his mistress upon the same subject. This mistress is supposed to have been Mrs. Oldfield, whom he first recommended to the stage. In 1701 he was a spectator, if not a mourner, at Dryden’s, funeral; for the description he has given of it in one of his letters, affords little indication of sorrow.

, knight, and knight-banneret, a valiant and renowned general, governor, and nobleman in France, during our conquests in that kingdom, under king Henry IV. V. and VI. of England, and knight-companion of the most noble order of the garter, has been supposed, from the title of his French barony, and from his name being so often corruptly mentioned in the French histories^ owing to his long residence, and many engagements in the wars there, to have been born in France, at least of French extraction. Others, allowing him to have been a native of England, have no less erroneously fixed hist birth-place in Bedfordshire; but it is well known that he was descended of an ancient and famous English family in the county of Norfolk, which had flourished there and in other parts of the kingdom, in very honourable distinction, before the conquest: and from a train of illustrious ancestors, many of them dignified with the honour of knighthood, invested with very eminent employments, and possessed of extensive patrimonies. But one of the principal branches being seated at Castre in Fleg near Great Yarmouth in that county, which estate descending to these ancestors, he afterwards adorned with a noble family seat, it is presumed he was born therej or in Yarmouth. His father was John Fastolff, esq. of that town, a man of considerable account, especially for his public benefactions, pious foundations, &c. His mother was Mary, daughter of Nicholas Park, esq. and married to sir Richard Mortimer, of Attleburgh; and this their son was born in the latter end of king Edward the Illd’s reign. As he died at the age of eighty, in 1459, his birth could not happen later than 1378. It may fairly be presumed he was grounded as well in that learning and other accomplishments which afterwards, improved by his experience and sagacity, rendered him so famous in war and peace, as in those virtuous and religious principles which governed his actions to the last. His father dying before he was of age, the care of his person and estate were committed to John duke of Bedford, who was afterwards the most wise and able regent of France we ever had there; and he was the last ward which that duke had: others, indeed, say that he was trained up in the Norfolk family, which will not appear improbable when we consider that it was not unusual in those times for young noblemen whilst under wardship to be trained under others, especially ministers of state, in their houses and families, as in academies of behaviour, and to qualify them for the service of their country at home pr abroad. But if he was under Thomas Mowbray duke pf Norfolk, while he enjoyed that title, it could be but one year, that duke being banished the kingdom by king Richard II. in 1398, though his younger son, who was restored to that title many years after, might be one of sir John FastoltFs feoffees. And it is pretty evident that he was, but a few years after the banishment of that duke, in some considerable post under Thomas of Lancaster, after^ wards duke of Clarence, and second son of the succeeding king Henry IV. This Thomas was sent by his father so early, according to some writers, as the second year of his reign, which was in 1401, lord lieutenant of Ireland. And it is not improbable that Fastolff was then with him; for we are informed by William of Wyrcestre, that in the sixth, and seventh years of the said king Henry, that is, in 1405 and 1406, this John Fastolff, esq. was continually with, him. And the same lord lieutenant of Ireland was again there in 1408, 10 Henry IV. and almost to the beginning of the next year, when it is no less probable that Fastolff was still with him; for, in the year last mentioned, we find that he was married in that kingdom to a rich young widow of quality, named Milicent, lady Castlecomb, daughter of Robert lord Tibetot, and relict of sir Stephen Scrope, knight; the same, perhaps, who is mentioned, though not with the title of knighthood, by sir P. Leycester, to have been the said lord lieutenant’s deputy of Ireland, during most of the intervals of his return to England; which deputy-lieutenant died in his office the same year. This marriage was solemnized in Ireland on the feast of St. Hilary, 1408, and Fastolff bound himself in the sum of 1000l. to pay her 100l. a year, for pin-money during life; and she received the same to the 24th year of king Henry VI. The lands in Wiltshire and Yorkshire which came to Fastolff by this marriage with the said lady, descended to Stephen Le Scrope, her son and heir. We may reasonably believe that this marriage in Ireland engaged his settlement in that kingdom, or upon his estate in Norfolk, till his appointment to the command of some forces, or to some post of trust under the English regency in France, soon after required his residence in that kingdom. For, according to the strictest calculation we can make from the accounts of his early engagements in France, the many years he was there, and the time of his final return, it must be not long after his marriage that he left either England or Ireland for that foreign service; being employed abroad by Henry IV. V. and VI. in the wars in France, Normandy, Anjou, Mayne, and Guyenne, upwards of forty years; which agrees very well with what Caxton has published, in his concise, yet comprehensive character of him, little more than twenty years after his death, where he speaks of his “exercisyng the warrys in the royame of Fraunce and other countrees, &c. by fourty yeres enduryng.” So that, we cannot see any room, either in the time or the temper, in the fortunes or employments of this knight, for him to have been a companion with, or follower and corrupter of prince Henry, in his juvenile and dissolute courses; nor, that Shakspeare had any view of drawing his sir John Falstaff from any part of this sir John Fastolff’s character; or so much as pointing at any indifferent circumstance in it that can reflect upon his memory, with readers conversant in the true history of him. The one is an old, humourous, vapouring, and cowardly, lewd, lying, and drunken debauchee, about the prince’s court when the other was a young and grave, discreet and valiant, chaste and sober, commander abroad continually advanced to honours and places of profit, for his brave and politic atchievements, military and civil; continually preferred to the trust of one government or other of countries, cities, towns, &c. or as a genera^ and commander of armies in martial expeditions while abroad; made knight-banneret in the field of battle; baron, in France, and knight of the garter in England and, particularly, when finally settled at home, constantly exercised in acts of hospitality, munificence, and chanty; a founder of religious buildings, and other stately edifices ornamental to his country, as their remains still testify; a generous patron of worthy and learned men, and a public benefactor to the pious and the poor. In short, the more we compare the circumstances in this historical character, with those in that poetical one, we can find nothing discreditable in the latter, that has any relation to the former, or that would mislead an ignorant reader to mistake or confound them, but a little quibble, which makes some conformity in their names, and a short degree in the time wherein the one did really, and the other is feigned to live. And, in regard to the prince of Wales, or our knight’s being engaged in any wild or riotous practices of his youth, the improbabilities may also appear from the comparison of their age, and a view of this prince’s commendable engagements till that space of time in which he indulged his interval of irregularities, when the distance of our knight will clear him from being a promoter of, or partaker in them. For it is apparent, that he had been intrusted with a command in France some time before the death of king Henry IV. because, in 1413, the rery first year of his son, who was now grown the reformed, and soon after proved the renowned, Henry V. it appears that Fastolff had the castle and dominion of Veires in Gascoigne committed to his custody and defence: whence it is very reasonably inferred, that he then resided in the said duchy, which at that time was possessed by the English. In June 1415, Fastolff, then only an esquire, was returned, by indenture, with ten men of arms, and thirty archers, to serve the king at his arrival in France. Soon after king Henry was arrived in Normandy, in August following, with above 30,000 men, the English army having made themselves masters of Harfleur, the most considerable port in that duchy, Fastolff was constituted lieutenant thereof, with 1500 men, by the earl of Derby, as Basset in his ms history informs us; but, as we find it in others, the king, upon this conquest, constituted his said uncle Thomas Beaufort, earl of Dorset and duke of Exeter, governor of Harfleur, in conjunction sir John Fastolff; and, having repaired the fortificaplaced therein a garrison of two thousand select men, as Titus Livius numbers them; or of fifteen hundred ien at arms, and thirty-five knights, according to Hall’s account; to which number Monstrelet also adds a thousand archers. Towards the latter end of October, in the year last mentioned, he was dangerously engaged in the evermemorable battle of Agincourt, where it is said that Fastolff, among others, signalized himself most gallantly by taking the duke of Alengon prisoner; though other historians say that duke was slain after a desperate encounter with king Henry himself, in which he cut off the crowned crest of the king’s helmet. The fact is, that, in a succeeding battle, Fastolff did take this duke’s son and successor prisoner. In the same year, 1415, he, with the duke and 3000 English, invaded Normandy, and penetrated almost to Rouen; but on their return, loaded with booty, they were surprised, and forced to retreat towards Harfleur, whither the enemy pursuing them, were totally defeated. The constable of France, to recover his credit, laid siege to Harfleur, which made a vigorous defence under sir John Fastolff and others till relieved by the fleet under the duke of Bedford. He was at the taking of the castle of Tonque, the city of Caen, the castle of Courcy, the city of Sees, and town of Falaise, and at the great siege at Rouen, 1417. For his services at the latter he was made governor of Conde Noreau; and for his eminent services in those victories, he received, before the 29th of January following, the honour of knighthood, and had the manor and demesne of Fritense near Harfleur bestowed upon him during life. In 1418 he was ordered to seize upon the castle and dominion of Bee Crispin, and other manors, which were held by James D'Auricher, and several other knights; and had the said castle, with those lands, granted him in special tail, to the yearly value of 2000 scutes. In 1420 he was at the siege of Monsterau, as Peter Basset has recorded; and, in the next year, at that of Meaulx-en-Brie. About five months after the decease of king Henry V. the town of Meulent having been surprized in January 1422, John duke of Bedford, regent of France, and sir John Fastolff, then grand master of his household, and seneschal of Normandy, laid siege to the same, and re-took it. In 1423, after the castle of Craven t was relieved, our knight was constituted lieutenant for the king and regent in Normandy, in the jurisdictions of Rouen, Evreux, Alengon, and the countries beyond the river Seine: also governor of the countries of Anjou and Maine, and before the battle of Verneuil was created banneret, About three months after, being then captain of Alengon, and governor of the marches thereof, he laid siege to the castle of Tenuye in Maine, as a French historian informs us, which was surrendered to him; and, in 1424, he was sent to oppose the delivery of Alenon to the French, upon a discovery made that a Gascoigner had secretly contracted to betray the same. In September 1425, he laid siege to Beaumont le Vicompt, which surrendered to him. Then also he took the castle of Sillie-Je-Guillem, from which he was dignified with the title of baron: but this, revolting afterwards again to the French, was assaulted by the earl of Arundel, and retaken about seven years after. In the year last mentioned, our active warrior took also St. Ouen D'Estrais, near Laval, as likewise the castle of Gravelle, with other places of strength, from the enemy; for which dangerous and indefatigable service in France he was about the same time elected in England, with extraordinary deference to his merits, knight companion of the order of the garter. In 1426 John lord Talbot was appointed governor of Anjou and Maine, and sir John Fastolff was removed to another place of command, which, in all probability, might be the foundation of that jealousy, emulation, or competition, between them, which never was cordially reconciled. In October 1428, he had a protection granted him, being then going into France; and there he performed an enterprise of such bravery and conduct as is scarcely thought to have been paralleled in ancient or modern history. The English army, at the siege of Orleans, being in great want of provisions, artillery, and other necessaries, sir John Fastolff, with some other approved commanders, was dispatched for supplies by William de la Pole duke of Suffolk, to the regent at Paris; who not only provided him plentifully therewith, but allowed him a strong guard at his return, that he might convey the same safely to the siege. The French, knowing the importance of this succour, united two armies of very superior numbers and force to meet him; but, either in different encounters, or in a pitched battle, as the French thetnselv es allow, he totally overthrew them; slew greater numbers than he had under his command, not to mention the wounded and the prisoners; and conducted his convoy safe to the English camp. And because it was in the time of Lent, and he had, among his other provision, several of his carriages laden with many barrels of herrings, which he applied to form a fortification, the French have ever since called this victory “The battle of herrings.” But as the fortune of war is precarious, the English army was soon after obliged to raise the siege of Orleans, and though they received recruits from the duke of Bedford, they were in no degree strong enough to encounter the French army at Patay. At the battle which happened there in June 1429, many of the English, who were of most experienced and approved valour, seeing themselves so unequal, and the onset of the French so unexpected, made the best retreat they could and, among them who saved themselves, as it is said, was sir John Fastolff vfho, with such as could escape, retired to Corbeil thus avoiding being killed, or, with the great lord Talbot, lord Hungerford, and sir Thomas Ramps ton, taken prisoner of war. Here the French tales, which some English historians have inconsiderately credited, contradict or invalidate themselves; for, after having made the regent most improbably, and without any examination, or defence, divest Fastolff of his honours, they no less suddenly restore him to them, for, as they phrase it, “apparent causes of good excuse; though against the mind of the lord Talbot;” between whom there had been, it seems, some emulous contests, and therefore it is no wonder that Fastolff found him upon this occasion an adversary. It is not likely that the regent ever conceived any displeasure at this conduct, because Fastolff was not only continued in military and civil employments of the greatest concern, but appears more in favour with the regent after the battle of Patay than before. So that, rather than any dishonour here can be allowed, the retreat itself, as it is told, must be doubted. It was but in 1430 that he preferred him to the lieutenancy of Caen in Normandy. In 1432 he accompanied him into France, and was soon after sent ambassador to the council of Basil, and chosen, in the like capacity, to negociate a final or temporary peace with France. And that year, Fastolff, with the lord Willoughby, commanded the army which assisted the duke of Bretagne against the duke of Alen^on. Soon after this he was for a short space in England; for, in 1433, going abroad again, he constituted John Fastolff, of Olton, probably a near relation, his general attorney. In 1434, or the beginning of the year after, sir John was again with the regent of France;'and, in 1435, he was again one of the ambassadors to conclude a peace with France. Towards the latter end of this year the regent died at Rouen, and, as the greatest proof he could give of his confidence in the honour and integrity of sir John Fastolff, he made him one of the executors of his. last will. Richard, duke of York, who succeeded in the regency of France, made Fastolff a grant of an annuity of twenty pounds a year of his own estate, “pro notabili et landdbili servicio, ac bono consilio;” which is sufficient to shew this duke’s sentiments also of his merits. In 1436, and for about four years longer, he seems to have been well settled at his government in Normandy; after which, in 1440, he made his final return home, and, loaclen with the laurels he had gathered in France, became as illustrious in his domestic as he had been in his foreign character. The late Mr. Gough, by whom this article was much enlarged, had an inventory of all the rich jewels, plate, furniture, &c. that he either had, or left in France, at his return to England. In 1450 he conveyed to John Kemp, cardinal archbishop of York, and others, his manor of Castre in Fleg, and several other lands specified in the deed of conveyance. The same year, Nov. 8, the king by writ directed Richard Waller, esq. David John William Needham, and John Ingoldsby, to cause Thomas Danyell, esq. to pay to sir John FastolfF, knight, the lOOl. that he was indebted to him for provisions, and for his ship called the George of Prussia, alias Danyell’s Hulk, which ship the said Danyell took on the sea as a prize, and never had it condemned; so that the king seized it, ordered it to be sold, and sir John to be paid out of it. At length being arrived, in 1459, beyond the age of fourscore years, he says of himself, that he was “in good remembrance, albeit I am gretly vexed with sickenesse, and thurgh age infebelyd.” He lingered under an hectic fever and asthma for an hundred and forty-eight days; but before he departed he made his will on the fifth of November in that year, and died at his seat at Castre the next day after, being the festival of St. Leonard, or the eve before, as appears in the escheats, in the 39th or last year of king Henry the Vlth’s reign, and no less than thirty-six years beyond the extravagant period assigned by Fuller. He was buried with great solemnity under an arch, in a chapel of our lady of his own building, on the south side of the choir at the abbey-church of St. Bennet in the Holm, in Norfolk, which was ruined at the dissolution; and so much was he respected after his decease, that John Beauchamp, lord of Powyke, in his last will dated the 15th of Edward IV. appointed a chantry, more especially for the soul of sir John Fastolff.

, a worthy printer of no mean celebrity, is rather recorded in this work for the goodness of his heart, than from his excellence as an author. It is, however, no small degree of praise to say of him, that he was the first man who carried his profession to a high degree of credit in Ireland. He was the confidential printer of dean Swift; and enjoyed the friendship and patronage of the earl of Chesterfield, whose ironical letters to Faulkner, comparing him to Atticus, are perhaps the finest parts of his writings. He settled at Dublin as a printer and bookseller, soon after 1726 (in which year we find him in London under the tuition of the celebrated Bowyer), &nd raised there a very comfortable fortune by his well-known 44 Journal,“and other laudable undertakings. In 1735, he was ordered into custody by the house of commons in Ireland, for having published” A proposal for the better regulation and improvement of quadrille;“an ingenious treatise by bishop Hort; which produced from Swift” The 4egion club.“Having had the misfortune to break his leg, he was satirically introduced by Foote, who spared nobody, in the character of” Peter Paragraph,“in” The Orators, 1762.“He commenced a suit against the mimic; and had the honour of lord Townshend’s interference to arbitrate the difference. He died an alderman of Dublin, Aug. 28, 1775. His style and manner were finely ridiculed in” An Epistle to Gorges Edmund Howard, esq. with notes, explanatory, critical, and historical, by George Faulkner, esq. and alderman,“reprinted in Dilly’s” Reppsitory,“vol. IV. p. 175. But a fairer specimen of his real talents at epistle-writing may be seen in the” Anecdotes of Mr. Bowyer,“or in the second volume of the” Supplement to Swift;" whence it appears that, if vanity was a prominent feature in his character, his gratitude was no less conspicuous.

, a brave English officer, the descendant of a very ancient family, was born in 1728 at Shipdenhall, near Halifax, in Yorkshire, which, for many centuries, had been in the possession of his ancestors, and is now the property and residence of their lineal descendant. His father dying when he was very young, his education was superintended by an uncle, a very worthy clergyman. He was brought up at a free school in Lancashire, where he was well grounded in classical learning, and became also a remarkable proficient in mathematics. He has very frequently been heard to declare, that, from his earliest youth, he always felt the strongest predilection for the army, which his mother and nearest relations constantly^ endeavoured to dissuade him from; but, finding all their arguments ineffectual, they either bought, or he had an ensigncy given him, in general Oglethorpe’s regiment, then in Georgia; but the war being then going on in Flanders, he gave up his ensigncy, and went there as a volunteer, furnished with letters from the late marquis of Rockingham and Mr. Lascelles (afterwards lord Harewood) to the commander and several others of the officers. This step was at the time frequently taken by young men of spirit of the first rank and fortune, fte entered as a volunteer, but messed with the officers, and was very soon presented with a pair of colours. Some time after, he married a lady of good fortune and family, and, at the pressing entreaties df her friends, he most reluctantly resigned his commission; which he had no sooner done, than he felt himself miserable, and his new relations finding that his propensity to a military life was invincible, agreed to his purchasing an ensigncy in the third regiment of guards. Having now obtained the object of his most anxious wishes, he determined to lose no opportunity of qualifying himself for the highest situations in his favourite profession. With this view he paid the most unremitting attention to his duty, and every hour he could command was given up to the study of the French and German languages, in which (by the assistance of his classical learning) he soon became such a proficient as not only to understand and write both, grammatically and elegantly, but to speak them fluently. When he was a lieutenant in the guards, he translated from the French, “The Reveries; Memoirs upon the Art of War, by field-marshal count Saxe,” which was published in 1757, in 4to, and dedicated “To the general officers.” He also translated from the German, “Regulations for the Prussian cavalry,” which was also published in 1757, and dedicated to major-general the earl of Albemarle, colonel of the king’s own regiment of dragoons. And he likewise translated from the German, “llegulations for the Prussian Infantry,” to which was gelded “The Prussian Tactics,” which was published in 1759, and dedicated to lieutenant-general the earl of Rothes, colonel of the third regiment of foot guards. Having attained the situation of adjutant in the guards, his abilities and unremitting attention soon became conspicuous; and, on the late general Elliot’s being ordered to, Germany in the seven years war, he offered to take him as his aid-de-camp, which he gladly accepted, as it gave him an opportunity of gaining that knowledge which actual service could alone impart. When he served in Germany, his ardour, intrepidity, and attention to all the duties of his situation, were such, that, on the death of general Elliot, he had immediately offers both from the late prince Ferdinand, the commander in chief, and the late marquis of Granby, to be appointed aid-de-camp. By the advice of a noble earl (who hinted to him that the German war would not last for ever) he accepted the offer of the latter, after making due acknowledgements for the honour intended him by the former. In this his new situation his ardour and attention were, if possible, increased, which gained him the friendship of all those attached to lord Granby, particularly of a noble lord who, being fixed upon to bring to England the account of the battle of Warburgh, gave up his appointment to captain Fawcett; an instance of generous friendship which he always spoke of with the most heartfelt gratitude. On his arrival in England, he was introduced by the then great minister to his late majesty king George the Second, who received him most graciously, and not the less so on his giving the whole account in German. Soon after he was promoted to a company in the guards, with the rank of lieutenant-colonel in the army, and became military secretary to, and the intimate and confidential friend of lord Granby. His manners were formed with equal strength and softness; and to coolness, intrepidity, and extensive military knowledge, he added all the requisite talents of a man of business; and the most persevering assiduity, without the least ostentation. Notwithstanding the most unassuming modesty, his abilities were now so generally known, that he was fixed upon as the most proper person to manage and support the interest of his country, in settling many of the concerns of the war in Germany; and by that means necessarily became known to the great Frederic of Prussia, from whom he afterwards had the most tempting offers, which he declined without hesitation, preferring the service of his king and country to every other consideration.

While thus employed, an occasion presented itself, which called forth his talents in a new way. Lord Mansfield, when solicitor-general in 1747, having given an opinion in. the state of a case on the will of William Williams (afterwards the subject of the celebrated case of Perrin v. Blake), which Mr. Fearne, on the authority of his friend the late James Booth, esq. of Lincoln’s-inn, quoted in the first edition of his “Essay on the Learning of Contingent Remainders, &c.” his lordship afterwards disavowed that opinion on the bench, insinuating at the same time that Mr, Fearne was under some mistake in reporting it. Fearne, all alive to the delicacy of his character, and knowing the strong ground he proceeded upon (which was a copy of that opinion given him by Mr. Booth, from a manuscript collection of cases, taken from the originals), took this opportunity to publish a letter, entitled “Copies of Opinions ascribed to eminent counsel on the will which was the subject of the case of Perrin v. Blake, before the court of king’s bench, 1769, addressed to the right hon. William earl of Mansfield.” This appeared about 1780, and is said to have afforded lord Mansfield some uneasiness, who, however, took no notice of it.

He was afterwards remanded to the Tower, where he continued till queen Mary’s accession to the crown in 1553; but was then released, and made chaplain to the queen. He became also again chaplain to Bonner, prebendary of St. Paul’s, dean of St. Paul’s, rector of Finchley in Middlesex, which he held only a few months; and then rector of Greenford in the same county. In 1554, he was one of the disputants at Oxford against Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer, before they suffered martyrdom, but said very little against them; and during Mary’s reign, he was constantly employed in doing good offices to the afflicted protestants from the highest to the lowest. Francis Russel earl of Bedford, Ambrose and Robert Dudley, afterwards earls of Warwick and-Leicester, were benefited by his kindness; as was also sir John Cheke, whose life he and sir Thomas Pope, the founder of Trinity college, Oxford, are said to have saved, by a joint application to queen Mary. Feckenham was very intimate with sir Thomas, and often visited him at Tyttenhanger-house. Feckenham also interceded with queen Mary for the lady Elizabeth’s enlargement out of prison, and that so earnestly, that the queen was actually displeased with him for some time. In May 1556, he was complimented by the university of Oxford with the degree of doctor in divinity; being then in universal esteem for his learning, piety, charity, moderation, humility, and other virtues. The September following, he was made abbot of Westminster, which was then restored by queen Mary; and fourteen Benedictine monks placed there under his government, with episcopal power.

, an eminent puritan divine, was born in 1660, and educated at Pembroke-hall, Cambridge, where he took his degree of M. A. and in 1622 was admitted to the same at Oxford. He afterwards took his degree of B. D. and became a preacher at Sedgeley, in Staffordshire. Here he continued for four years, and theu for some time appears to have officiated from place to place, without any promotion, until the earl of Warwick, who was his great friend and patron, presented him to the rectory of Rochford, in Essex, in 1629, which he held until his death, about 1640. Besides his popularity as a preacher, and as a casuist, which was very great, he derived no small posthumous reputation from the sermons and pious tracts which he wrote, none of which appear to have been published in his life-time. They were collected in 1658, in 1 vol. fol.

, an English navigator in the reign of Elizabeth, was descended from an ancient family in Nottinghamshire, where he had some property. This he sold, as did also his brother Geoffrey, being, it is said, more inclined to trust to their abilities, than the slender patrimony descended to them from their ancestors; and they were among the very few of those who take such daring resolutions in their youth, without living to repent of them in their old age. The inclination of Edward leading him to the choice of a military life, he served some time with reputation in Ireland; but upon sir Martin Frobisher’s report of the probability of discovering a northwest passage into the South seas, he resolved to embark with him in his second voyage, and was accordingly appointed captain of the Gabriel, a bark of twenty-five tons, in which he accompanied sir Martin in the summer of 1577, to the straits that now bear his name, but in their return he was separated from him in a storm, and arrived safely at Bristol, in a third expedition, which proved unsuccessful, he commanded the Judith, one of fifteen sail, and had the title of rear-admiral. The miscarriage of this voyage had not convinced Fenton of the impracticability of the project; he solicited another trial, and it was, after much application, granted him, though the particular object of this voyage is not easily discovered; his instructions from the privy-council, which are still preserved, say, that he should endeavour the discovery of a north-west passage, and yet he is told to go by the Cape of Good Hope to the East Indies, thence to the South seas, and to attempt his return by the supposed north-west passage, and not by any means to think of passing the Straits of Magellan, except in case of absolute necessity. The truth appears to be, he had interest enough to be allowed to try his fortune in the South-seas. He sailed in the spring 1582, with four vessels, and was making to Africa; thence he intended to sail to Brazil, in his course to the straits of Magellan, but having learnt that there was already a strong Spanish fleet there, he put into a Portuguese settlement, where he met with three of the Spanish squadron, gave them battle, and after a severe engagement, sunk their vice-admiral, and returned home in May 1583. Here he was well received, and appointed to the command of a ship sent out against the famous armada in 1588. In some accounts of this action he is said to have commanded the Antelope, in others, the Mary Rose; but his talents and bravery in the action are universally acknowledged, and it is certain he had a very distinguished share in those actions, the fame of which can never be forgotten. Little more is recorded of him, than that he spent the remainder of his days at or near Deptford, where he died in 1603. A monument was erected to his memory in the parish church of Deptford, at the expence of Richard earl of Cork, who had married his niece. According to Fuller, he died within a few days oi' his mistress, queen Elizabeth, and he remarks, “Observe how God set up a generation of military men both by sea and land, which began and expired with the reign of queen Elizabeth, like a suit of clothes made for her, and worn out with her; for providence designing a peaceable prince to succeed her, in whose time martial men would be rendered useless, so ordered the matter, that they all, almost, attended their mistress, before or after, within some short distance, unto her grave.” This, however, was not strictly true, for the celebrated earl of Nottingham, sir Charles Blount, sir George Carew, sir Walter Raleigh, sir William Monson, sir Robert Mansel, and other great officers by sea and land, survived queen Elizabeth.

"What the inducements were, which engaged him to leave his own country, in order to serve the queen in Irelaud, cannot easily be discovered; it is, however, certain that he went thither well recommended, and that being in particular favour with Arthur lord Grey, then lord deputy in that kingdom, he was sworn of the privy-council about 1581. It is more than probable that his interest might be considerably strengthened by his marriage with Alice, the daughter of Dr. Robert Weston, some time lord chancellor of Ireland, and dean of the arches in England, a man of great parts, and who had no small credit with the earl of Leicester, and other statesmen in the court of Elizabeth; and when he was once fixed in the office of secretary, his own great abilities and superior understanding made him so useful to succeeding governors, that none of the changes to which that government was too much subject in those days, wrought any alteration in his fortune. One thing, indeed, might greatly contribute to this, which was the stron<r interest he found means to raise, and never was at a loss to maintain, in England; so that whoever was lord lieutenant in Ireland, sir Geoffrey Fenton continued the queen’s counsellor there, as a man upon whom she depended, from whom she took her notions of state affairs in that island, and whose credit with her was not to be shaken by the artifices of any faction whatever. He took every opportunity of persuading the queen that the Irish were to be governed only by the rules of strict justice, and that the safety and glory of her government in that island depended on her subjects enjoying equal laws and protection of their property. The queen frequently sent for her secretary Fenton, to consult with him on her Irish affairs, which shews the high opinion she entertained of his understanding, though it often happened that when he was returned to his duty, the advisers of Elizabeth persuaded her to adopt measures the reverse of what Fenton had recommended. He was the means of extinguishing more than one rebellion, and of totally reducing the kingdom to submit to English government.

In 1603, sir Geoffrey married his only daughter Katherine to Mr. Boyle, afterwards the great earl of Corke; and died at his house in Dublin, Oct. 19, 1608. He was interred with much funeral solemnity at the cathedral church of St. Patrick, in the same tomb with his wife’s father, the lord chancellor Weston; leaving behind him the character of a polite writer, an accomplished courtier, an able statesman, and a true friend to the English nation, and protestant interest in Ireland. His translation of Guicciardini, and his Guevara’s Epistles, have lately risen in price, since the language of the Elizabethan period has been more studied; and the style of Fenton, like that of most of his contemporaries, is far superior to that of the authors of the succeeding reign, if we except Raleigh and Knowlles.

He was now induced to trust to his abilities for a subsistence, but whatever his difficulties or discouragements, he kept his name unsullied, and never descended to any mean or dishonourable shifts. Indeed, whoever mentioned him, mentioned him with honour, in every period of his life. His first employ he owed to a recommendation to Charles earl of Orrery, whom he accompanied to Flanders, in quality of secretary, and returned with his lordship to England in 1705. Being then out of employment, he became assistant in the school of Mr. Bonwicke, (see Bo?7­Wicki:), at Headley, near Leatherhead, in Surrey; after which he was invited to the mastership of the free grammar school at Sevenoaks, in Kent, and in a few years brought that seminary into much reputation, while he enjoyed the advantage of making easy and frequent excursions to visit his friends in London. In 1710 he was prevailed upon by Mr. St. John (lord Bolingbrokt ) to give up what was called the drudgery of a school, for the worse drudgery of dependence on a political patron, from whom, after all, he derived no advantage. When Steele resigned his place of commissioner in the stamp-office, Fenton applied to his patron, who told him that it was beneath his merit, and promised him a superior appointment; but this, the subsequent change of administration prevented him from fulfilling, and left Fenton disappointed, and in debt. Not long after, however, his old friend the earl of Orrery appointed him tutor to his son, lord Broghill, a boy of seven years old, whom he taught English and Latin until he was thirteen. About the time this engagement was about to expire, Craggs, secretary of state, feeling his own want of literature, desired Pope to procure him an instructor, by whose help he might supply the deficiencies of his education. Pope recommended Fenton, but Craggs’s sudden death disappointed the pleasing expectations formed from this connection.

His next engagement was with Pope himself, who after the great success of his translation of the Iliad, undertook that of the Odyssey, and determined to engage auxiliaries. Twelve books he took to himself, and twelve he distributed between Broome and Fenton. According to Johnson and Warton, Fenton translated the first, fourth, nineteenth and twentieth. But John, earl of Orrery, in a letter to Mr. Duncombe, asserts that Fenton translated double the number of books in the Odyssey that Pope has owned. “His reward,” adds the noble writer, “was a trifle, an arrant trifle. He has even told me, that he thought Pope feared him more than he loved him. He had no opinion of Pope’s heart, and declared him, in the words of bishop Atterbury, Mens curia in corpore curvo.” It is, however, no small praise to both Fen tun and Broome, that the readers of poetry have never been able to distinguish their books from those of Pope. In 1723, Fenton’s tragedy of “Mariamne” was brought on the stage in Lincoln’s-inn-fields, and was performed with such success, that the profits of the author are said to have amounted to nearly a thousand pounds, with which he very honourably discharged the debts contracted by his fruitless attendance on Mr. St. John. The poetical merit of this tragedy is confessedly great, but the diction is too figurative and ornamental. Colley Cibber has been termed insolent for advising Fenton to relinquish poetry, by which we presume he meant dramatic poetry; but Cibber, if insolent, was not injudicious, for Mariamne has not held its place on the stage, In 1 1727, Fenton revised a new edition of Milton’s Poems, and prefixed to it a short but elegant and impartial life of the author. In 1729 he published a very splendid edition of Waller, with notes, which is still a book of considerable value.

The latter part of Mr. Fenton' s life was passed in a manner agreeable to his wishes. By the recommendation of Pope to the widow of sir William Trumbull, that lady invited him to be tutor to her son, first at home, and afterwards at Cambridge; and when disengaged from this attendance on her son, lady Trumbull retained Fenton in her family, as auditor of her accounts, an office which was probably easy, as he had leisure to make frequent excursions to visit his literary friends in London. He died July 13, 1730, at East-Hampstead, in Berkshire, lady Trumbull’s seat, and was interred in the parish-church, and his tomb was honoured with an epitaph by Pope. In person, Fenton was tall and bulky, inclined to corpulence, which he did not lessen by much exercise, as he was sluggish and sedentary, rose late, and when he had risen, sat down to his book or papers. By a woman who once waited on him in a lodging, he was told, that he would “lie a-bed, and be fed with a spoon.” Pope says in one of his letters, that he died of indolence and inactivity; others attribute his death to the gout; to which lord Orrery adds, “a great chair, and two bottles of port in a day.” Dr. Johnson observes, that “Of his morals and his conversation, the account is uniform. He was never named but with praise and fondness, as a man in the highest degree amiable and excellent. Such was the character given him by the earl of Orrery, his pupil such is the testimony of Pope; and such were the suffrages of all who could boast of his acquaintance.” There is a story relating to him, which reflects too much honour upon his memory to be omitted. It was his custom in the latter part of his life, to pay a yearly visit to his relations in the country. An entertainment being made for the family by Jiis elder brother, he observed that one of his sisters, who had been unfortunate in her marriage, was absent; and, upon inquiry, he found that distress had made her thought unworthy of an invitation; but he refused to sit at the table until she was sent for and, when she had taken her place, he was careful to shew her particular attention.

, D. D. bishop of Chester, the youngest son of the preceding sir John Feme, was born at York in 1603, and educated at the free-school of Uppingham in Rutlandshire, to which he was sent by sir Thomas Nevill of Holt in Lancashire, who had married his mother. He was afterwards, in 1618, admitted commoner of St. Maryhall, Oxford, but after two years 1 residence there, was removed to Trinity college, Cambridge, of which he became fellow; apd when he had taken his degree of bachelor of divinity, was domestic chaplain to Dr. Morton, bishop of Durham. The year after he was presented to the college living of Masham in Yorkshire, and his brother-in-law Mr. Nevill gave him that of Medborn in Leicestershire. The?­bishop of Lincoln afterwards preferred him to the archdeaconry of Leicester. In 1642 he took his doctor’s degree, and kept the act at the commencement. Thence he went into Leicestershire, where he had an opportunity of waiting on the king, and preaching before him as ho was going to Nottingham to setup his standard. The king made him his chaplain extraordinary, and he preached before his majesty again at Nottingham. In 1642 he published his “Case of Conscience touching rebellion,” and is said to have been the first that wrote openly in his majesty’s cause, but this probably obliged him to leave Medborn, and take shelter in Oxford, where he preached, without any emolument, at St. Aldate’s church. Here he was incorporated doctor in divinity, and was made chaplain in ordinary to the king, who at the same time sent him a message, that he was sorry he could confer nothing else with it. He was afterwards appointed chaplain to one of the lords commissioners at the treaty of Uxbridge, where at the request of some of them, he stated the case between piscopary and presbytery, and was not answered by the parliamentary commissioners, although one of them, the earl of London, lord chancellor of Scotland, declared that he should. Dr. Feme attended the king at Oxford until he had taken Leicester, and was present at the unfortunate battle of Naseby, after which he went to Newark, and continued preaching until the king ordered the garrison to surrender. His next retreat was to Yorkshire, where he remained with his relations, until his majesty sent for him to the treaty of the Isle of Wight. His majesty had so much respect for him, as to desire a copy of the last sermon he preached there.

He was now almost of seven years’ standing in the university, and was to take his master’s degree at the ensuing Midsummer, 1613, and he had already performed with credit all his previous exercises. It being made known to the heads of the university that he was to travel, and to have the opportunity of going with that noble company which then went with the lady Elizabeth to conduct her to the Palatinate with the Palsgrave her husband, his degree was immediately granted; and having set out in the retinue of the lady Elizabeth, he accompanied her to Holland. 'But inclining to pursue a different route, he took leave of her royal highness there, and visited most of the German universities, at some of which he studied a considerable time, and at them and other parts of Europe, he spent five years, returning home in 1618, being then twenty-six years of age, and highly improved and accomplished by his travels. During this long residence abroad he had purchased many rare articles of curiosity, scarce and valuable books, and learned treatises in the language of those different countries; in collecting which he certainly had a principal eye to those which treated the subjects of a spiritual life, devotion, and religious retirement. He bought also a great number of prints, engraved by the best masters of that time, relative to historical pasr sages of the Old and New Testament; all which, upon his return home, he had the satisfaction to find were safely arrived there before him, but very little of this treasure is now remaining. The Ferrar family being firm in their loyalty to the king, their house at Giclding was plundered in the civil wars; and, in a wanton devastation, all these things perished, except some of the prints, not of great value, which were in the possession of the editor of Mr. Ferrar’s life, the late Dr, Packard. Soon after Mr. Ferrar’s return, sir Edwyn Sandys, who had heard a high character of him from many who had known him in Italy, sought his acquaintance; and, being exceedingly taken with his great abilities, took the first opportunity to make him known to the earl of Southampton, anxi the other principal members of the Virginia company. In a very little time he was made one of a particular committee in some business of great importance; whereby the company having sufficient proof of his extraordinary abilities, at the next general court it was proposed and agreed that he should be king’s counsel for the Virginia plantation ki the room of his brother John, who was then made the deputy governor. And when his name, according to custom, was entered in the lord chamberlain’s book, sir Edwyn Sandys took care to acquaint that lord with his uncommon worth which, indeed, daily more and more appeared in every thing he undertook and as he wanted no ability, so he spared no diligence in ordering all their affairs of consequence, and thus became deeply engaged in cares of a public nature. Yet his own inclinations at his. return led him rather to think of settling himself again at Cambridge, to which he was the more induced as he still held the physic fellowship in Clare-hall. But this he now saw could not be done; and besides, his parents, now grown old, requested their beloved son to remain with them. Therefore all he could obtain in this respect from them, and from his business, was the liberty now and then to pass a few days with his old acquaintance and friends still remaining in Cambridge.

, a learned lawyer, a good historian, a celebrated poet, and a most accomplished courtier, in the reigns of Henry VIII. Edward VI. Mary, and Elizabeth, was descended from an ancient family in Hertfordshire, and born in a village near St. Alban’s, about 1512. He was bred at Oxford, and removed thence to Lincoln’s-inn, where he applied himself with so much success to the study of the law, that he was soon taken notice of in Westminster-hall as an advocate, at the same time that he was much admired at court for his wit and good-breeding. His first rise in his profession, and at court, was owing to Cromwell earl of Essex, who was himself a man of great parts, and took a pleasure in countenancing and advancing others who had talents. Upon the fall of this patron, he quitted the public exercise of his profession as a lawyer; not, however, before he had given evident testimonies of his knowledge and learning, as appears from, 1. “The double translation of Magna Charta from French into Latin and English.” 2. “Other laws enacted in the time of Henry III. and Edw. I. translated into English.”

, an English divine, and laborious writer, was born of reputable parents, at Hunmanby near Scarborough in Yorkshire in 1671. In his education he was much encouraged by his uncle the rev. Mr. Fiddes of Brightwell in Oxfordshire, who was as a father to him. After being instructed at a private school at Wickham in that neighbourhood, he was admitted of Corpus Christi, and then of University college, in Oxford; where by his parts and address he gained many friends. He did not, however, continue there; but, after taking a bachelor of arts degree in 1693, returned to his relations, and married, in the same year, Mrs. Jane Anderson, a lady of good family and fortune. In 1694, he was ordained priest by Dr. Sharp, archbishop of York; and not long after, presented to the rectory of Halsham in that county, of about 90l. per annum. Halsham, being situated in a marsh, proved the occasion of much ill health to Fiddes and his family; and he had the misfortune, while there, to be suddenly so deprived of his speech, as never after to be able to utter words very articulately, unless his organs were strengthened with two or three glasses of wine, which, as he was a mun of great temperance, was to him an excess. His diocesan, however, dispensed with his residence upon his benefice for the future; on which he removed to Wickham, and continued there some months. Being no longer able to display his talents in preaching, which before were confessedly great, and having a numerous family, he resolved to devote himself entirely to writing. For this purpose, he went to London in 1712; and, by the favour of dean Swift, was introduced to the earl of Oxford, who received him kindly, and made him one of his chaplains. The dean had a great esteem for Fiddes, and recommended his cause with the warmth and sincerity of a friend. The queen soon after appointed him chaplain to the garrison at Hull, and would probably have provided handsomely for him, had not death prevented her. Losing his patrons upon the change of the ministry in 1714, he lost the above mentioned chaplainship; and the expences of his family i icreasing, as his ability to supply them lessened, he was obliged to apply himself to writing with greater assiduity than ever. Yet he continued in high esteem with contemporary writers, especially those of his own party; and was encouraged by some of the most eminent men of those times. By the generosity of his friend and relation Dr. Radcliffe, the degree of bachelor of divinity was conferred upon him by diploma, Feb. 1, 1713, and in 1718 he was honoured by the university of Oxford with that of doctor, in consideration of his abilities as a writer. He died at the house of his friend Anstis at Putney, in 1725, aged fifty ­four years, leaving behind him a' family consisting of a wife and six children. His eldest daughter was married to the rev. Mr. Barcroft, curate of St. George’s, Hanover-square, who abridged Taylor’s “Ductor Dubitantium.” Dr. Fiddes was buried in Fulham churchyard, "near the remains of bishop Compton, to whom he had been much obliged.

The great encouragement which the life of Wolsey obtained, prompted Fiddes to undertake the lives of sir Thomas More and bishop Fisher: but when he had gone through a great part of this work, he lost his manuscript. He published, 6. “A general treatise of Morality, formed upon the principles of Natural Reason only; with a preface in answer to two essays lately published in the Fable of the Bees, and some incidental remarks upon an Inquiry concerning Virtue, by the right honourable Anthony earl of Shaftesbury,” 1724, 8vo. In his preface, he defends some, opinions of Shaftesbury against the author of the “Search into the Nature of Society;” and afterwards vindicates Dr. Kadcliffe from the aspersions of the same author, on account of his benefactions to the university of Oxford. 7. “A Preparative to the Lord’s Supper.” 8. “A Letter in answer to one from a Freethinker, occasioned by the late duke of Buckingham’s epitaph: wherein certain passages in it that have been thought exceptionable are vindicated, and the doctrine of the soul’s immortality asserted. To which is prefixed, a version of the epitaph, agreeably to the explication given of it in the Answer;” in 1721, 8vo. The epitaph and version, which are here subjoined, will satisfy the reader that Fiddes misunderstood it, without being at the trouble to read his pamphlet:

In 1594 he was chosen divinity reader to the honourable society of Lincoln’s-inn, and soon after presented by Mr. Richard Kingsmill, one of the benchers and surveyor of the court of wards, to the valuable rectory of Burghclear in Hampshire, where Mr. Kingsmill lived, and refused the living of St. Andrew, Holborn, which was afterwards offered to him, preferring a retired life, and passing the greater part of his time at Burghclear to his death. On April 9, 1594, he married Elizabeth, daughter of Mr. Richard Harris, sometime fellow of New college, Oxford, and rector of Hardwicke in Buckinghamshire, with which lady, who had received a very liberal education, he lived happily upwards of twenty years. On Sept. 27, 1598, he was made chaplain in ordinary to queen Elizabeth, after having, on the 23d preceding, preached a kind of probationary sermon before her majesty; and he was soon after made prebendary of Windsor. He was also joined in the special commission with William marquis of Winchester, and Thomas Bilson bishop of Winchester, &c. for ecclesiastical causes within the diocese of Winchester; and in another to exercise all spiritual jurisdiction in the said diocese, with Whitgift archbishop of Canterbury, Charles earl of Nottingham, Thomas bishop of Winchester, and others, by James I. 1603, to whom he was also chaplain in ordinary, and sent to the conference at Hampton court concerning ecclesiastical causes, held Jan. 14, 1603. In 1605, when the king was to be entertained at Oxford with all manner of scholastic exercises, he was sent for out of the country to bear a part in the divinity act. Sir Nathaniel Brent, afterwards warden of Merton, used to say that the disputation between Dr. Field and Dr. Aglionby, before king James, was the best he ever heard in his life, and that it was listened to with great attention and delight by all present. The question was, “An sancti et angeli cognoscant cogitationes cordium”

, beyond all comparison the first novel-writer of this country, was born at Sharpham Park in Somersetshire, April 22, 1707. His father, Edmund Fielding, esq. was the third son of John Fielding, D. D. canon of Salisbury, who was the fifth son of George earl of Desmond, and brother to William third earl of Denbigh, nephew to Basil the second earl, and grandson to William, who was first raised to the peerage. Edmund Fielding served under the duke of Maryborough, and towards the close of king George the First’s reign, or the accession of George II. was promoted to the rank of a lieutenant-general. His mother was daughter to the first judge Gould, and aunt to sir Henry Gould, lately one of the judges of the common pleas. This lady, besides Henry, who seems to have been the eldest, had four daughters, and another son named Edmund, who was an officer in the sea-service. Afterwards, in consequence of his father’s second marriage, Fielding had six half-brothers, George, James, Charles, John, William, and Basil. Of these nothing memorable is recorded, except of John, who will be the subject of a subsequent article as will also Sarah, the sister of Henry Fielding. His father died in 1740. Henry Fielding received the first rudiments of his education at home, under the care of the rev. Mr. Oliver, for whom he seems to have had no great regard, as he is said to have designed a portrait of him in the very humorous yet unfavourable character of parson Tralliber, in his “Joseph Andrews.” From this situation he was removed to Eton school, where he had an opportunity of cultivating a very early intimacy and friendship with several young men who afterwards became conspicuous personages in the kingdom, such as lord Lyttelton, Mr. Fox, Mr. Pitt, sir Charles Hanbury Williams, &c. who ever through life retained a warm regard for him. But these were not the only advantages he reaped at that great seminary of education; for, by an assiduous application to study, and the possession of strong and peculiar talents, he became, before he left that school, uncommonly versed in Greek authors, and a master of the Latin classics. Thus accomplished, at about eighteen years of age he left Eton, and went to Leyden, where he studied under the most celebrated civilians for about two years, when, the remittances from England not coming so regularly as at first, he was obliged to return to London.

There are not so many anecdotes preserved concerning Fielding as might perhaps have been expected, considering the eccentricity of his disposition, and his talents for conversation. But when he died, the passion for collecting the memorabilia of literary men was little felt. In the Gent. Mag. for 1786, however, we have an anecdote which is too characteristic to be omitted. Some parochial taxes for Fielding’s house in Beaufort Buildings being unpaid, and for which demands had been made again and again, he was at length told by the collector, who had an esteem for him, that no longer procrastination could be admitted. In this dilemma he had recourse to Jacob Tonson, the bookseller, and mortgaging the future sheets of some work he had in hand, received the sum he wanted, about ten or twelve guineas. When he was near his own house, he met with an old college chum, whom he had not seen for many years, and Fielding finding that he had been unfortunate in life, immediately gave him up the whole money that he had obtained from Mr. Tonson. Returning home in the full enjoyment of his benevolent disposition and conduct, he was told that the collector had called twice for the taxes. Fielding’s reply was laconic, but memorable: “Friendship has called for the money, and had it; let the collector call again.” The reader will be glad to hear that a second application to Jacob Tonson enabled him to satisfy the parish demands. Another anecdote affords one of those happy turns of wit which do not often occur. Being once in company with the earl of Denbigh, and it being noticed that Fielding was of the Denbigh family, the earl asked the reason why they spelt their name? differently; the earl’s family spelling it with the e first, (Feilding), and Mr. Henry Fielding with the i first, (Fielding) “I cannot tell, my lord,” said our author, “except it be that my branch of the family were the first that knew how to spell”

, lord Say and Sele, a person of literary merit, but not so well known on that account as for the part he bore in the Grand Rebellion, was born at Brpughton in Oxfordshire, in 1582, being the eldest son of sir Richard Fiennes, to whom James I. had restored and confirmed the dignity of baron Say and Sele: and, after being properly instructed at Winchester school, was sent in 1596 to New-college in Oxford, of which, by virtue of his relationship to the founder, he was made fellow. After he had spent some years in study, he travelled into foreign countries, and then returned home with the reputation of a wise and prudent man. When the war was carried on in the Palatinate, he contributed largely to it, according to his estate, which was highly pleasing to king James; but, indulging his neighbours by leaving it to themselves to pay what they thought fit, he was, on notice given to his majesty, committed to custody in June 1622. He was, however, soon released; and, in July 1624, advanced from a baron to be viscount Say and Scle. At this time, says Wood, he stood up for the privileges of Magna Charta; but, after the rebellion broke out, treated it with the utmost contempt: and when the long-parliament began in 3640, he shewed himself so active that, as Wood says, he and Hampden and Pym, with one or two more, were esteemed parliament-drivers, or swayers of all the parliaments in which they sat. In order to reconcile him to tne court, he had the place of mastership of the court of wards given him in May 1641 but this availed nothing; for, when arms were taken up, he acted openly against the king. Feb. 1642, his majesty published two proclamations, commanding all the officers of the court of wards to. attend him at Oxford; but lord Say refusing, was outlawed, and attainted of treason. He was the last 'who held the office of master of this court, which was abolished in 1646 by the parliament, on which occasion 10,000l. was granted to him, with a part of the earl of Worcester’s estate, as a compensation. In 1648 he opposed any personal treaty with his majesty, yet the same year was one of the parliament-commissioners in the Isle of Wight, when they treated with the king about peace: at which time he is said to have urged against the king this passage out of Hooker’s “Ecclesiastical Polity,” that “though the king was singulis major, yet he was universis minor” that is, greater than any individual, yet less than the whole community. After the king’s death, he joined with the Independents, as he had done before with the Presbyterians; and became intimate with Oliver, who made him one of his house of lords. “After the restoration of Charles II. when he had acted,” says Wood, “as a grand rebel for his own ends almost twenty years, he was rewarded forsooth with the honourable offices of lord privy seal, and lord chamberlain of the household; while others, that had suffered in estate and body, and had been reduced to a bit of bread for his majesty’s cause, had then little or nothing given to relieve them; for which they were to thank a hungry and great officer, who, to fill his own coffers, was the occasion of the utter ruin of many.” Wood relates also, with some surprise, that this noble person, after he had spent eighty years mostly in an unquiet and discontented condition, had been a grand promoter of the rebellion, and had in some respect been accessary to the mupdler of Chailes I. died quietly in his bed, April 14, 1662, and was buried with his ancestors at Broughton. On the restoration he was certainly made lord privy seal, but nut, as Wood says, chamberlain of the household. Whitlock says, that “he was a person of great parts, wisdom, and integrity:” and Clarendon, though of a contrary, party, does not deny him to have had these qualities, but only supposes them to have been wrongly directed, and greatly corrupted. He calls him, “a man of a close and reserved nature, of great parts, and of the highest ambition; but whose ambition would not be satisfied with offices and preferments, without some condescensions and alterations in ecclesiastical matters. He had for many years been the oracle of those who were puritans in the worst sense, and had steered all their counsels and designs. He was a notorious enemy to the church, and to most of the eminent churchmen, with some of whom he had particular contests. He had always opposed and contradicted all acts of state, and all taxes and impositions, which were not exactly legal, &c. In a word, he had very great authority with all the discontented party throughout the kingdom, and a good reputation with many who were not discontented; who believed him to be a wise man, and of a very useful temper in an age of licence, and one who would still adhere to the law.” But from a comparison of every authority, a recent writer observes, that he appears to have been far from a virtuous or amiable man; he was poor, proud, and discontented, and seems to have opposed the court, partly at least with the view of extorting preferment from thence. He had the most chimerical notions of civil liberty, and upon the defeat of those projects in which he had so great a share, retired with indignation to the isle of Lundy, on the Devonshire coast, where he continued a voluntary prisoner until the protector’s death.

, second son of lord Say just mentioned, was born at Broughton in Oxfordshire in 1608; and, like his father, after a proper education at Winchester school, was admitted of New College in Oxford, and also made fellow in right of kinship to the founder. After passing some years there, he travelled to Geneva, and among the Cantons of Switzerland, where he increased that disaffection to the church which he had been too much taught in his infancy. From his travels he returned through Scotland, at the time when the Rebellion was beginning; and, in 1640, was elected to sit in parliament for Banbury, when it was quickly discovered, that he was ready to join in all his father’s intemperate measures. Afterwards he became colonel of horse under the earl of Essex, and was made governor of Bristol, when first taken for the use of the parliament; but, surrendering it too easily to prince Rupert, in July 1643, he was tried by a council of war, and sentenced to lose his head. The onl) witnesses against him on this occasion were the celebrated Clement Walker, and Pry line. He had afterwards, by the interest of his father, a pardon granted him for life, but he could not continue any longer in the army; and the shame of it affected him so much, that he went for some time abroad, “retaining still,” says Clarendon, “the same full disaffection to the government of the church and state, and only grieved that he had a less capacity left to do hurt to either.” When the Presbyterians were turned out of parliament, he became an independent, took the engagement, was intimate with Cromwell; and when Cromwell declared himself Protector, was made one of his privy-council, lord privy-seal in 1655, and a member of his house of lords. Though he had sufficiently shewn his aversion to monarchical government, yet when he saw what Oliver aimed at, he became extremely fond of it, and in 1660, he published a book with this title, “Monarchy asserted to be the best, most ancient, and legal form of government, in a conference held at Whitehall with Oliver Lord Protector, and Committee of Parliament, &c. in April 1657.” He published also several speeches and pamphlets, some of which were a defence of his own conduct at Bristol. Walker informs us that he was the author of a historical tract called “Anglia Rediviva,” published under the name of Sprigge. After the restoration, he retired to Newton Tony, near Salisbury in Wiltshire, where he had an estate that came to him by his second wife; and here continued much neglected, and in. great obscurity, until his death, Dec. 16, 1669. Clarendon has spoken of his abilities in very high terms. “Colonel Fiennes,” says he, “besides the credit and reputation of his father, had a very good stock of estimation in the house of commons upon his own score for truly he had very good parts of learning and nature, and was privy to, and a great manager in, the most secret designs from the beginning; and if he had not incumbered himself with command in the army, to which men thought his nature not so well disposed, he had sure been second to none in those councils, after Mr. Hampden’s death.”

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

He performed the office of high steward at the trial of lord Stafford, who was found guilty of high treason by his peers, for being concerned in the popish plot. On May J2, 1681, he was created earl of Nottingham, and died, quite worn out, at his house in Queen-street, Lincoln’sinn-fields, Dec. Is, 1682, and was buried in the church of Ilaunston near Olney in Buckinghamshire, where his son erected a superb monument to hrs memory. Though he lived in very troublesome and difficult times, yet he conducted himself with such even steadiness, that he retained the good opinion of both prince and people. He was distinguished by his wisdom and eloquence; and was such an excellent orator, that some of his contemporaries have styled him the English Roscius, the English Cicero, &c. Burnet, in the preface to his “History of the Reformation,” telis us, that his great parts and greater virtues were so conspicuous, that it would be a high presumption in him to say any thing in his commendation being in nothing more eminent, than in his zeal for, and care of, the church of England. His character is described by Dryden, or rather Tate, in the second part of “Absalom and Achitophel,” under the name of Amri; but more reliance may be placed on the opinion of judge Blackstone. “He was a person,” says this learned commentator, “of the greatest abilities, and most incorrupted integrity; a thorough master and zealous defender of the laws and constitution of his country; and endued with a pervading genius that enabled him to discover and to pursue the true spirit of justice, notwithstanding the embarrassments raised by the narrow and technical notions which then prevailed in the courts of law, and the imperfect ideas of redress which had possessed the courts of equity. The reason and necessities of mankind, arising from the great change in property, by the extension of trade, and the abolition of military tenures, co-operated in establishing his plan, and enabled him, in the course of nine years, to build a system of jurisprudence and jurisdiction upon wide and rational foundations, which have also been extended and improved by many great men, who have since presided in chancery; and from that time to this, the power and business of the court have increased to an amazing degree.”

, second earl of Nottingham, son of the preceding, by his lady Elizabeth, daughter of Mr. Daniel Hervey, merchant in London, was born about 1647, and educated at Christ church, Oxford; but entered early into public life, and served in several parliaments in the Teign of Charles II. for the city of Lichfield, and for the borough of Newton in the county of Southampton, In. 1679 he was constituted first commissioner of the Admiralty, and sworn of the privy-council; and in the latter end of the year following, spoke with much vigour in the house of commons against the bill for the exclusion of the duke of York, declaring “that the kings of England do not rule by virtue of any statute-law,” as had been suggested by some persons on the other side of the question, “since their right was by so ancient a prescription, that it might justly be said to be from God alone and such as no power on earth ought to dispute.”

On the decease of his father in 1682, he succeeded him in his titles and estate; and on the death of Charles II. was one of the privy-council who signed the order, dated at Whitehall, Feb. 6, 1684-5, for proclaiming the duke of York king of England. In that reign he was one of the chief opposers of the abrogation of the test act, which he considered as the strongest fence of the protestant religion. Upon the trial of the seven bishops, he was present in court with several other noblemen; and his brother Heneage, afterwards earl of Aylesford, was of the counsel for those prelates. He was likewise one of the patriots, who, from a true zeal for their religion and their country, often met to concert such advices and advertisements as might be fit for the prince of Orange to know, that he might govern himself by them. When, however, it was secretly proposed to him to invite that prince into England, he felt a conscientious hesitation on the subject, and informed the friends of that measure that he could not personally adopt it, yet would preserve the secret with which they had intrusted him. Upon the prince’s landing in the West, he was one of those lords who made a last attempt on the obstinacy of the king, by presenting a petition to his majesty, advising him to call a parliament regular and free in all respects, to which he was even for adding, “that the peers who had joined the prince might sit in that free parliament;” but this by the other lords was thought unnecessary. He was afterwards one of the commissioners sent by^ his majesty to treat with the prince. When afterwards the convention was opened, he was the principal manager of the debates in favour of a regent, against those who were for setting up another king; supporting his opinion by many arguments drawn from the English history, and adding a recent instance in Portugal, "where Don Pedro had only the title of regent conferred upon him, while his deposed brother lived. However, he owned it to be a principle grounded on the law and history of England, that obedience and allegiance were due to the king for the time being, even in opposition to one, with whom the right was thought still to remain. He likewise told bishop Burnet, that though he could not argue nor vote, but according to the notions which he had formed concerning our laws and constitution, he should not be sorry to see his own side out-voted; and that though he could not agree to the making of a king, as things stood, yet if he found one made, he would be more faithful to him than those who made him could be, according to their principles.

Upon the accession of queen Anne he was again appointed one of the principal secretaries of state, and in that station had a vote of the house of commons passed in his favour, “that he had highly merited the trust her majesty had reposed in him,” and the like sanction from the house of lords. However, on the 17th of April 1704, he resigned that employment, and accepted of no other post during all that reign, though large offers were made to engage him in the court interest and measures, upon the change of the ministry in 1710, his refusal of which so exasperated the opposite, party, that he was attacked with great virulence in several libels both in verse and prose. He continued therefore to give his opinion upon all occasions with great freedom, and in December the same year distinguished himself by a vigorous speech in the house of lords, representing, that no peace could be safe or honourable to Great Britain, if Spain and the West Indies were allotted to any branch of the house of Bourbon and had so much weight in that house, that the clause which he offered to that purpose to be inserted in the address of thanks, in answer to her majesty’s speech, was after a warm debate carried. He soon after moved likewise for an address to the queen, that her majesty would not treat except in concert with her allies. When his late majesty king George succeeded to the crown, his lordship was one of the lords justices for the administration of aflairs till his arrival; and on the 24th of September 1714, was declared lord-president of the council. But on the 29th of February 1715-16, he retired from all public business to a studious course of life; the fruits of which appeared in his elaborate answer to Mr. Whiston’s letter to him upon the subject of the trinity; for which, on the 22d of March 1720-21, he had the unanimous thanks of the university of Oxford in full convocation. He died January 21st, 1729-30, having just before succeeded to the title of earl of Winchelsea, into which that of Nottingham merged.

By his first wife, the lady Essex Rich, second daughter and one of the co-heirs of Robert earl of Warwick, he had issue one daughter; and by his second, Anne, only daughter of Christopher lord viscount Hatton,he had five sons and eight daughters.

, a lady of considerable poetical talents, was the daughter of fcir William Kingsmill, of Sidmonton, in the county of Southampton, but the time of her birth is not mentioned. She was maid of honour to the duchess of York, second wife of James II.; and afterwards married to Heneage, second son of Heneage earl of Winchelsea; which Heneage was, in his father’s life-time, gentleman of the bed-chamber to the duke of York, and afterwards, upon the death of his nephew Charles, succeeded to the title of earl of Winchelsea. One of the most considerable of this lady’s poems was that “upon the Spleen,” printed in “A new jniscellany of original Poems on several occasion’s,” pub lished by Mr. Charles Gildon in 1701, 8vo, That poem occasioned another of Mr. Nicholas, Rovye, entitled ^ An Epistle to Flavia, on the sight of tvva Pindaric Odes on the Spleen and Vanity, written by a lady to her friend.“A collection of her poems, was printed in 1713, 8vo; containing likewise a, tragedy called” Aristomenes;" never acted; and many still continue unpublished, a few of which may be seen in the General Dictionary, which Dr. Birch inserted there by permission of the countess of Hertford, in whose possession they were. Her ladyship obtained the good will of Pope, who addressed some verses to her which drew forth an elegant replication, printed in Gibber’s Lives. She died August 5, 1720, without issue as did the earl her husband, Sept. 30, 1726.

, earl of Clare, and lord high chancellor of Ireland, the son of John Fitzgibbon, esq. an eminent lawyer at the Irish bar, who died in 1780, was born in 1749, educated at the universities of Dublin and Oxford, and afterwards entered upon the study of the law, of which profession he became the great ornament in his native country. In 1784 he was appointed attorney-general on the elevation of Mr. Scott to the bench, and on the decease of lord chancellor Lifford in 1789, his lordship received the seals, and was raised to the dignity of the peerage by the title of baron Fitzgibbon of Lower Connello. To these dignities were added the titles of viscount Clare, Dec. 20, 1793, and earl of Clare, June 10, 1795; and the English barony of Fitzgibbon of Sidbury, in Devonshire, Sept. 24, 1799. In 1802 his health appeared to be so seriously affected, that his physicians thought proper to recommend a more genial climate; and he had arrived at Dublin from his country seat at Mountshannon, designing to proceed immediately to Bath, or if his strength permitted to the south of France. The immediate cause of his death was the loss of a great quantity of blood, while at Mountshannon, which was followed by such extreme weakness, that upon his arrival at Dublin on the 25th, there was reason to fear he could not survive the ensuing day; on Wednesday these alarming appearances increased so much, that upon a consultation of physicians, he was given over. On being made acquainted with this melancholy truth, the firmness of his lordship’s mind did not forsake him. To prevent any impediment to the public business, he directed the new law officers to be called, and from his bed administered to them the necessary oaths. Soon after, his lordship fell into a lethargic slumber, and continued motionless until Thursday Jan. 28, 1802, when he ceased to breathe.

, an eminent naval commander, and earl of Southampton, in the sixteenth century, was the second son of sir Thomas Fitzvviliiam, of Aldwarke, in Yorkshire, knt. by Lucia, his wife, daughter and co-heir to John Neville, marquis Montacute. In 151O he was made one of the esquires for the body of king Henry VIII. which office was renewed to him for life ia 1512. The year following he was one of the chief commanders in the fleet sent out against France, to clear the sea of French ships before Henry and his allies attacked France by land; and he was seriously wounded by an arrow in attempting to destroy the French fleet at Brest. Shortly after he attended king Henry at the siege of Tournay, where his bravery procured him the honour of knighthood. In 1620 he was vice-admiral of England, and em^ ployed in guarding the channel at the time the emperor Charles V. came to England. He so ingratiated himself with his royal master that he obtained from him, in 1521, 9. grant of the manor of Navesby in Northamptonshire, part of the possessions of Edward Stafford, duke of Buckingham, then lately attainted. At that time he was ambassador in France; but, upon a rupture between that kingdom and England, he was recalled, Jan. 1521-2, and ordered to sea with a strong fleet of twenty-eight sail, to secure our merchants, and take what French ships he could. Shortly after he assisted at the taking of Morlaix, in Bretagne; and with sir William Sandes and sir Maufice Berkeley, went and burnt Marguison, which was newly built and fortified, and many villages. In 1523, the king of France, preparing to send John duke of Albany, regent of Scotland, into that kingdom in order to invade England from that quarter, sir William was made admiral, and dispatched with a strong fleet to intercept him. Having missed him, he landed on the French coast at Treport, in Normandy, and burnt the suburbs of that town and several ships in the harbour, though there were but 700 English opposed to 6000 French. The year following, being captain of Guisnes, in Picardy, he greatly annoyed Boulogne, and other places adjacent. Before the end of that year he was made treasurer of the king’s household; and in October sent to France with Dr. John Taylor, a civilian, to see the lady regent (whose son, Francis I. was then prisoner in Spain) swear to observe the articles of a treaty newly concluded between the two crowns. In 1529 he was one of those who subscribed the articles exhibited in parliament against cardinal Wolsey. At the grand interview between the ki:igs of England and France, in 1532, he attended his master Henry V11I. to Boulogne, the place of interview between many other persons of the highest quality. In May 1535, he was sent with the duke of Norfolk, the of Ely, and Dr. Fox, to treat with the French king’s commissioners about a league between the crowns of England and France; one of the articles of which was, that the duke of Angonleme, third son to the king of France, should marry Elizabeth, second daughter of king Henry. Shortly after, he was made knight of the garter, and chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster; and in 1536 constituted admiral of England, Wales, Ireland, Normandy, Gascony, and Aquitaine. On Oct. 18, 1537, he was advanced to the title of earl of Southampton, and made lord privy-seal Oct. 27,1539. In April following, some disputes having arisen between England and France, he, with John lord Russel, lately made high admiral, were sent over to Calais with a few troops of horse, and returned quickly after executing their orders. He was also employed as captain of the Foreward in the expedition to Scotland, in October 1542, but died in his way thither, at Newcastle, so much esteemed, that, in honour of his memory, his standard was borne in the vanguard in all that expedition. By his will bearing date Sept. 10, of the same year, he ordered his body to be buried in the church of Midhurst, in Sussex. He left no issue by Mabel his wife, daughter to Henry lord Clifford, and sister to Henry first earl of Cumberland. Of his personal character it is only recorded that there was not a serviceable man under his command whose name he knew not; not a week passed but he paid his ships; not a prize but his seamen shared in as well as himself; and it was his opinion, that none fought well but those who did it for a fortune, which may be admitted, in some measure, if we consider that fortune and honours in the naval and military services are generally joined.

, an English poet, was born in Aldersgate-street, London, about 1633; and educated at Winchester school. He went from thence to New college, in Oxford; but leaving the university without a degree, he removed to the Inner Temple, where in due time he became a barrister. Jt does not appear that he ever followed the profession of the law; but, having a turn for the fine arts, he indulged his inclination, and made some proficiency, both as a poet and a painter. He speaks of himself as a painter, in a poem called “The Review,” and it appears from thence, that he drew in miniature. The third edition of his poems, with additions and amendments, was published by himself, with his portrait before them, in 1682, and dedicated to the duke of Ormond. The first poem in this collection is, “On the Death of the right honourable Thomas earl of Ossory,” and had been published separately the year before. Soon after, it was read by the duke of Ormond his father, who was so extremely pleased with it, that he sent Flatman a mourning ring, with a diamond in it worth 100l. He published also in 1685, two Pindaric odes; one on the death of prince Rupert, the other on the death of Charles II.

, an English lawyer, and recorder of London in the reign of Elizabeth, was the natural son of Robert Fleetwood, esq. who was the third sou of William Fleetwood, esq. of Hesketh in Lancashire. He had a liberal education, and was for some time of Oxford, whence he went to the Middle Temple, to study the law; and having quick as well as strong parts, became in a short time a very distinguished man in his profession. In 1562 he was elected summer reader, and in 1568 double reader in Lent. His reputation was not confined to the inns of court; for when it was thought necessary to appoint commissioners in the nature of a royal visitation in the dioceses of Oxford, Lincoln, Peterborough, Coventry, and Litchtield, Fleetwood was of the number. In 1569 he became recorder of London. It does not appear whether his interest with the earl of Leicester procured him that place or not; but it is certain that he was considered as a person entirely addicted to that nobleman’s service, for he is styled in one of the bitterest libels of those times, “Leicester’s mad recorder;” insinuating, that he was placed in his office to encourage those of this lord’s faction in the city. He was very zealous against the papists, active in disturbing mass-houses, committing popish priests, and giving informations of their intrigues: so zealous, that once rushing in upon mass at the Portuguese ambassador’s house, he was, for breach of privilege, committed prisoner to the Fleet, though soon released. In 1580 he was made serjeant at law, and in 1592, one of the qneen’s Serjeants; in which post, however, he did not continue long, for he died at his house in Noble-street, Aldersgate, February 28, 1594, and was buried at Great Missenden in Buckinghamshire, where he had purchased an estate. He was married, and had children. Wood says that “he was a learned man, and a good antiquary, but of a marvellous merry and pleasant conceit,” He was farther esteemed an acute politician; which character was most likely to recommend him to his patron Leicester. He was a good popular speaker, and wrote well upon subjects of government. He made a great figure in his profession, being equally celebrated for eloquence as an advocate, and for judgment as a lawyer.

, an eminent Scotch politician, and ranked among the patriots of that country, was the son of sir Robert Fletcher of Saltown, in Scotland, and was born in 16S3. Being left fatherless while he was a child, he was placed under the tuition of Dr. Gilbert Bunu-t, then rector of Saltown, from whom he is supposed to have imbibed some of those political principles which he afterwards carried to a high degree of enthusiasm. He then spent some years of his youth in foreign travel, and first appeared as a public character in the station of a commissioner for East Lothian in the Scotch parliament, but his opposition to the arbitrary measures of the court, rendered it necessary to withdraw to Holland; and upon being cited to appear by a summons from the lords of the council, which it was known he could not obey, he was outlawed, and his estate confiscated. In 1683 he came over to England to assist, with his friend Mr. Baillie of Jerviswood, in the consultations held among the friends of liberty in England and Scotland, to concert measures for their common security; and by his prudence and address he avoided giving any pretext to the ministry for his apprehension. He returned to the continent, and in 1685 engaged in the enterprise of the duke of Monmouth. He landed in the west of England, but was obliged to quit the country again on account of a dispute which he had with a man who insulted him, and whom he shot dead, his temper being at all times most irascible. From England he went to Spain, and afterwards passed into Hungary, where he engaged in the war with the Turks, and distinguished himself by his valour and skill. The interest which he took in the fate of his country soon brought him back to join in the conferences which were held among the Scotch refugees in Holland, for the purpose of effecting a revolution; and upon that event taking place, he returned to Scotland, and resumed the possession of his estate. He was a member of the convention for the settlement of the new government in Scotland, and in all his political conduct he shewed himself the zealous asserter of the liberties of the people, without any regard to party distinction, and free from all views of his own interest. In 1698 he printed “A Discourse of Government with relation to Militias.” Also “Two Discourses concerning the Affairs of Scotland.” In one of these he suggests a plan for providing for the poor by domestic slavery, a most preposterous plan to be proposed by a friend to liberty. When a bill was brought into the parliament of Scotland for a supply to the crowq, in 1703, he moved that, previously to this, or to any other business, the house should consider what acts were necessary to secure their religion and liberties in case of the queen’s death, and he proposed various limitations of the prerogative, which were received in the “Act of Security,” passed through his exertions into a law, but rendered ineffectual by the subsequent union, to which he was a determined enemy. He died at London in 1716. His publications, and some of his speeches, were collected in one volume octavo, entitled, “The Political Works of Andrew Fletcher, Ksquire,” and his Life was lately published by the earl of Burhan, with a very high panegyric on his political virtues. Another very high character of him may be seen in our authority.

He was the author of several works: 1. “First Fruits, which yield familiar speech, merry proverbs, witty sentences, and golden sayings,” 1578, 4to, and 1591, 8vo. 2. “Perfect Introduction to the Italian and English Tongues.” Printed with the former, and both dedicated to Robert earl of Leicester. 3. “Second Fruits to be gathered of twelve trees, of divers but delightsome tastes to the tongues of Italian and English men,” 151H, 8vo. 4. “Garden of Recreation, yielding six thousand Italian Proverbs;” printed with the former. 5. “Dictionary, Italian and English,” 1597, folio. It was after* ards augmented by him, and published in 1611, in folio, by way of compliment to his royal mistress, under this title, “Queen Anna’s New World of Words.” This was a work of great merit, being at that time by far the most perfect of the kind. The author, however, laboured to make it still more perfect, by collecting many thousand words and phrases, to be added to the next edition; but, not living to complete this, the care of it fell to one Gio. Torriano, an Italian, and professor of the Italian tongue in London; who, after revising, correcting, and supplying many more materials out of the Dictionary of the Academy della Crusca, printed them in 1659, folio, all in their proper places. 6. “The Essays of Montaigne,” translated into English, and dedicated to queen Anna, 1603, 1613, 1632, folio. Prefixed to this work we find rather a long copy of verses, addressed to him by Samuel Daniel, the poet and historiographer, whose sister Florio had married. Wood says, that he wrote other things, but he had not seen them.

Early in 1752 was published, from a finished manuscript of our author, “Theodorus: a Dialogue concerning the art of Preaching,” 12mo, which is a work of considerable utility to young divines, and has been repeatedly printed along with his brother Dr. James Fordyce’s sermon on “The Eloquence of the Pulpit.” Mr. David Fordyce’s last production was left by him in an unfinished state, but not so incomplete as to be unworthy of publication. It was entitled “The Temple of Virtue, a Dream,” and was given to the world in 1757, by his brother James, who added to the descriptive part of the temple twelve characters that had a claim to a place in it, in the drawing of which several living characters were intended, particularly the late earl of Chatham. Mr. Fordyce left several other brothers, of whom the youngest, Alexander, attained an unhappy celebrity by his ruinous speculations as a banker, but James and William deserve some notice on a better account.

His works are, “A Voyage round the World, in his Britannic majesty’s sloop Resolution, commanded by captain James Cook, during the years 1772, 3, 4, and 5,” London, 1777, 3 vols. 4to. This work was translated by himself and his father into German, and published at Berlin, in 2 vols. 4to, 1778—1780; “Reply to Mr. Wales’ s Remarks on Mr. Forster’s Account of captain Cook’s last Voyage,” London, 1778, 4to; “A Letter to the right Honourable the earl of Sandwich,” 1779, 4to. He was concerned for some time with professor Lichtenberg of Gottingen, in the publication of the Gottingen Magazine; Uo wrote some papers in the Transactions of the Academy of Sciences at Upsal he had a large share in the ;< Characters generum Plantarum, &c." of his father and was employed by professor Pallas, and others, in the continuation of Martini’s Dictionary of Natural History.

, a French painter, the pupil of Le Brun, who suffered him to paint for him occasionally in some of his most capital works, was the son of a goldsmith, and born at Paris in 1640. He perfected his talents in Italy, and on his return was employed to paint the dome of the hotel of invalids. Louis XIV. settled upon him a pension of 1000 crowns, and he was received into the academy of painting, where he became rector and professor. His fame extended even to England, whither he was invited by the earl of Montagu, and employed by liini in decorating his magnificent house, now the British Museum, where his paintings at that time attracted universal admiration. William III. on seeing them, offered him a handsome establishment in this country; but, at the same time, the celebrated architect Mansard, wrote to him from France, that he was wanted there to co-operate with him in finishing some public buildings, and he returned to his native country, where he died in 1716. He was reckoned inimitable in his time as a colourist, and excellent both in landscape and historical painting.

, an eminent lawyer, was born at Marlborough in Wiltshire, Dec. 16, 1689. His father Michael, and his grandfather John, were attornies in that place. After attending the free-school there, Mr. Foster was matriculated at Oxford May 7, 1705, and studied about two years at Exeter college, but like many eminent men in the profession of the law, left it without taking a degree. On May 23, 1707, he was admitted into the society of the Middle Temple, and in due time was called to the bar, but not having much success as an advocate, he retired into the country, and settled in his native town. Here he contracted an intimacy with Algernon, earl of Hertford, afterwards duke of Somerset, which continued many years, and until the death of the noble duke, who by his will appointed his friend executor in trust with his son-in-law Hugh, earl (afterwards duke) of Northumberland. In 1725 he married Martha, the eldest daughter of James Lyde, esq. of Stantonwick in Somersetshire; and in a few years afterwards he removed to Bristol, where he exercised his profession with great reputation and considerable success; and in August 1735 he was chosen rer corder of the city, which office he retained many years. Soon after accepting this office in Easter term, 1736, he took on him the degree of serjeant at law. In 1720 he had published “A Letter of Advice to protestant Dissenters,” in which he is said to discover the most liberal and enlarged views; and in 1735 he published a pamphlet which engaged the public attention very much, entitled “An Examination of the scheme of Church power laid down in the Codex juris ecclesiastici Anglicani, &c.” In this he controverted the system of church power vested in the clergy, and which forms the ground-work of bishop Gibson’s “Codex.” Several answers, however, were published to Mr. Foster’s pamphlet, the principal one by Dr. Andrews, a civilian. Mr. Foster seems to have promised a continuation, in reply to him and others, but did not pursue the subject. In the postscript, however, to the third edition of his pamphlet, he adverts to “the personal severity,” with which Dr. Andrews had treated him; and adds, “It is not in my nature to make any return of that kind. I forgive him with all my heart. If, upon poor reflection, he can forgive himself, I pity him.”

Mr. Fox, for some time after his going to the university, was attached to the popish religion, in which he had been brought up, but afterwards applied himself to divinity, with somewhat more fervency than circumspection; and discovered himself in favour of the reformation then going on, before he was known to those who maintained the cause, or those who were of ability to protect the maintainers of it. In order to judge of the controversies which then divided the church, his first care was to search diligently into the ancient and modern history of it; to learn its beginning, by what arts it flourished, and by what errors it began to decline; to consider the causes of those controversies and dissensions which had arisen in the churd), and to weigh attentively of what moment and consequence they were to religion. To this end he applied himself with such zeal and industry, that before he was thirty years of age, he had read over all the Greek and Latin fathers, the schoolmen, the councils, &c. and had also acquired a competent skill in the Hebrew language. But from this strict application by day and by night while at Oxford, from forsaking his friends for the most solitary retirement, which he enjoyed in Magdalen grove, from the great and visible distractions of his mind, and above all, from absenting himself from the public worship, arose suspicions of his alienation from the church; in which his enemies being soon confirmed, he was accused and condemned of heresy, expelled his college, and thought to have been favourably dealt with, that he escaped with his life. This was in 1545. Wood represents this affair somewhat differently he says in one place, that Fox resigned his fellowbliip to avoid expulsion, and in another that he was " in a manner obliged to resign his fellowship/ 1 The stigma, however, appears to have been the same, for his relations were greatly displeased at him, and afraid to countenance or protect one condemned for a capital offence; and his father-in-law basely took advantage of it to withhold his paternal estate from him, thinking probably that he, who stood in danger of the law himself, would with difficulty find relief from it. Being thus forsaken by his friends, he was reduced to great distress; when he was taken into the house of sir Thomas Lucy of Warwickshire, to be tutor to his children. Here he married a citizen’s daughter of Coventry, and continued in sir Thomas’s family, till his children were grown up; after which he spent some time with his wife’s father at Coventry. He removed to London a few years before king Henry’s death; where having neither employment nor preferment, he was again driven to great necessities and distress, but was reIjeved, according to his son’s account, in a very remarkable manner. He was sitting one day, he says, in St. Paul’s church, almost spent with long fasting, his countenance wan and pale, and his eyes hollow, when there came to him a person, whom he never remembered to have seen before, who, sitting down by him, accosted him very familiarly, and put into his hands an untold sum of money; bidding him to be of good cheer, to be careful of himself, and to use all means to prolong his life, for that in a few days new hopes were at band, and new means of subsistence. Fox tried all methods to find out the person by whom he was so seasonably relieved, but in vain; the prediction, however, was fulfilled, for within three days he was taken into the service of the duchess of Richmond, to be tutor to the children of her nephew, the celebrated earl of Surrey. Upon the commitment of this amiable nobleman and his father the duke of Norfolk to the Tower, these children were sent to be educated under the care and inspection of their unnatural aunt the duchess of Richmond.

, an eminent prelate, and the munificent founder of Corpus Christi college, Oxford, was the son of Thomas Fox, and born at Ropesley, near Grantham, in Lincolnshire, about the latter end of the reign of Henry VI. His parents are said to have been in mean circumstances, but they must at least have been able to afford him school education, since the only dispute on this subject between his biographers, is, whether he was educated in grammar learning at Boston, or at Winchester. They all agree that at a proper age he was sent to Magdalen-college, Oxford, where he was acquiring distinction for his extraordinary proficiency, when the plague, which happened to break out about that time, obliged him to go to Cambridge, and continue his studies at Pembrokehall. After remaining some time at Cambridge, he repaired to the university at Paris, and studied divinity and the canon law, and here, probably, he received his doctor’s degree. This visit gave a new and important turn to his life, and introduced him to that eminence which he preserved for many years as a statesman. In Paris he became acquainted with Dr. Morton, bishop of Ely, whom Richard III. had compelled to quit his native country, and by this prelate he was recommended to the earl of Richmond, afterwards Henry VII. who was then providing for a descent upon England. Richmond, to whom he devoted himself, conceived such an opinion of his talents and fidelity, that he entrusted to his care a negotiation with France for supplies of men and money, the issue of which he was not able himself to await; and Fox succeeded to the utmost of his wishes. After the defeat of the usurper at the battle of Bosworth, in 1485, and the establishment of Henry on the throne, the latter immediately appointed Fox to be one of his privy-council, and about the same time bestowed on him the prebends of Bishopston and South Grantham, in the church of Salisbury. In 1487, he was promoted to the see of Exeter, and appointed keeper of the privy seal, with a pension of twenty shillings a day. He was also made principal secretary of state, and master of St. Cross, near Winchester. His employments in. affairs of state both at home and abroad, were very frequent, as he shared the king’s confidence with his early friend Dr. Morton, who was now advanced to the archbishopric of Canterbury. In 1487, Fox was sent ambassador, with sir Richard Edgecombe, comptroller of the household, to James III. of Scotland, where he negociated a prolongation of the truce between England and Scotland, which was to expire July 3, 1488, to Sept. 1, 1489. About the beginning of 1491, he was employed in an embassy to the king of France, and returned to England in November following. In 1494 he went again as ambassador to James IV. of Scotland, to conclude some differences respecting the fishery of the river Esk, in which he was not successful. Having been translated in 1492 from the see of Exeter to that of Bath and Wells, he was in 1494 removed to that of Durham. Jn 1497, the castle of Norham being threatened by the king of Scotland, the bishop caused it to be fortified and supplied with troops, and bravely defended it in person, until it was relieved by Thomas Howard, earl of Surrey, who compelled the Scots to retire. Fox was then, a third time, appointed to negociate with Scotland, and signed a, seven years truce between the two kingdoms, Sept. 30, 1497. He soon after negociated a marriage between James IV. and Margaret, king Henry’s eldest daughter, which was, after many delays, fully concluded Jan. 24, 1501-.

In 1500, the university of Cambridge elected him their chancellor, which he retained till 1502; and in the same year (1500) he was promoted to the see of Winchester. In 1507 he was chosen master of Pembroke-hall, Cambridge, which he retained until 1519. In 1507 and 1508 he was employed at Calais, with other commissioners, in negociating a treaty of marriage between Mary, the king’s third daughter, and Charles, archduke of Austria, afterwards the celebrated Charles V. In 1509-10, he was sent to France with the earl of Surrey, and Ruthal, bishop of Durham, and concluded a new treaty of alliance with Lewis XII. In 1512 he was one of the witnesses to the foundation charter of the hospital in the Savoy. In 1513 he attended the king (Henry VIII.) in his expedition to France, and was present at the taking of Teroiiane, and in October following, jointly with Thomas Grey, marquis of Dorset, he concluded a treaty with the emperor Maximilian against France. In 1514, he was one of the witnesses to the renunciation of the marriage with prince Charles of Spain by the princess Mary; one of the commissioners for the treaty of peace between Henry VIII. and Lewis XII. of France; and for the marriage between the said king of France and the princess Mary, the same year. He was also one of the witnesses to the marriage treaty, and to the confirmation of both treaties; to the treaty of friendship with Francis I. and to its continuation in the following year.

This appears to be the last of his public acts. During the reign of Henry VII. he enjoyed the unlimited favour and confidence of his sovereign, and bore a conspicuous share, not only in the political measures, but even in the court amusements and ceremonies of that reign. Henry likewise appointed him one of his executors, and recommended him strongly to his son and successor. But although he‘ retained his seat in the privy-council, and continued to hold the privy-seal, his influence in the new reign’ gradually abated. Howard, earl of Surrey and lord treasurer, had been his rival in Henry the Seventh’s time, and learned now to accommodate himself to the extravagant passions of his new master, with whom he was for a considerable time a confidential favourite; and the celebrated Wolsey, who had been introduced to the king by Fox, in order to counteract the influence of Surrey, soon became more powerful than either. After remaining some time in office, under many mortifications, our prelate, together with archbishop Warham, retired from court in 1515. Such was the political life of bishop Fox, distinguished by high influence and talent, but embittered at length, by the common intrigues and vicissitudes to which statesmen are subject.

, Lord Holland, the first nobleman of that title, was the second and youngest son of the second marriage, of sir Stephen Fox, and brother of Stephen first earl of Ilchester. He was born in 1705, and was chosen one of the members for Hendon, in Wiltshire, on a vacancy, in March 1735, to that parliament which met Jan. 23, 1734; and being constituted surveyor-general of his majesty’s board of works, a writ was ordered June 17, 1737, and he was re-elected. In the next parliament, summoned to meet June 25, 1741, he served for Windsor; and in 1743, being constituted one of the commissioners of the treasury, in the administration formed by the Pelhams, a writ was issued Dec. 21st of that year, for a new election, and he was re-chosen. In 1746, on the restoration of the old cabinet, after the short administration of earl Granville, he was appointed secretary at war, and sworn one his majesty’s most honourable privy-council. On tbis occasion, and until he was advanced to the peerage, he continued to represent Windsor in parliament. In 1754, the death of Mr. Pelham produced a vacancy in the treasury, which was filled up by his broker the duke of Newcastle, who, though a nobleman of high honour, unblemished integrity, and considerable abilities, yet was of too jealous and unstable a temper to manage the house of commons with equal address and activity, and to guide the reins of government without a coadjutor at so arduous a conjuncture. The seals of chancellor of the exchequer and secretary of state, vacant by the death of Mr. Pelham, and by the promotion of the duke of Newcastle, became therefore the objects of contention. The persons who now aspired to the management of the house of commons, were Mr. Fox and Mr. Pitt (afterwards earl of Chatham) whose parliamentary abilities had for some time divided the suffrages of the nation; who had so long fosterod reciprocal jealousy, and who now became public rivals for power. Both these rival statesmen were younger brothers, nearly of the same age; both were educated at Eton, both distinguished for classical knowledge, both commenced their parliamentary career at the same period, and both raised themselves to eminence by their superior talents, yet no two characters were ever more contrasted. Mr. Fox inherited a strong and vigorous constitution, was profuse and dissipated in his youth, and after squandering his private patrimony, went abroad to extricate himself from his embarrassment*. On his return he obtained a seat in parliament, and warmly attached himself to sir Robert Walpole, whom he idolized; and to whose patronage he was indebted for the place of surveyor-general of the board of works. His marriage in 1744 with lady Caroline Lennox, daughter of the duke of Richmond, though at first displeasiug to the family, yet finally strengthened his political connections. He was equally a man of pleasure and business, formed for social and convivial intercourse; of an unruffled temper, and frank disposition. No statesman acquired more adherents, not merely from political motives, but swayed by his agreeable manners, and attached to him by personal friendship, which he fully merited by his zeal in promoting their interests. He is justly characterized, even by Lord Chesterfield, “as having no fixed principles of religion or morality, and as too unwary in ridiculing and exposing them.” As a parliamentary orator, he was occasionally hesitating and perplexed; but, when warmed with his subject, he spoke with an animation and rapidity which appeared more striking from his former hesitation. His speeches were not crowded with flowers of rhetoric, or distinguished by brilliancy of diction; but were replete with sterling sense and sound argument. He was quick in reply, keen in repartee, and skilful in discerning the temper of the house. He wrote without effort or affectation; his public dispatches were manly and perspicuous, and his private letters easy and animated. Though of an ambitious spirit, he regarded money as a principal object, and power only as a secondary concern. He was an excellent husband, a most indulgent father, a kind master, a courteous neighbour, and one whose charities demonstrated that he possessed in abundance the milk of human kindness. Such is said to have been the character of lord Holland, which is here introduced as a prelude to some account of his more illustrious son. It may therefore suffice to add, that in 1756 he resigned the office of secretary at war to Mr. Pitt, and in the following year was appointed paymaster of the forces, which he retained until the commencement of the present reign; his conduct in this office was attended with some degree of obloquy; in one instance, at least, grossly overcharged. For having accumulated a considerable fortune by the perquisites of office, and the interest of money in hand, he was styled in one of the addresses of the city of London, “the defaulter of unaccounted millions.” On May 6, 1762, his lady was created baroness Holland; and on April 16, 1763, he himself was created a peer by the title of lord Holland, baron Holland, of Foxley, in the county of Wilts. In the latter part of his life he amused himself by building, at a vast expence, a fantastic villa at Kingsgate, near Margate, His lordship was also a lord of the privy-council, and clerk of the Pells, in Ireland, granted him for his own life and that of his two sons. Lord Holland died at Holland-house, near Kensington, July 1, 1774, in the sixty-ninth year of his age, leaving three sons, Stephen, his successor; Charles James, the subject of the next article; and Henry Edward, a general in the army. Stephen, second lord Holland, survived his father but a few months, dying Dec. 26, 1774, and was succeeded by Henry Richard, the present peer.

At the general election in 1780, Mr. Fox became candidate for the city of Westminster, in which, after a violent contest, he succeeded, though opposed, as we are told, by the formidable interest of the Newcastle family, and by the whole influence of the crown. Being now the representative of a great city, it is added, “he appeared in parliament in a more dignified capacity, and acquired a considerable increase of consequence to his political character. In himself he was still the same: he now necessarily lived and acted in the bosom of his constituents; his easiness of access, his pleasant social spirit, his friendly disposition and conciliating manners, which appeared in, all he said, and the good temper which predominated in all he did, were qualities that rendered him the friend and acquaintance, as well as the representative, of those who sent him into parliament; his superior talents, and their powerful and frequent application to popular purposes, made him best known among political men, and gave him a just claim to the title so long applied to him, of * The man of the people.'” Notwithstanding all this, it might not be difficult to prove that Mr. Fox was upon the whole no great gainer by representing a city in which the arts of popularity, even when most honestly practised, are no security for its continuance; and indeed the time was not far distant when he had to experience the fatal effects of preferring a seat, which the purest virtues only can neither obtain nor preserve, and in contesting which, corruption on one side must be opposed by corruption on the other. The subjects of debate in the new parliament affording the opposition opportunities for the display of their eloquence, they now became formidable by an increase of numbers. Ministers were assailed in the house by arguments which they could neither repel nor contradict, and from without they were overwhelmed by the clamours of that same people to whom the war was at first so acceptable; till at length lord North and his adherents were obliged to resign, and it was thought, as such vengeance had been repeatedly threatened both by Mr. Fox and Mr. Burke, that they would have been made responsible for all the mischiefs and bloodshed that had occurred during their calamitous administration. The Rockingham party, however, who came into power in the spring 1782, and whose resentments the* attainment of that object seems to have sofiened, contented themselves with the defeat of their opponents. Mr. Fox obtained the office of secretary of state for foreign affairs, and the marquis of Rockingham was nominated the first lord of the treasury. Still the expectation of the nation was raised to the highest pitch; with this party, they hoped to see an end to national calamity, and the interests of the country supported and maintained in all quarters of the globe. Much indeed was performed by them considering the shortness of their administration. Though they had succeeded to an empty exchequer, and a general and most calamitous war, yet they resolved to free the people from some of their numerous grievances. Contractors were excluded by act of parliament from the house of commons; custom and excise officers were disqualified from voting at elections; all the proceedings with respect to the Middlesex election were rescinded; while a reform bill abolished a number of useless offices. A more generous policy was adopted in regard to Ireland; a general peace was meditated, and America, which could not be restored, was at least to he conciliated. In the midst of these promising appearances, the marquis of Hockingham, who was the support of the new administration, suddenly died, an event which distracted and divided his party. The council board was instantly torn in pieces by political schisms, originating id a dispute respecting the person who should succeed as 6rsfc lord of the treasury. The candidates were, lord Sbelburne, afterwards marquis of Lansdowne, and the Jgrte duke of Portland; the former, supposed to have the ear of the King, and a majority in the cabinet, was immediately entrusted with the reins of government, and Mr. Fox retired in disgust, declaring that “he had determined never to connive at plans in private, which he could not publicly avow.” What these plans were, we know not, but he now resumed his station in opposition, and joined the very man whose conduct he had for a series of years deprecated as the most destructive to the interests of his coqntry, and most baneful to the happiness of mankind; while his former colleague, the earl of Shelburne, was busied in concluding a peace with France, Spain, Holland, and the United States of America. But as this nobleman, though by no means deficient in political wisdom, had omitted to take those steps which preceding ministers had ever adopted to secure safety, a confederacy was formed against him by the union of the friends of Mr. Fox and lord North, known by the name of “The Coalition,” which proved in the event as impolitic, as it was odious to the great mass of the people. Never indeed in this reign has any measure caused a more general expression of popular disgust; and although it answered the temporary purpose of those who adopted it, by enabling them to supplant their rivals, and to seize upon their places, their success was ephemeral; they had, it is true, a majority in the house of commons, but the people at large were decidedly hostile to an union which appeared to them to be bottomed on ambition only, and destitute of any common public principle. It was asserted, with too much appearance of truth, that they agreed in no one great measure calculated for the benefit of the country, and the nation seemed to unite against them as one man. Their conduct in the cabinet led the sovereign to use a watchful and even jealous eye upon their acts; and the famous India bill proved the rock on /which they finally split, and on account of which they forfeited their place Mr. Fox had now to contend for the government of the empire with William Pitt, a stripling scarcely arrived at the age of manhood, but who nevertheless succeeded to the post of premier, and maintained that situation with a career as brilliant as that of his opponent, for more than twenty years.

In 1753, he published a poem called “Translation,” in which he announced his intention of giving a translation of “Sophocles.” In January 1757, on the periodical paper called “The World” being finished, he engaged to publish a similar one, under the title of “The Centinel,” but after extending it to twenty-seven numbers, he was obliged to drop it for want of encouragement, The next year he published “A Fast Sermon” preached at Queen-street chapel, of which he was minister, and at St. Paul’s Coveut-garden, of which he was lecturer; and he afterwards published a few sermons on occasional topics, or for charities. In 1759 appeared his translation of “Sophocles,” 2 vols. 4to, which was allowed to be a bold and happy transfusion into the English language of the terrible simplicity of the Greek tragedian. This was followed by a “Dissertation on ancient Tragedy,” in which he mentioned Arthur Murphy by name, and in terms not the most courtly. Murphy, a man equally, or perhaps more irritable, replied in a poetical “Epistle addressed to Dr. Johnson,” who calmly permitted the combatants to settle their disputes in their own way, which, we are told, amounted to a cessation of hostilities, if not to an honourable peace. At this time Francklin is said to have been a writer in the Critical Review, which indeed is acknowledged in an article in that review, and might perhaps be deduced from, internal evidence, as, besides his intimacy with Smollet, his works are uniformly mentioned with very high praise. In 1757 he had been preferred by Trinity-college to the livings of Ware and Thundrich, in Hertfordshire, and although his mind was more intent on the stage than the pulpit, he published in 1765 a volume of “Sermons on the relative duties,” which was well received by the publick. Next year he produced at Drury-lane theatre, the tragedy of “The Earl of Warwick,” taken, without any acknowledgement, from the French of La Harpe. In Nov. 1767, he was enrolled in the list of his majesty’s chaplains. In 1768 he published apiece of humour, without his name, entitled “A Letter to a Bishop concerning Lectureships,” exposing the paltry shifts of the candidates for this office at their elections; and next year he wrote “An Ode on the Institution of the Royal Academy.” In March of the same year, he translated Voltaire’s “Orestes” for the stage. In July 1770 he took the degree of D. D. but still debased his character by producing dramatic pieces of no great fame, and chiefly translations; “Electra,” “Matilda,” and “The Contract,” a farce. About 1776 he was presented to the living of Brasted, in Surrey, which he held until his death. He had for some years employed himself on his excellent translation of the works of *' Lucian,“which he published in 1780, in 2 vols. 4to. He was also concerned with Smollet, in a translation of Voltaire’s works, but, it is said, contributed little more than his name to the title-pages. There is a tragedy of his still in ms. entitled” Mary Queen of Scots.“Dr. Francklin died at his house in Great Queen-street, March 15, 1784. He was unquestionably a man of learning and abilities, but from peculiarities of temper, and literary jealousy, seems not to have been much esteemed by his contemporaries. After his death 3 volumes of his” Sermons" were published for the benefit of his widow and family. Mrs. Francklin died in May 1796. She was the daughter of Mr. Venables, a wine-merchant.

, an English versifier in queert Elizabeth’s time, whose works are still an object of some curiosity, was educated at the ex pence of air Philip Sydney at St. John’s college, Cambridge, where he took his master’s degree, and afterwards went to Gray’s-lnn, where be remained till he was called to the bar of the court of the Marches in Wales. In August 1590, he was recommended by Henry earl of Pembroke, to lord treasurer Burleigh, as 41 man in every respect qualified for the place of her majesty’s solicitor in that court, but his history cannot Ixe traced any farther. He wrote, 1 “The Lamentations of Amituas for the death of Phillis, in English hexameters,” London, 1587, 4to. 2. “The countess of Pembroke’s Ivy-church and Emamiel,” in English hexameters, London, 1591. In this is included a translation of Tasso’s Aminta. At the end of the Ivy-church is also a translation of Virgil’s Alexis into English hexameters, verse for verse, which he calls “The Lamentations of Corydon,” &c. Fraunce also translated the beginning of “Heliodorns’s Ethiopics,” Lond. 1591, 8vo. and wrote a book with the title of “Tke Lawier’s Logike, exemplifying the precepts of Logike by the practice of the Common Lawe.” Of this last, as well as of his “Sheapheardes Logike,” a ms., an account is givenin the “Bibliographer,” and a few particulars of the authors other writings may be found in our authorities.

In 1704- he was chosen professor of chemistry at Oxford; and, the year after, attended the earl of Peterborough in his Spanish expedition, as physician to the army there, in which post he continued near two years. From thence he made the tour of Italy, and went to Rome, as well for tho sake of seeing the antiquities of that city, as for the pleasure of visiting and conversing with Baglivi and Lancisi, physicians then in the zenith of their reputation. On his return to England in 1707, he found the character of his patron very rudely treated; and, from a spirit of gra*­titucie, published a defence of him, entitled “An Account of the earl of Peterborough’s Conduct in Spain, chiefly since the raising the siege of Barcelona, 1706;” to which is added, “The Campaign of Valencia. With original papers, 1707,” 8vo. This piece, relating to party-matters, made a great noise, some loudly commending, others as loudly condemning it; so that a third edition of it was published in 1708.

, eldest brother of the preceding, was born in 16'67, and admitted in 1680 at Westminster school, whence he was elected to Christ Church, Oxford, in. 1686. While a student there he wrote some good verses on the inauguration of king William and queen Mary, which were printed in the Oxford collection. In, the celebrated dispute between Bentley and Boyle, Mr. Freind was a warm partizan for the honour of his college, but was eventually more lucky with Bentley than his brother, Dr. John. A neice of our author’s was married to a son of Dr. Bentley, who, after that event, conceived a better opinion of the Christ Church men, and declared that “Freind had more good learning in him than ever he had imagined.” Mr. Freind proceeded M. A. June I, 1693, became second master of Westminster school in 1699, and accumulated the degrees of B. and D. D. July 7, 1709. In 1711 he published a sermon preached before the house of commons, Jan. 30, 1710-11, and in the same year he succeeded Duke, the poet, in the valuable living of Witney, in Oxfordshire; became head master of Westminster school, and is said either to have drawn up, or to have revised the preamble to the earl of Oxford’s patent of peerage. In March 1723, the day after his brother, Dr. John, was committed to the Tower, he caused much speculation in Westminster school and its vicinity, by giving for a theme, tf Frater, ne desere Fratrem.“In 1724 he published Cicero’s” Orator,“and in 1728 Mr. Bowyer, the celebrated printer, was indebted to him for the Westminster verses on the coronation of George II. In April 1729, Dr. Freind obtained a canonry of Windsor, which in 173l i he exchanged for a prebend of Westminster, and in 1733 he quitted Westminster school. In 1734 he was desirous of resigning Witney to his son (afterwards dean of Canterbury); but could not do it without the permission of bishop Hoadly, which he had little reason to expect. On application, however, to that prelate, through queen Caroline and lady Sundon, he received this laconic answer,” If Dr. Freind can ask it, I can grant it." Dr. Freind’s letters to lady Sundon are still existing, and prove that he had as little scruple in asking, as bishop Hoadly had in flattering a lady, who, by her influence with queen Caroline, became for a considerable time the sole arbitress of churchpreferments. In 1744 Dr. Freind resigned his stall at Westminster in favour of his son, and died August 9, 1751. By Jane his wife, one of the two daughters of Dr. Samuel Delangle, a prebendary of Westminster, he had two sons, Charles, who died in 1736, and William, his successor at Witney, and afterwards dean of Canterbury.

, a learned physician, was born at Nieder Wesel, in the duchy of Cleves, Oct. 30, 1581 but his relations being compelled, by the troubles of the times, to retire to Osnaburg, he began his classical studies there. He was afterwards sent to Cologne, Wesel, and Helmstadt; but his disposition being early turned to medicine, as a profession, he studied at Rostock, afterwards returned to Helmstadt to attend the lectures of Duncan Liddell and of Francis Parcovius; he likewise derived much advantage from the lectures of the celebrated Meibomius, in whose house he resided in the capacity of tutor to his son, and was soon thought fit to give private lectures to the younger students on the practice of physic. He afterwards lectured in public as professor extraordinary; and in 1604, at the age of twenty-three, he obtained the ordinary professorship in the university, which office he filled during four years. He then took his degree of doctor, and went to the court of Philip Sigismund, duke of Brunswick Lunenburg, and bishop of Osnaburg, who had appointed him his principal physician. About 1622, Ernest, duke of Holstein and earl of Schawenburg, offered him the same office, with the addition of the chief medical professorship in the university which he had lately founded at Rinteln; but his patron would not permit him. to accept it. This prince-bishop dying in 1623, his nephew, duke Frederic Ulric, gave Freitag the option of being his chief physician, or of resuming his professorship at Helmstadt. He con*­tinued at Osnaburg, where the new bishop retained him as his physician, and also appointed him one of his chamberlains. He also served his successor in the same capacity, but was dismissed in 1631, on account of his refusal to become a catholic. He found protection and patronage, however, under Ernest Cassimir, count of Nassau, and. the counts of Bettheim, who procured for him the vacant professorship in the university of Groningen. He fulfilled this new appointment with great reputation, and continued to distinguish himself by the success of his practice till the decline of his life, which was accelerated by a complication of maladies. Dropsy, gout, gravel, aud fever, terminated his life Feb. 8, 1641.

, an English physician, the son of John French, of Broughton, near Banbury in Oxfordshire, was born there in 1616, and entered New-Inn-hall, Oxford, in 1633, when he took his degrees in arts. He afterwards studied medicine, and acted as physician to the parliamentary army, by the patronage of the Fiennes, men of great influence at that time; he was also one of the two physicians to the whole army under general Fairfax. In 1648, when the earl of Pembroke visited the university of Oxford, he was created M. D. and was about the same time physician to the Savoy, and one of the college. He went abroad afterwards as physician to the English army at Bulloigne, and died there in Oct. or Nov. 1657. Besides translations of some medical works from Paracelsus and Glauber, he published “The An of Distillation,” Lond. 1651, 4to.; and “The Yorkshire Spaw, or a Treatise of Four famous medicinal wells: viz. the spaw, or vitrioline well; the stinking or sulphur well; the dropping or petrifying well; and St. Magnus-well, near Knaresborow in Yorkshire. Together with the causes, vertues, and use thereof,” Lond. 1652 and 1654, 12mo, republished at Halifax, 1760, 12mo.

, an enterprizing English navigator, was born near Doncaster, in Yorkshire, of low parents, but it is not known in what year. Being brought up to navigation, he very early displayed the talents of an eminent sailor, and was the first Englishman that attempted to find out a north-west passage to China. He made offers of this to several English merchants for fifteen years together; but meeting with no encouragement from them, he at length obtained recommendations to Dudley earl of Warwick, and other persons of rank and fortune. Under their influence and protection he engaged a sufficient number of adventurers, and collected proper sums of money. The ships he provided were only three; namely, two barks of about twenty-five tons each, and a pinnace of ten tons. With these he sailed from Deptford June 8, 1576; and the court being then at Greenwich, the queen beheld them as they passed by, “commended them, and bade them farewell, with shaking her hand at them out of the window.”

Of all the particulars of Froissart’s life during his residence in England, we only know that he was present at the separation of the king and queen in 1361, with their son the prince of Wales and the princess his lady, who were going to take possession of the government of Acquitaine; and that he was between Eltham and Westminster in 1363, when king John passed on his return to England. There is in his poems a pastoral which seems to allude only to that event. With regard to his travels during the time he was attached to the service of the queen, he' employed six months in Scotland, and penetrated as far as the Highlands. He travelled on horseback with his portmanteau behind him, and followed by a greyhound. The king of Scotland, and many lords whose names he has preserved to us, treated him so handsomely, that he could have wished tq have returned thither. William earl of Douglas lodged him during fifteen days in his castle of Dalkeith, near Edinburgh; but we are ignorant of the date of this journey, and of another which he made into North Wales. It may be inferred, however, that he was at this time no ordinary character, and that he must have possessed talents and accomplishments to entitle him, to so much respect.

, an English poet, was the son of a gentleman, who had been post-master in the reign of queen Anne, and the grandson of sir Philip Frowde,a loyal officer in king Charles I.'s army. He was sent to the university of Oxford, where he had the honour of being distinguished by Addison, who took him under his protection. While be remained there be became the author of several pieces of poetry, some of which, in Latin, were pure and elegant enough to entitle them to a place in the “Muse Anglicanae.” He wrote likewise two tragedies: “The Fall of Saguntum,” dedicated to sir Robert Walpole; and “Philotas,” addressed to the earl of Chesterfield. Neither of these were very successful on the stage, to which they were thought less adapted than to the closet. He died at his lodgings in Cecil-street in the Strand, Dec. 19, 1738; and in the London Daily-Post had the following character given him': “Though the elegance of Mr. Frowde’s writings has recommended him to the general public esteem, the politeness of his genius is the least amiable part of his character; for he esteemed the talents of wit and learning, only as they were conducive to the excitement and practice of honour and humanity. Therefore, with a soul chearful, benevolent, and virtuous, he was in conversation genteelly delightful, in friendship punctually sincere, in death Chnstianly resigned. No man could live more beloved; no private man could die more lamented.”

, a celebrated English divine, and master of Pembroke-hal in Cambridge, wns born in London, and educated in St. John’s college, Cambridge, of which he was chosen fellow in 1564. He was a youth of great parts, and of a very high spirit. When a boy at school, he is said to have betrayed great anger and mortification on losing a literary contest for a silver pen, with the celebrated Edmund Campian, and as the latter was educated at Christ’s hospital, this incident seems to prove that t'ulke was of the same school. Before he became fellow of his college, he complied with the wishes of his father, by studying law at Clirtbrd’s-inn, but on his return to the university, his inclinations became averse to that pursuit, and he was unable to conquer them, although his father refused to support him any longer. Young Fulke, however, trusted to his industry and endowments, and soon became a distinguished scholar in mathematics, languages, and divinity. Having taken orders, his early intimacy with some of the puritan divines induced him t< preach in favour of some of their sentiments respecting the ecclesiastical habits and ceremonies. This occurred about 1565, and brought upon him the censure of the chancellor of the university, which, it is said, proceeded to expulsion. On this he took lodgings in the town of Cambridge, and subsisted for some time by reading lectures. His expulsion, however, if it really took place, which seems doubtful, did not lessen his general reputation, as in 1561) there was an intention to choose him master of St. John’s college, had not archbishop Parker interfered but about the same time he found a patron in the earl of Leicester, who was more indulgent to the puritans, and who received Mr. luilke into his house, as his chaplain. It was now also that he fell under the charge of being concerned in some unlawful marriages, and in such circumstances thought it his duty to resign his fellowship, but being honourably acquitted in an examination before the bishop of Ely, he was immediately re-elected by the college.

In 1571 the earl of Essex presented him to the rectory of Warley, in Essex, and soon after to the rectory of Kedington, in, Suffolk, and about this time he took his doctor’s degree at Cambridge, and was incorporated in the same at Oxford. His degree at Cambridge was in consequence of a mandamus from the earl of Essex, that he might be qualified to accompany the earl of Lincoln, who was then going as ambassador to the court of France. Upon his return he was chosen master of Pembroke hall, and as Wood says in his Fasti, Margaret professor of divinity, but Baker, in a ms note on Wood, says he never held the latter office.

, was an English painter of some note in the reign of Charles II. but of his family or masters we have no account, except that he studied many years in France under Perrier, who engraved the antique statues. In his historical compositions he has left little to admire, his colouring being raw and unnatural, and not compensated by disposition or invention, but in portraits his pencil was bold, strong, and masterly. In the latter he was much employed, particularly at Oxford. His own portrait in the gallery there is touched with great force and character. The altar-piece of Magdalen was also by him, but has not been much approved. As an imitation of Michel Angelo, it falls far short of the sublime, although sometimes wild imagination of that great artist; nor is the colouring harmonious. Some of the figures, however, are correctly drawn; and he has at least imitated the temper of Michel Angelo with success, in introducing among the damned, the portrait of an hostler at the Greyhound-inn, near the college, who had offended him. The picture, it is well known, was honoured by Addison in an elegant Latin poem. At Wadham college is an altar-cloth by Fuller in a singular manner, and of merit; which is just brushed over for the lights and shades, and the colours melted in with a hot iron. Soon after the restoration, he was engaged in painting the circumstances of king Charles II.'s escape, which he executed in five large pictures. These were presented to the parliament of Ireland, where they remained for many years in one of the rooms of the parliament house in Dublin. But some time in the last century the house undergoing a thorough repair, these pictures were not replaced, but lay neglected, until they were rescued by the late earl of Clanbrassil, who obtained possession of them, and had them cleaned and removed to his seat at Tullymore park, co. Down, where they were a few years ago. Lord Orford speaks slightingly of these, which he had never seen, and probably with as much justice as of Fuller’s altar-piece at All-souls college, which he never could have seen, for Fuller had no picture there. Fuller died in Bloomsbury-square July 17, 1672, and left a gon, an ingenious but idle man, chiefly employed ia coach -painting, who died young.

In 1643, refusing to take an oath to the parliament, unless with such reserves as they would not admit, he was obliged in April of that year to convey himself to the king at Oxford, who received him gladly. As his majesty had heard of his extraordinary abilities in the pulpit, he was now desirous of knowing them personally; and accordingly Fuller preached before him at St. Mary’s church. His fortune upon this occasion was very singular. He had before preached and published a sermon in London, upon “the new-moulding church-reformation,” which caused him to be censured as too hot a royalist and now, from his sermon at Oxford, he was thought to be too lukewarm which can only be ascribed to his moderation, which he would sincerely have inculcated in each party, as the only means of reconciling both. During his stay here, he resided in Lincoln college, but was not long after sequestered, and lost all his books and manuscripts. This loss, the heaviest he could sustain, was made up to him partly by Henry lord Beauchamp, and partly by Lionel Cranfield, earl of Middlesex, wiio gave him the remains of his father’s library. That, however, he might not lie under the suspicion of want of zeal or courage in the royal cause, be determined to join the army; and therefore, being well recommended to sir Ralph Hopton, in 1643, he was admitted by him in quality of chaplain. For this employ-, ment he was quite at liberty, being deprived of all other preferment. And now, attending the army from place to place, he constantly exercised his duty as chaplain; yet found proper intervals for his beloved studies, which he employed chiefly in making historical collections, and especially in gathering materials for his “Worthies of England,” which he did, not only by an extensive correspondence, but by personal inquiries in every place which the army had occasion to pass through.

After the battle at Cheriton-Down, March 29, 1644, lord Hopton drew on his army to Basing-house, and Fuller, being left there by him, animated the garrison to so vigorous a defence of that place, that sir William Waller was obliged to raise the siege with considerable loss. But the, war hastening to an end, and part of the king’s army being driven into Cornwall, under lord Hopton, Fuller, with the leave of that nobleman, took refuge at Exeter, where he resumed his studies, and preached constantly to the citizens. During his residence here he was appointed chaplain to the infant princess Henrietta Maria, who was born at Exeter in June 1643; and the king soon after gave him a patent for his presentation to the living of Dorchester in Dorsetshire. He continued his attendance on the princess till the surrender of Exeter to the parliament, in April 1646; but did not accept the living, because he determined to remove to London at the expiration of the war. He relates, in his * Worthies,“an extraordinary circumstance which happened during the siege of Exeter” When the city of Exeter, he says, was besieged by the parliament forces, so that only the south side thereof towards the sea was open to it, incredible numbers of larks were found in that open quarter, for multitude like quailg in the wilderness; though, blessed be God, unlike them in the cause and effect; as not desired with man’s destruction, nor sent with God’s anger, as appeared by their safe digestion into wholesome nourishment. Hereof I was an, eye and mouth-witness. I will save my credit in not conjecturing any number; knowing that herein, though I should stoop beneath the truth, I should mount above belief. They were as fat as plentiful; so that being sold for two-pence a dozen and under, the poor who could have no cheaper, and the rich no better meat, used to make pottage of them, boiling them down therein. Several causes were assigned hereof, &c. but the cause of causes was the Divine Providence; thereby providing a feast for many poor people, who otherwise had been pinched for provision.“While here, as every where else, he was much courted on account of his instructive and pleasant conversation, by persons of high rank, some of whom made him very liberal offers; but whether from a love of study, or a spirit of independence, he was always reluctant in accepting any otters that might seem to confine him to any one family, or patron. It was at Exeter, where he is said to have written his” Good Thoughts in Bad Times,“and where the book was published in 1645, as what he calls” the first fruits of Exeter press.“At length the garrison being forced to surrender, he came to London, and met but a coid reception among his former parishioners, and found his lecturer’s place filled by another. However, it was not Ions: before he was chosen lecturer at St. Clement’s near Lombard-street and shortly after removed to St. Bride’s, in Fleet-street. In 1647 he published, in 4to,” A Sermon of Assurance, fourteen years agoe preached at Cambridge, since in other places now, by the importunity of his friends, exposed to public view.“He dedicated it to sir John Danvers, who had been a royalist, was then an Oliverian, and next year one of the king’s judges; and in the dedication he says, that” it had been the pleasure of the present authority to make him mute; forbidding him till further order the exercise of his public preaching.“Notwithstanding his being thus silenced, he was, about 1648, presented to the rectory of Waltham, in Essex, by the earl of Carlisle, whose chaplain he was just before made. He spent that and the following year betwixt London and Waltham, employing some engravers to adorn his copious prospect or view of the Holy Land, as from mount Pisgah; therefore called his” Pi*gah-sijht of Palestine and the confines thereof, with the history of the Old and New Testament acted thereon,“which he published in 1650. It is an handsome folio, embellished with a frontispiece and many other copper- plates, and divided into five books. As for his” Worthies of England,“on which he had been labouring so long, the death of the king for a time disheartened him from the continuance of that work:” For what shall I write,“says he,” of the Worthies of England, when this horrid act will bring such an infamy upon the whole nation as will ever cloud an4 darken all its former, and suppress its future rising glories?“He was, therefore, busy till the year last mentioned, in preparing that book and others; and the next year he rather employed himself in publishing some particular lives of religious reformers, martyrs, confessors, bishops, doctors, and other learned divines, foreign and domestic, than in augmenting his said book of” English Worthies“in general. To this collection, which was executed by several hands, as he tells us in the preface, he gave the title of” Abel Redivivus,“and published it in 4to, 1651. In the two or three following years he printed several sermons and tracts upon religious subjects. About 1654 he married a sister of the viscount Baltinglasse; and the next year she brought him a son, who, as well as the other before-mentioned, survived his father. In 1655, notwithstanding Cromwell’s prohibition of all persons from, preaching, or teaching school, who had been adherents to the late king, he continued preaching, and exerting his charitable disposition towards those ministers who were ejected by the usurping powers, and not only relieved such from what he could spare out of his own slender estate, but procured many contributions for them from his auditories. Nor was his charity confined to the clergy; and among the laity whom he befriended, there is an instance upon record of a captain of the army who was quite destitute, and whom he entirely maintained until he died. In 1656 he published in folio,” The Church History of Britain, from the birth of Jesus Christ to the year 1648;“to which are subjoined,” The History of the University of Cambridge since the conquest,“and” The History of Waltham Abbey in Essex, founded by king Harold.“His Church History was animadverted upon by Dr. Hey 1 in in his” Examen Historicum;" and this drew from our author a reply: after which they had no further controversy, but were very well reconciled *. About this time he was invited, accord ing to his biographer, to another living in Essex, in which he continued his ministerial labours until his settlement at London. George, lord Berkeley, one of his noble patrons, having in 1658 made him his chaplain, he took leave of Essex, and was presented by his lordship to the rectory of Cranford in Middlesex. It is said also that lord Berkeley took him over to the Hague, and introduced him to Charles if. It is certain, however, that a short time hefore the restoration, Fuller was re-admitted to his lecture in the Savoy, and on that event restored to his prebend of Salisbury. He was chosen chaplain extraordinary to the king; created doctor of divinity at Cambridge by a mandamus, dated August 2, 1660; and, had he lived a twelvemonth longer, would probably have been raised to a bishopric. But upon his return from Salisbury in August 1661 he was attacked by a fever, of which he died the 15th of that month. His funeral was attended by at least two hundred of his brethren; and a sermon was preached by Dr. Hardy, dean of Rochester, in which a great and noble character was given of him. H was buried in his church at Cranford, on the north wall of the chancel of which is his monument, with the following inscription:

, brother of the preceding, and youngest son of the dean, was born in the parish of St Faith, near St. Paul’s, London, Dec. 17, 16$2, was educated under his father at St. Paul’s school, and intended for the university, but his elder brother Roger being sent to Cambridge, and his father dying 1702, he was provided for in the custom-house, London, and at the time of his death was one of the land surveyors there. He was one of the revivers of the society of antiquaries in 1717, and their first treasurer. On resigning that office Feb. 21, 1740, the society testified their opinion of his merit and services, by presenting him with a handsome silver cup, value ten guineas, with a suitable inscription. He was a man of great learning and uncommon abilities, and well versed in the antiquities of England, for which he left many valuable collections behind him; but printed nothing in his life-time, except “A History of Winchester Cathedral,” London, 1715, begun by Henry earl of Clarendon, and continued to that year, with cuts. A few of his communications have been since printed in the “Archoeologia,” and spme in the “Bibl. Top. Britannica.” He died of a fever Jan. 10, 1754, at his lodgings at Hampstead. His library and prints were sold by auction in the same year, by Langford, but his Mss. became the property of Dr. Stukeley, who married his sister, and some of them, afterwards descended to Dr. Ducarel, at whose sale they were purchased by Mr. Gough. A list of them, which may be seen in our authority, sufficiently attests his industry and knowledge as an antiquary.

It was soon after his professional celebrity at the operahouse that he married lady Elizabeth Bertie, sister of the late earl of Abingdon. Admitted at first as a dancingmaster, by his vivacity, talents, knowledge of the Italian language, and manners, he so insinuated himself into the favour of this noble family, as to bring about this not very creditable alliance. Many ridiculous stories were in circulation at the time, of signor Gallini’s expectations of the honours which would accrue to him by his marriage into a noble family; which he imagined would confer on him the title of My lord. But he was soon convinced of his mistake, and content with an inferior title. When the marriage became a subject of conversation, Dr. Burney happened to hear in the gang-way of the opera pit the following conversation. One of two ladies going into the front boxes, says to the other, “It is reported that one of the dancers is married to a lady of quality;” when Gallini, who happened to be in the passage near the lady who spoke, says, “Lustrissima, son io.” “And who are yon?” demanded the lady. “Eudenza, mi chiamo signor Gallini esquoire.” This match, as is usual with such disproportioned alliances, was not the source of permanent felicity. They lived asunder many years. Lady Elizabeth died Aug. 17, 1804, aged 80.

, a brave officer of the army, and not less celebrated for his piety, was born at Carriden, in Linlithgow shire, in Scotland, Jan. 10, 1687-8. He was the son of captain Patrick Gardiner, of the family of Torwoodhead, by Mrs. Mary Hodge, of the family of GladsKiitir. His family was military, his father, his uncle by the mother’s side, and his elder brother, all fell in battle. He was educated at the school of Linlithgow, but was soon removed from it, owing to his early zeal to follow his father’s profession. At the age of fourteen he had an ensign’s commission in the Dutch service, in which he continued until 1702; when he received the same from queen Anne, and being present at the battle of Ramillies, in his nineteenth year, was severely wounded and taken prisoner by the French. He was carried to a convent, where he resided until his wound was cured; and soon after was exchanged. In 1706 he obtained the rank of lieutenant, and after several intermediate promotions, was appointed major of a regiment commanded by the earl of Stair, in whose family he resided for several years. In January 1730, he was advanced to the rank of lieutenant-colonel in the same regiment, in which he continued until April 1743, when he received a colonel’s commission over a regiment of dragoons. During the rebellion in Scotland, in 1745, his regiment being in that country, and the rebel army advancing to Edinburgh, he was ordered to march with the utmost expedition to D unbar, which he didj and that hasty retreat, with the news soon afterwards received of the surrender of Edinburgh to the rebels, struck a visible panic into the forces he commanded. This affected his gallant mind so much, that on the Thursday before the battle of Preston-pans, he intimated to an officer of considerable rank, that he expected the event would be as it proved; and to a person who visited him, he said, “I cannot influence the conduct of others as I could wish; but I have one life to sacrifice to my country’s safety, and I shall not spare it.” On Friday Sept. 20th, the day before the fatal battle, when the whole army was drawn up, about noon, the colonel rode through the ranks of his regiment, and addressed them in an animated manner, to exert themselves with courage in defence of their country. They seemed much affected by his address, and expressed a very ardent desire of attacking the enemy immediately, a desire in which he, and another gallant officer of distinguished rank, would have gratified them, had it been in their power, but their ardour and their advice were overruled by the strange conduct of the commander-in-chief, sir John Cope, and therefore all that colonel Gardiner could do, was to spend the remainder of the day in making as good a disposition as the circumstances would allow. He continued all night under arms, wrapped Mp in his cloak, and sheltered under a rick of barley which happened to be in the field. By break of day the army was roused by the noise of the approach of the rebels; and the attack was made before sun -rise. As soon as the enemy came within gun-shot, they commenced a furious fire; and the dragoons which constituted the left wing immediately fled. The colonel at the beginning of the attack, which lasted but a few minutes, received a ball in his left breast, which made him give a sudden spring in his saddle; upon which his servant, who had led the horse, would have persuaded him to, retreat; but he said it was only a flesh-wound, and fought on, though he presently after received a shot in his right thigh. The colonel was for a few moments supported by his men, and particularly by about fifteen dragoons, who stood by him to 'the last; but after a faint fire, the regiment in general was seized with a panic; and though their colonel and some other brave officers did what they could to rally them, they at lust took to a precipitate flight. Just in the moment when colonel Gardiner seemed to be making a pause to deliberate what duty required him to do in such a circumstance, he saw a party of the foot fighting bravely near him, without an officer to lead them, on which he rode up to them immediately, and cried out aloud, “Fire on, my lads, and fear nothing.” As he had uttered these words, a Highlander advanced towards him with a scythe fastened to a long pole, with which he gave him such a deep wound in his right arm, that his sword dropped from his band, and several others coming about him at the same time, while he was thus dreadfully entangled with that savage weapon, he was dragged from his horse. The moment he fell, another Highlander gave him a stroke either with a broad -sword, or a Lochaber axe, on the hinder part of the head, which was the mortal blow. All that his faithful servant, John Forster, who furnished this account, saw further at this time, was, that as his hat was falling olf, he took it in his left hand, waved it as a signal for him to retreat, and added, which were the last words he ever heard him speak, “Take care of yourself.” The servant immediately fled to a mill, about two miles distant, where he changed his dress, and disguised like a miller’s servant, returned with a cart about two hours after the engagement. He found his master not dnly plundered of his watch and other things of value, but even stripped of his upper garments and boots. He was, however, still breathing, and from appearances, not altogether insensible. In this condition he was conveyed to the church of Tranent, and from that to the clergyman’s house, where he expired about eleven o'clock in the forenoon, Saturday Sept. 21, 1745. The rebels entered his house before he was carried off from the field, and plundered it. His remains were interred on the Tuesday following, Sept. 24, at the parish church of Tranent. Even his enemies spoke honourably of him, and seemed to join in lamenting the fall of so brave and so worthy a man. Nor was it for bravery only that colonel Gardiner was distinguished. He was perhaps one of the most pious men of his age and country. He was, says his biographer, in the most amazing manner, without any religious opportunity, or peculiar advantage, deliverance, or affliction, reclaimed on a sudden, in the vigour of life and health, from a life of licentiousness, not only to a steady course of regularity and virtue, but to high devotion, and strict, though unaffected sanctity of manners. All this is amply illustrated in Dr. Doddridge’s well-known life of this gallant hero, whose death was as much a loss, as the cause of it, the battle of Preston-pans, was a disgrace to his country.

In July 1726, Col. Gardiner married lady Frances Erskine, daughter to David fourth earl of Buchan, by whom he had thirteen children, five only of which survived their father, two sons and three daughters.

Garth had a very extensive practice, but was extremely moderate in his views of advancing his own fortune; hi humanity and good-nature inclining him more to make use of the great interest he had with persons in power, for the support and encouragement of other men of letters. He chose to live with the great in that degree of independency and freedom, which became a man possessed of a superior genius, of which he was daily giving fresh proofs to the public. One of these was addressed to the late duke or Newcastle, in 1715, entitled “Claremont;” being written on the occasion of giving that name to a villa belonging to that nobleman, who was then only earl of Clare, which he had adorned with a beautiful and sumptuous structure. Among the Latin writers, Ovid appears to have been the doctor’s favourite; and it has been thought that there was some resemblance in their dispositions, manners, and poetry. One of his last performances, was an edition of Ovid’s Metamorphoses, translated by various hands, in which he rendered the whole 14th book, and the story of Cippus in the 15th. It was published in 1717, and he prefixed a preface, wherein he not only gives an idea of the work, and points out its principal beauties, but shews the uses of the poem, and how it may be read to most advantage.

Dr. Garth was interred Jan. 22, in the church of Harrow-on-the-hill, near London, where he had caused a vault to be built for himself and his family; being survived by an only daughter, married to the honourable colonel William Boyle, a younger son of the honourable colonel Henry Boyle, uncle to the last earl of Burlington of that name.

In person he bore so striking a resemblance to the first earl of Chatham, that he was sometimes mistaken for him. This likeness once produced considerable sensation in the house of commons. Lord Chatham was pointed to in the gallery; all believed him to be there; the person really present was Dr. Garthshore. He died worth about 55,000l. and by his will, made only a few days before -his death, after the payment of a considerable number of legacies, names as residuary legatee, John Maitland, esq. M. P.

Although he enjoyed the esteem of many of his poetical contemporaries, and the patronage of lord Grey of Wilton, the earl of Bedford, sir Walter Rawleigh, and other persons of distinction; yet during this period, he complains bitterly of the envy of rivals, and the malevolence of critics, and seems to intimate that, although he apparently bore this treatment with patience, yet it insensibly wore him out, and brought on a bodily distemper which his physicians could not cure. In all his publications, he takes every opportunity to introduce and bewail the errors of his youth, and to atone for any injury, real or supposed, which might have accrued to the public from a perusal of his early poems, in which, however, the proportion of indelicate thoughts is surely not very great. His biographers, following the Oxford historian, have hitherto placed his demise at Walthamstow in 1578; but Whetstone, on whom we can more certainly rely, informs us that he died at Stamford in Lincolnshire, Oct. 7, 1577. He had perhaps taken a journey to this place for change of air, accompanied by his friend Whetstone, who was with him when he died, so calmly, that the moment of his departure was not perceived. He left a wife and son behind him, whom he recommended to the liberality of the queen, whether successfully, or what became of them, cannot now be known. The registers of Stamford and of Walthamstow have been examined without success.

In July 1403, he was joined in a commission with Ralph Nevil, earl of Westmoreland, and others, to issue their power and authority, for levying forces in Yorkshire and Northumberland, against the insurrection of Henry Percy, earl of that county, in favour of Richard II. and, after that earl had submitted, was nominated April 1405, in another commission to treat with his rebellious abettors, a proclamation to the purpose being issued next day by the king at Pontefract. These were legal trusts, which he executed from a principle of gratitude and loyalty, with spirit and steadiness. But, on the taking of archbishop Scroop in arms the same year, when the king required him to pass sentence upon that prelate as a traitor, in his manor-house at Bishopthorp near York, no prospect of fear or favour was able to corrupt him to any such violation of the subjects’ rights, or infringement of those laws, which suffered no religious person to be brought to a secular or lay trial, unless he were a heretic, and first degraded by the church. He therefore refused to obey the royal command, and said to his majesty: “Neither you, my lord the king, nor any liege subject of yours in your name, can legally, according to the rights of the kingdom, adjudge any bishop to death.” Henry was highly displeased at this instance of his intrepidity; but his anger must have been short, if, as Fuller tells us, Gascoigne had the honour of knighthood conferred on him the same year. However that be, it is certain, the king was fully satisfied with his fidelity and circumspection in treating with the rebels; and on that account joined him again in a commission as before, dated at Pontefract- castle, April 25, 1408.

This unparalleled example of firmness and civil intrepidity upon that bench, happened in the latter end of Henry IVth’s reign, which our chief justice did not long survive. He was called to the parliament which met in the first year of Henry V. but died before the expiration of the year, Dec. 17, 1413. He was twice married, and had a train of descendants by both his wives: by the former, the famous earl of Strafford, in the reign of Charles I.

Gassendi had from his infancy a turn to astronomy, which grew up with his years; and, in 1618, he had begun to make observations upon the stars, and to digest them into a method. His reputation daily increasing, he became so eminent in that science, that in 1645 he was appointed royal professor of mathematics at Paris, by the interest of Alphonse du Plessis, cardinal of Lyons, and brother to car/dinal Richelieu. This institution being chiefly designed for astronomy, Gassendi not only employed himself very diligently in observations, but read lectures with great applause to a crowded audience. He did not, however, hold this place long; for, contracting a cold, which brought on a dangerous cough, and an inflammation of his lungs, he found himself under a necessity of quitting Paris; and being advised by the physicians to return to Digue for the benefit of his native air, he went there in 1647. This advice had the desired success; which was also effected the sooner by the kindness of Louis Valois, earl of Alais, and viceroy of Provence, who, observing the philosopher’s circumstances, invited him to his house; where Gassendi’s conversation upon points of learning gave him so high an idea of his talents, that he frequently made use of him as a friend and counsellor in political affairs. After enjoying this honourable ease until this nobleman was called to court, Gassendi returned to Digne, where he began to write the Ij^e of his patron, the famous Nicolas Peiresc, a task which had been enjoined him by the earl of Alais.

, son of the preceding, was bora at Rotherhithe in, Surrey about 1614, and educated at St. Paul’s school, from whence he was sent to Sidney college in the university of Cambridge at about sixteen years of age, and put- under the tuition of Mr. Richard Dugard, B. D. fellow pf that college, and afterwards rector of Fulletby in Lincolnshire. After he had taken the degree of bachelor of arts, he retired to Oxford, and was entered a commoner of Pembroke college, and took the degree of master of arts June 30, 1636. About that time he became acquainted with Lucius lord viscount Falkland, who having a respect for his ingenuity and learning made him his chaplain, with intention to procure him preferment; but the civil wars breaking out, in which that nobleman lost his life, the expectation of our author was frustrated. At last, by the favour of Charles earl ofCaernarvon, he became rector of Hoggeston, near Winslow in Buckinghamshire, about 1647, and continued there till his death, which happened on the 20th of November 1680, in the sixty-seventh year of his age. He was interred in the chancel of the church of Hoggeston. He wrote 'several treatises upon Calvinistical principles, of which the following are the principal: 1. At the end of his father’s “Antidote against errour concerning Justification,” which he published at London 1670, in 4to, he subjoined a piece written by himself, entitled “The Way of Truth and Peace: or, a reconciliation of the holy Apostles St. Paul and St. James, concerning Justification, &c.” The imprimatur is dated December the 6th, 1669.

He had now been some years chaplain to Robert earl of Warwick; and that nobleman siding with the parliament against the king, was followed in this by his chaplain, who being appointed, Nov. 29, 1640, to preach before the house of commons, adapted his discourse so exactly to the humour of the prevailing party, that they made him a present of a large silver tankard, which was generally made use of in his house, with this inscription: “Donum honorarium populi Anglican! in parliamento congregati, Johanni Gauden.” This was only an earnest of future favours. In that discourse he inveighed against pictures, images, and other superstitions of popery: and the parliament next year presented him to the rich deanery of Booking in Essex. He accepted the nomination, but did not choose to depend entirely upon it; and therefore made interest with Laud, then prisoner in the Tower, and procured a collation from that archbishop, undoubtedly the rightful patron. Wood says that the house of lords sent the archbishop an order to do it.

But he did not sit down content here; thinking his services deserved something more. He had already published his “Anti'-sacrilegus,” or, “A Defensative against the plausible or gilded poison of that nameless paper, supposed to be the plot of Cornelius Surges and his partners, which tempts the king’s majesty by the offer of 500,000l. to make good by an act of parliament, to the purchasers of Bishops’ Lands, &c. their illegal bargain for 99 years, 1660,” 4to: As also, his “Analysis, against the covenant in defence of the Hierarchy” and his '< Anti-Baal-Berith, or, the binding of the covenant and all the covenanters to their good behaviour, &c. With an answer to that monstrous paradox of no sacrilege, no sin, to alienate church lands, without, alid against all laws of God and man.“These were all printed before his promotion to the see of Exeter. His zeal continued to glow with equal ardour the two following years; in his” Life of Hooker,“prefixed to an edition of Hooker’s works, published by him in 1661; and, again, in his” Pillar of Gratitude, humbly dedicated to the glory of God, the honour of his majesty, &c. for restoring Episcopacy,“in 1662. But, above all, he particularly pleaded his merit in respect to the” Euuav BcwjXixw.“He applied to the earl of Clarendon, in a letter dated Dec. 28, 1661, with a petition to the king; in which having declared the advantages which had accrued to the crown by this service, he adds, that what was done like a king, should have a king-like retribution. In another letter to the duke of York, dated Jan. 17, the same year, he strongly urges the great service he had done, and importunately begs his royal highness to intercede for him with the king. Chancellor Hyde thought he had carried his merit too far, with regard to the king’s book: and, in a letter to him, dated March 13, 1661, writes thus:” The particular you mention, has indeed been imparted to me as a secret: I am sorry I e-'er knew it; and when it ceases to be a secret, it will please none but Mr. Milton."

In the mean time the most promising views opened to him at court; he was caressed by some leading persons in the ministry; and his patroness rejoiced to see him taken from her house the same year, to attend the earl of Clarendon, as secretary in his embassy to the court of Hanover. But, whatever were his hopes from this new advancement, it is certain they began and ended almost together; for queen Anne died in fifteen days after their arrival at Hanover. This, however, did not prove an irreparable loss; his present situation made him personally known to the succeeding royal family; and returning home he made a proper use of it, in a handsome compliment to the princess of Wales, on her arrival in England. This address procured him a favourable admittance at the new court; and that raising a new flow of spirits, he wrote his farce, “The What d'ye call it,” which appeared upon the stage before the end of the season, and was honoured by the presence of the prince and princess. The profits, likewise, brought some addition to his fortune; and his poetical merit being endeared 'by the sweetness and sincerity of his nature, procured him an easy access to persons of the first distinction. With these he passed his time with much satisfaction, notwithstanding his disappointment in the hopes of favours from the new court, where he met with nothing more valuable than a smile. In 1716 he made a visit to his native county at the expence of lord Burlington, and repaid his lordship with an humourous account of the journey. The like return was made for Mr. Pulteney’s favour, who took him in his company the following year to Aix, in France.

In 1764 he returned to Scotland, and was ordered to Dundee to officiate as priest among the catholics in the county of Angus, but was scarcely settled when he received, an invitation to become a resident in the family of the earl of Traquaire, in what capacity, unless as a friend, does not appear. He accepted, however, an offer so favourable to the pursuit of his studies; and here,. as well as at Paris, he regulated his inquiries so as to be preparatory to the plan he had long conceived, of giving a new translation of the Bible. His residence here was unfortunately interrupted by an attachment he formed for a female relative of the earl of Traquaire’s, and which was reciprocal; but regarding his vow of celibacy as sacred, and his passion, otherwise invincible, he left the family, and went again to Paris, where he continued about eight or nine months, and returned to Scotland in the spring of 1769. He now accepted the charge of a catholic congregation at Auchinhalrig in the county of Bamff, where he engaged the affections of his flock by many pastoral offices, reconciling differences, administering to the poor, and rebuilding their ruinous chapel. All this, however, seems to have involved him in pecuniary difficulties, from which he was extricated by the late duke of Norfolk, the last catholic peer of that illustrious family. To prevent similar embarrassments, Mr. Geddes now took a small farm, which again involved him in debts, which he endeavoured to discharge by an application to the muses. “Some daemon,” he says, “whispered him' that he had a turn for poetry,” which produced in 1779, “Select Satires of Horace,' translated into English verse, and for the most part adapted to the present times and manners,” 4to. The impression of this work extended only to 750 copies, yet he reaped a profit of 100l. which he received with exultation, and applied to the liquidation of his arrears. This success determined him also to relinquish his retirement, and -try what his abilities might obtain for him in London, and his removal was probably accelerated by his having incurred the displeasure of the bishop of his diocese, Dr. Hay, on account of his attending trie ministry of a presbyterian friend. The bishop had before warned him to desist, and finding him refractory, deposed him from his office, and prohibited him from preaching within the extent of his diocese. He left his charge accordingly, and previous to his leaving Scotland, received the degree of LL. D. from one of the colleges of Aberdeen. His reputation for learning, indeed, was very considerable in Scotland, and he was one of the literati who took a very active part in the institution of a society of antiquaries at Edinburgh. In their volume for 1792 he wrote “A dissertation on the Seoto-Saxon Dialect,” and “The first Eklog of Virgil,” and “The first Idyllion of Theocritus, translatitt into Scottis vers,” in the former of which the Edinburgh dialect is chiefty imitated, and in the latter the Buchan. He also composed a “Caruien Seculare” for the society’s anniversary of 1788.

, a fine performer on the violin, and composer for tfctat instrument, was born at Lucca in Italy, about 1666. He received his first instructions in music from Lonati and Scarlatti, but finished his studies under Corelli. In 1714, he came to England; and, two years after, published twelve sonatas, “a Violino, Violone, e Cembalo.” These, together with his exquisite manner of performing, had such an effect, that he was at length introduced to George I. who had expressed a desire to hear some of the pieces, contained in this work performed by himself. Geiuiniani wished, however, that he might be accompanied on the harpsichord by Handel; and both accordingly attended at St. James’s. The earl of Essex, being a lover of music, became a patron of Geminiani: and, in 1727, procured him the offer of the place of master and composer of the state music in Ireland: but this, not being tenable by one of the Romish communion, he declined; saying, that, though he had never made great pretensions to religion, yet the renouncing that faith in which he had been baptized, for the sake of worldly advantage, was what he could not answer to his conscience. He afterwards composed Corelli’s solos into concertos; he published six concertos of his own composition, and many other things. The life of this musician appears to have been very unsettled; spent in different countries, for he was fond of making excursions; and employed in pursuits which had no connection with his art. He was, particularly, a violent enthusiast in painting; and, to gratify this propensity, bought pictures; which, to supply his wants, he afterwards sold. The consequence of this kind of traffic was loss, and its concomitant distress: which distress was so extreme, that he was committed to, and would have remained in prison, if a protection from his patron the earl of Essex had not delivered him. Yet his spirit was such, that when the prince of Wales, who admired his compositions, would have settled upon him a pension of 100l. a year, he declined the offer, affecting an aversion to a life of dependence.

, an eminent civilian at Oxford, was the son of Matthew Gentilis, an Italian physician, the descendant of a noble family of the Marcbe of Ancona, who left his country about the end of the sixteenth century, on account of his having embraced the protestant religion. Taking with him his sons Albericus and Scipio, he went into the province of Carniola, where he received his doctor’s degree, and then into England, after his eldest son Albericus, who was born in 1550. He was educated chiefly in the university of Perugia, where, in 1572, he was made doctor of civil law. He came into England probably about 1580, as in that year he appears to have been kindly received by several persons here; and among others, by Robert Dudley, earl of Leicester, then chancellor of the university of Oxford, who gave him letters of recommendation to the university, stating that he had left his country for the sake of his religion, and that it was his desire to bestow some time in reading, and other exercises of his profession, at the university, &c. He accordingly went to Oxford, and by favour of Dr. Donne, principal of New inn Hall, had rooms allowed him there, and at first was maintained by contributions from several colleges, but afterwards had an allowance from the common funds of the university. In the latter end of the same year, 1580, he was incorporated LL. D. and for some years employed his time on his writings, most of which were published at London or Oxford. He resided also some time either in. Corpus or Christ Church, and, as Wood says, “became the flower of the university for his profession.” In 1587 queen Elizabeth gave him the professorship of civil law, on which he lectured for twenty-four years with great xeputation. Hre he died, in the latter end of March or the beginning of April 1611, although others say at London, June 19, 1608, and was buried near his father, who also died in England, but where is uncertain. Wood’s account seems most probable. He left a widow, who died at Rickmansworth in 1648, and two sons, one of which will be noticed in the next article. Wood enumerates twentyseven volumes or tracts written by him, all in Latin, and mostly on points of jurisprudence, on which, at that time, his opinion appears to have had great weight. Grotius praises and acknowledges his obligations to his three books “De Jure Belli” and his “Lectiones Virgilianae,” addressed to his son, prove that he had cultivated polite literature with success.

Gibbons made a magnificent tomb for Baptist Noel viscount Camden, in the church of Exton, in Rutlandshire; it cost 1000l. is twenty-two feet high, and fourteen wide. There are two figures of him and his lady, and bas-reliefs of their children. The same workman performed the wooden throne at Canterbury, which cost 70l. and was the donation of archbishop Tenison. The foliage in the choir of St. Paul’s is of his hand. At Burleigh is a noble profusion of his carving, in picture frames, chimney-pieces, and door-cases, and the last supper in alto-relievo, finely executed. At Chatsworth, where a like taste collected ornaments, by the most living eminent masters, are many by Gibbons, particularly in the chapel; in the great antichamber are several dead fowl over the chimney, finely executed, and over a closet-door, a pen not distinguishable from real feather. When Gibbons had finished his works in that palace, he presented the duke with a point cravat, a woodcock, and a medal with his own head, all preserved in a glass case in the gallery. In lord Orford’s collection is another point cravat by him, the art of which arrives even to deception, and Herodias with St. John’s head, alto-relievo, in ivory. In Thoresby’s collection was Elijah under the juniper-tree, supported by an angel, six inches long and four wide. At Houghton, two chimneys are adorned with his foliage. At Mr. Norton’s, at Southwich, in Hampshire, was a whole gallery embroidered in pannels by his hand but the most superb monument of his skill is a large chamber at Petworth, enriched frpm the ceiling, between the pictures, with festoons of flowers and dead game, &c. all in the highest perfection and preservation. Appendant to one is an antique vase, with a basrelief of the purest taste, and worthy the Grecian age of cameos. At the earl of Halifax’s, at Stanstead, is a chimney-piece, adorned with flowers, and two beautiful vases. The font in St. James’ church in white marble, was also the work of Gibbons. It is supported by the tree of life; fche serpent is offering the fruit to our first parents, who stand beneath; on one side, of the font is engraven the Baptist baptising our Saviour: on another, St. Philip baptising the Eunuch: and on the third, Noah’s ark, with the dove bringing the olive-branch, the type of peace, to mankind. The chancel, above the altar, is enriched with some beautiful foliage in wood, by the same great artist.

, an eminent architect, was the son of Peter Gibbs of Footdeesmire, merchant in Aberdeen, and Isabel Farquhar, his second wife; he was born about the year 1674, and was educated at the grammar-school and the Marischal college of Aberdeen, where he took the degree of master of arts. Having, however, few friends, he resolved to seek his fortune abroad; and about 1694 left Aberdeen, whither he never returned. As he had always discovered a strong inclination to the mathematics, h spent some years in the service of an architect and masterbuilder in Holland. The earl of Mar happening to be in that country, about 1700, Mr. Gibbs was introduced to him. This noble lord was himself a great architect; and finding his countryman Mr. Gibbs to be a man of genius, he not only favoured him with his countenance and advice, but generously assisted him with money and recommendatory letters, in order, by travelling, to complete himself as an architect.

As he was a bachelor, and had but few relations, and was unknown to these, he bequeathed the bulk of his fortune, amounting to about 14 or I5,000l. sterling, to those he esteemed his friends. He made a grateful return to the generosity of his noble patron the earl of Mar, by bequeathing to his son the lord Erskine, estates which yielded 280l. per annum, 1000l. in money, and all his plate. His religious principles were the same with those of his father, a nonjuror; but he was justly esteemed by good men of all persuasions, being courteous in his behaviour, moderate with regard to those who differed from him, humane, and charitable. He died on the 5th of August, 1754, and was buried in Marybone church.

His works in the order of publication were: 1. An edition of Drummond’s “Polemo-middiana, &c. 1691,” 4to, already mentioned. 2. The “Chronicon Saxonicum,” 1692, 4to. 3. “Librorum Manuscriptorum Catalogus,” printed the same year at Oxford, 4to. 4. “Julii Caesaris Portus Iccius illustratus,” a tract of W. Somner, with a dissertation of his own, 1694. 5. An edition of “Quintilian de Arte Oratoria, with notes,” Oxon. 1693, 4to. 6. A translation of Camden’s “Britannia” into English, 1695, folio, and again with large additions in 1722, and 1772, two vols. folio. 7. “Vita Thomae Bodleii Equitis Aurati, & Historia Bibliothecae Bodleianae,” prefixed to “Catalog! Librorum Manuscriptorum in Anglia & Hibernia in unum collecti,” Oxon. 1697,“folio. 8.” Reliquiae Spelmannianae, &c.“1698, folio. 9.” Codex Juris Ecclesiastic! Anglicani, &c.“1713, folio. 10.” A Short State of some present Questions in Convocation,“1700, 4to. 11.” A Letter to a Friend in the Country, concerning the Proceedings in Convocation, in the years 1700 and 1701,“1703, 4to. 12.” The Right of the Archbishop to continue or prorogue the whole Convocation. A Summary of the Arguments in favour of the said right.“13.” Synodus Anglicana, &c.“1702. 14.” A Parallel between a Presbyterian Assembly, and the new Model of an English Provincial Synod,“4to. 15.” Reflections upon a paper entitled The Expedient proposed,'“4to. 16.” The Schedule of Prorogation reviewed,“4to. 17.” The pretended Independence of the Lower House upon the Upper House a groundless notion,“1703, 4to. 18.” The Marks of a defenceless Cause, in the proceedings and writings of the Lower House of Convocation,“4to. If.” An Account of the Proceedings in Convocation in a Cause of Contumacy, upon the Prolocutor’s going into the country without the leave of the archbishop, commenced April 10, 1707.“All these upon the disputes in convocation, except the” Synodus Anglicana,“&c. are printed without his name, but generally ascribed to him. 20.” Visitations parochial and general, with a Sermon, and some other Tracts,“1717, 8vo. 21. Five Pastoral Letters, &c. Directions to the Clergy, and Visitation Charges, &c. 8vo. To these may be added his lesser publications and. tracts, viz. Family Devotion; a Treatise against Intemperance; Admonition against Swearing; Advice to persons who have been sick; Trust in God; Sinfulness of neglecting the Lord’s Day; against Lukewarmness in Religion; several occasional Sermons. Remarks on part of a Bill brought into the house of lords by the earl of Nottingham, in 1721, entitled” A Bill for the more effectual Suppression of Blasphemy and Profaneness,“is also ascribed to the bishop; as is also” The Case of addressing the Earl of Nottingham, for his treatise on the Trinity,“published about the same time. Lastly,” A Collection of the principal Treatises against Popery, in the Papal Controversy, digested into proper heads and titles, with some Prefaces of his own," Lond. 1738, 3 vols. folio.

, D. D. son of Emanuel, and grandson of Andrew Gifford, both dissenting ministers of the baptist persuasion, was born Aug. 17, 1700, and educated at Tewkesbury in Gloucestershire, under the Rev. Mr. Jones, author of the “History of the Canon of the Scripture,” whose seminary produced, among other eminent men, archbishop Seeker, bishop Butler, and Dr. Chandler. Mr. Gifford finished his studies under the celebrated Dr. Ward, and being afterwards baptised, was joined to his father’s church at Bristol, but in 1723 removed to the baptist meeting in Devonshire-square, London. In 1725 his first ministerial duties appear to have been performed at Nottingham, where he was very popular. In Feb. 1730 he was invited to London and ordained. The following year he commenced an intimacy with sir Richard Ellys, bart. (see Ellys) and became his chaplain, taking the lead in family worship. Lady Ellys continued him in the same office, with an annual present of forty guineas, until her second marriage in 1745. One of Mr. Gifford’s sermons preached in commemoration of the great wind in 1703, and published in 1734, was dedicated to sir Richard. In 1754 Mr. Gifford received the degree of D.D. from Marischal college, Aberdeen. His favourite study was that of antiquities, and although at no time a man of opulence, he made a very large collection of curious books, Mss. coins, &c. for which he gave liberal prices. It is said that his collection of coins, which was a very valuable one, was purchased by George II. as an addition to his own cabinet. His reputation as an antiquary, recommended him to the situation of assistant librarian of the British Museum in 1757, in which he was placed by the interest of the lord chancellor Hardwicke, and some other friends, but not, as his biographer says, by that of sir Richard Ellys, who had been dead some years before this period. To a man of literary curiosity and taste, no situation can be more interesting than that of librarian in the British Museum, and Mr. Gifford knew how to improve the opportunities which it affords. Having the talent to receive and communicate information with unaffected politeness, his acquaintance among the nobility and gentry soon became extensive. Some of them honoured him by a mutual exchange of friendly visits, and others of the first rank discovered their respect for him, either by an occasional attendance on his ministry, or by an obliging correspondence and intimacy. Amongst these were the marquis of Lothian, the earl of Halifax, lord Dartmouth, lady Buchan, lady Huntingdon, &c.

He now began with great diligence to read over the Scriptures, and the writings of the fathers, the result of which was a more favourable opinion of the doctrines of the reformers. He also communicated some of his doubts to Cuthbert Tonstal, bishop of Durham, who was his mother’s uncle, and had always expressed a great regard for him, and to other learned men of the university, whose answers appear to have had a tendency to increase his scruples, and finally to make him declare himself a protestant; and it is certain, that while at Christ Church, he became fully convinced of the errors of popery. Such, however, was his diffidence in his own acquirements, and such his fear lest protestantism might suffer by the inexperience of its teachers, that he resisted many solicitations to leave the university, and undertake the cure of souls. These scruples detained him at Oxford until the thirty-fifth year of his age; about which time he yielded so far to the earnest solicitations of his friends as to accept the vicarage of Norton, in the diocese of Durham, in Nov. 1552. Before he went to Beside he was appointed to preach before the king, who was at Greenwich, which appears then to have been a custom before being presented to any benefice. On this occasion, with the true spirit of a reformer, he inveighed against the luxurious and corrupt manners of the times among all ranks, and although the king was not then present, delivered what he intended as an address to his majesty, not doubting, as he said, but that it would be carried to him. This courage recommended him to the notice of many persons of the first rank; particularly to sir Francis Russel, and sir Robert Dudley, afterwards earls of Bedford and Leicester, who from that time professed a great regard for him; and, when in power, were always ready to patronize him. Gilpin received their offered friendship with humility and gratitude, but never solicited it on his own account. He sometimes indeed applied to lord Bedford in behalf of his friends, but does not appear to have once asked any favour of the earl of Leicester, whose real character could not be unknown, or agreeable to him. He is likewise said to have been noticed by secretary Cecil, afterwards lord Burleigh, who obtained for him a general licence for preaching, a matter of great favour in those days. This licence he sometimes used in oilier parts of the country, but confined his services chiefly to his parish of Norton.

When the popish bishops were deprived, and many sees by that means vacant, Mr. Gilpin’s friends at court, particularly the earl of Bedford, thought it a good opportunity to use their interest in his favour, and he was accordingly nominated to the see of Carlisle, but notwithstanding the pressing solicitations of his noble friends, and of Sandys, bishop of Worcester, he persisted in declining this high honour, as being unworthy of it. It is somewhat strange that Nicolson in his “Historical Library,” and Heylin in his “Church History,” should ascribe his conduct to lucrative motives, a calumny which has been amply refuted by his biographer. Both these writers indeed seem to have been very little acquainted with Mr. Gilpin’s character, in which disinterestedness bore so principal a part. The year after his refusal of*the bishopric of Carlisle, he was offered the provostship of Queen’s college, Oxford, which he also refused; and thus having had in his option almost every kind of preferment which an ecclesiastic i capable of holding, he sat down with one living, which gratified the utmost of his desires.

, an eminent artist, whose name was Gioggio Barbarellj, but was generally known by the appellation of Giorgione, from loftiness of figure and gait, or the grandeur that stamps his style, was born at Castelfranco, in Frioul, 1477, and became the scholar of Giovanni Bellini. Even then he dismissed the minuteness which chained his master, and substituted that freedom, that disdainful superiority of handling, which, if it be not the result of manner, is the supreme attainment of execution. Ample outlines, bold fore-shortening, dignity, and vivacity of aspect and attitude, breadth of drapery, richness of accompaniment, more natural and softer passages from tint to tint, and forcible effects of chiaroscuro, marked the style of Giorgione. This last, the great want of the Venetian school, had, indeed, already been discovered to Upper Italy, by Lionardo da Vinci. To him, or rather to certain pictures and drawings of his, all unknown to us, Vasari pretends that Giorgione owes his chiaroscuro; but neither the line and forms peculiar to Vipci, nor his system of light and shade, seem to countenance this assertion. Gracility and amenity of aspect characterize the lines and fancy of Lionardo; fulness, roundness, those of Giorgione. Fond of a much wider diffusion of shades, and gradually diminishing their mass, the Tuscan drives light to a single point of dazzling splendour. Not so the Venetian; more open, less dark, neither brown nor ferrugineous in his demi-tints, but transparent and true; to tell the whole, he is nearer to Corregioi He may, however, have inspected and profited by the example of Lionardo, the inventor of chiaroscuro; but so as Corregio did by the fore-shortening of Mantegna. His greatest works were in fresco, of which little but the ruins remain. His numerous oil-pictures, by rigorous impasto, and fulness of pencil, st^ll preserve their beauty. Of these, his portraits have every excellence which mind, air, dignity, truth, freshness, and contrast, can confer; he sometimes indulged in ruddy, sanguine tints, but, on the whole, simplicity is their standard. His compositions are few; the most considerable was, perhaps, that of the “Tempest allayed,” in the school of St. Marco at Venice. Some consider as his master-piece “Moses taken from the Nile, and presented to the daughter of Pharaoh,” in the archiepiscopal palace at Milan, in which a certain austerity of tone gives zest to sweetness. One large picture of a holy family is in possession of the marquis of Stafford, which is highly laboured as to effect. But, perhaps the most perfect work of his in this country, is a small picture in the collection of the earl of Carlisle, a portrait of Gaston de Foix, with a servant putting on his armour. We are not acquainted with any picture that has more truth or beauty of colour, and style of character. It is told of Giorgione, that having a dispute concerning the superiority of sculpture or painting; and it being argued, that sculpture had the advantage, because the figures it produces may be seen all around; he took the adverse side, maintaining, that the necessity of moving, in order to see the different sides, deprived it of its superiority; whereas the whole figure might be viewed at one glance, in a minute. To prove his position, he painted a figure, and surrounded it with mirrors, in which all the various parts were exhibited, and obtained great applause for his ingenuity. This artist is said to have fallen in love with a young beauty at Venice, who was no less charmed with him, and submitted to be his mistress. She fell ill with the plague; but, not suspecting it to be so, admitted Giorgione to her bed, where, the infection seizing him, they both died in 1511, he being no more than 33.

, a herald and heraldic writer, was the son of Thomas Glover, of Ashford in Kent, the place of his nativity. He was first made Portcullis Poursuivant, and afterwards in 1571, Somerset herald. Queen Elizabeth permitted him to travel abroad for improvement. In 1582, he attended lord Willoughby with the order of the garter, to Frederick II. of Denmark. In 1584, he waited with Clarenceux on the earl of Derby, with that order to the king of France. No one was a greater ornament to the college than this gentleman; the suavity of his manners was equal to his integrity and skill: he was a most excellent, and very learned man, with a knowledge in his profession which has never been exceeded, perhaps been paralleled; to this, the best writers of his own and more recent time* bear testimony. He left two treatises, one “I)e Nobilitate politica vel civili” the other “A Catalogue of Honour” both of which were published by his nephew, Mr. Thomas Milles, the former in 1608, the latter in 1610, both folio, to “revive the name and learned memory of his deceased friend and uncle, whose private studies for the public good deserved a remembrance beyond forgetful time.” His answer to the bishop of Ross’s book, in which Mary queen of Scots’ claim to the crown was asserted, was never published. He made great collections of what had been written by preceding heralds, and left of his own labours relative to arms, visitations of twenty-four counties, and miscellaneous matters belonging to this science, all written by himself. He assisted Camden in his pedigrees for his Britannia; communicated to Dr. David Powell, a copy of the history of Cambria, translated by H. Lloyd; made a collection of the inscriptions upon the funeral monuments in Kent; and, in 1584, drew up a most curious survey of Herewood castle, in Yorkshire. Mr. Thoresby had his collection of the county of York taken in 1584, and his catalogue of northern gentry whose surnames ended in son. He died in London, says Stow, April 14, (Lant and others, 10), 1588, aged only forty-five years, and was buried in St. Giles’s church, Cripplegate. His loss was severely felt by all our lovers of English antiquities. His “Ordinary of Arms” was augmented and improved by Edmondson, who published it in the first volume of his Body of Heraldry.

, earl of Godolphin, and lord high treasurer of England, descended from a very ancient family in Cornwall, was the third son of Francis Godolphin, K. B. by Dorothy, second daughter of sir Henry Berkley, of Yarlington in Somersetshire. He had great natural abilities, was liberally educated, and inheriting the unshaken loyalty of his family, entered early into the service of Charles II. who after his restoration made him one of the grooms of his bed-chamber. In 1663, when attending his majesty to the university of Oxford, he had the degree of M. A. conferred upon him. In 1678, he was twice sent envoy to Holland, upon affairs of the greatest importance; and the next year was made one of the commissioners of the treasury, which trust he discharged with integrity, and being considered as a man of great abilities, was sworn of the privy council. In 1680 he openly declared for the bill of exclusion of the duke of York; and in the debate in council, whether the duke should return to Scotland before the parliament met, he joined in the advice for his going away; and though the rest of the council were of the contrary opinion, yet the king acquiesced in his and lord Sunderland’s reasons. In April 1664 he was appointed one of the secretaries of state, which he soon resigned for the office of first commissioner of the treasury, and was created baron Godolphin of Rialton in Cornwall. He had hitherto sat in the house of commons as representative for Helston and for St. Mawe’s.

On the accession of James II. he was appointed lord chamberlain to the queen, and on the removal of the earl of Rochester, was again made one of the commissioners of the treasury. On the landing of the prince of Orange, he was one of the commissioners sent by king James to treat with that prince, which employment he discharged with great address and prudence. In the debate concerning the vacancy of the throne, after the abdication of king James, his lordship, out of a regard to the succession, voted for a regency; yet when king William was advanced to the throne, his majesty appointed him one of the lords commissioners of the treasury, and a privy-councillor, and in 1690 he was appointed first lord of the treasury. In 1695, he was one of the seven lords justices for the administration of the government, during the king’s absence, as he was likewise the year following, and again in 1701, when he was restored to the place of first commissioner of the treasury, from which he had been removed in 1697. On the accession of queen Anne, he was constituted lord high treasurer, which post he had long refused to accept, till the earl of Marlboro ugh pressed him in so positive a manner, that he declared, he could not go to the continent to command the armies, unless the treasury was put into his hands; for then he was sure that remittances would be punctually made to him. Under his lordship’s administration of this high office, the public credit was raised, the war carried on with success, and the nation satisfied with his prudent management. He omitted nothing that could engage theteubject to bear the burthen of the war with chearfulness; and it was owing to his advice, that the queen contributed one hundred thousand pounds out of her civil list towards it. He was also one of those faithful and able counsellors, who advised her majesty to declare in council against the selling of offices and places in her household and family, as highly dishonourable to herself, prejudicial to her service, and a discouragement to virtue and true merit, which alone ought and should recommend persons to her royal approbation. And so true a friend was his lordship to the established church, that considering how meanly great numbers of the clergy were provided for, he prevailed upon her majesty to settle her revenue of the first-fruits and tenths for the augmentation of the small vicarages. In July 1704 he was made knight of the garter; and in December 1706, advanced to the dignity of earl of Godolphin and viscount Rialton. But notwithstanding all his great services to the public, on the 8th of August 1710, he was removed from his post of lord high treasurer.

He died at St. Alban’s of the stone, on the 15th of September 1712, and was interred in Westminster-abbey. By his lady, Margaret, daughter of Thomas Blague, esq. he had issue Francis, second earl of Godolphin, on whose death the title became extinct.

, a man of some poetical turn, but principally known as a translator, in the sixteenth century, was a native of London. In 1563 we find him living with secretary Cecil at his house in the Strand, and in 1577 in the parish of Allhallows, London Wall. Amongst his patrons, as we may collect from his dedications, were, sir Walter Mildmay, William lord Cobham, Henry earl of Huntingdon, lord Leicester, sir Christopher Hatton, lord Oxford, and Robert earl of Essex. He was connected with sir Philip Sydney, for he finished an English translation of Philip Mornay’s treatise in French, on the “Truth of Christianity,” which had been begun by Sydney, and was published in 1587. His religious turn appears also from his translating many of the works of the early reformers and protestant writers, particularly Calvin, Chytraeus, Beza, Marlorat, Hemingius, &c. He also enlarged our treasures of antiquity, by publishing translations of Justin in 1564; and of Csesar in 1565. Of this last, a translation as far as the middle of the fifth book by John Brend, had been put into his hands, and he therefore began at that place, but afterwards, for uniformity, re-translated the whole himself. He also published translations of Seneca’s Benefits, in 1577; of the Geography of Pomponius Mela the Poly history of Solinus, 1587, and of many modern Latin writers, which were then useful, and suited to the wants of the times. Warton thinks his only original work is a “Discourse of the Earthquake that happened in England and other places in 1580,” 12mo; and of his original poetry, nothing more appears than an encomiastic copy of verses prefixed to Baret’s “Alvearie” in 1580. His chief poetical translation is of “Ovid’s Metamorphoses,” the first four books of which he published in 1565, and the whole in 1567. Pope, who read much in old English translations, used to say “it was a pretty good one considering the time when it was written.” The style is certainly poetical and spirited, and his versification clear; hi manner ornamental and diffuse; yet with a sufficient observance of the original. He has obtained a niche in the “Biographia Dramatica” for having translated a drama of Beza’s, called “Abraham’s Sacrifice,” 1577, 18mo.

He afterwards removed to more decent lodgings in Wine Office-court, Fleet-street, where he wrote his admirable novel, “The Vicar of Wakefield,” attended with the affecting circumstance of his being under arrest. When the knowledge of his situation was communicated to Dr. Johnson, he disposed of his manuscript for sixty pounds, to Mr. Newbery, and procured his enlargement. Although the money was then paid, the book was not published until some time after, when his excellent poem “The Traveller” had established his fame. His connection with Mr. Newbery was a source of regular supply, as he employed him in compiling or revising many of his publications, particularly, “The Art of Poetry,” 2 vols. 12mo; a “Life of Beau Nash,” and “Letters on the History of England,” 2 vols. 12mo, which have been attributed to lord Lyttelton, the earl of Orrery, and other noblemen, but were really written by Dr. Goldsmith. He had before this been employed by Wilkie, the bookseller, in conducting a “Lady’s Magazine,” and published with him, a volume of essays, entiled “The Bee.” To the Public Ledger, a newspaper, of which Kelly was at that time the editor, he contributed those letters which have since been published under the title of “The Citizen of the World.”

In 1765 he published “The Traveller,” which at once established his fame. The outline of this he formed when in Switzerland, but polished it with great care, before he submitted it to the public. It soon made him known and admired, but his roving disposition had not yet left him. He had for some time been musing on a design of penetrating into the interior parts of Asia, and investigating the remains of ancient grandeur, learning, and manners. When he was told of lord Bute’s liberality to men of genius, he applied to that nobleman for a salary to enable him to execute his favourite plan, but his application was unnoticed, as his name had not then been made known by his Traveller. This poem, however, having procured him the unsolicited friendship of lord Nugent, afterwards earl of Clare, he obtained an introduction to the earl of Northumberland, then lord Lieutenant of Ireland, who invited our poet to an interview. Goldsmith prepared a complimentary address for his excellency, which, by mistake, he delivered to the groom of the chambers, and when the lord lieutenant appeared, was so confused that he came awa.y without being able to explain the object of his wishes. Sir John Hawkins relates, that when the lord lieutenant said he should be glad to do him any kindness, Goldsmith answered, that “he had a brother in Ireland, a clergyman, that stood in need of help as for himself, he had no dependence on the promises of great men he looked to the booksellers they were his best friends, and he was not inclined to forsake them for others.” This was very characteristic of Goldsmith, who, as sir John Hawkins adds, was “an ideot in the affairs of the world,” but yet his affectionate remembrance of his brother on such an occasion merits a less harsh epithet. Goldsmith was grateful for the kindness he had received from this brother, and nothing probably would have given him greater pleasure than if he had succeeded in transferring the earl’s patronage tp him. From this time, however, although he sometimes talked about it, he appears to have relinquished the project of going to Asia. “Of all men,” said Dr. Johnson, “Goldsmith is the most unfit to go out upon such an inquiry for he is utterly ignorant of such arts as we already possess, and consequently could not know what would be accessions to our present stock of mechanical knowledge. He would bring home a grinding barrow, and think that he had furnished a wonderful improvement.”

, a Scotch antiquary, the eldest son of John Goodal, a farmer in Banfshire, Scotland, was born about 1706. In 1723 he entered himself a student in King’s college, Old Aberdeen, but did not continue there long enough to take a degree. In 1730 he obtained employment in the Advocates’ library, Edinburgh, of whicli he was formally appointed librarian in 1735. He now assisted the celebrated Thomas lluddiman in compiling the catalogue of that library, upon the plan of the “Bibliotheca Cardinalis Imperialis,” and it was published in folio in 1742. About the same time he projected a life of Mary queen of Scots, to whose cause he was inflexibly devoted; but this design appears to have been relinquished for his publication, entitled “An Examination of the Letters said to be written by Mary to James earl of Both well,” 1754, 2 vols. 8vo, in which he endeavoured to prove these letters to be forgeries. In this work it is said that he had done more, had he had less prejudice, and greater coolness. He certainly had diligence of research, sagacity of investigation, and keenness of remark; but his zeal sometimes carried him out of his course, his prejudice often blunted his acuteness, and his desire of recrimination never failed to enfeeble the strength of his criticism. In 1754 he published an edition, with emendatory notes, of sir John Scot’s “Staggering state of Scots Statesmen,” and wrote a preface and life to sir James Balfour’s “Practicks.” He contributed also to Keith’s “New Catalogue of Scotch Bishops,” and published an edition of Fordun’s “Scotichronicon,” which was not executed with judgment. His introduction to it was afterwards translated into English, and published at London in 1769. He died July 28, 1766, in very poor circumstances, owing to a habit of intemperance.

, a native of Scotland, and onc distinguished by his party writings on political and religious subjects, was born at Kircudbright in Galloway, about th fend of the seventeenth century. He had an university education, and went through the common course of aca* demical studies; but whether at Aberdeen or St. Andrew’s is uncertain. When a young man he came to London, and at first supported himself by teaching the languages, but afterwards commenced party writer, and was employed by the earl of Oxford in queen Anne’s time; but we know not in what capacity. He first distinguished himself in the Bangorian controversy by two pamphlets in defence of Hoadly, which recommended him to Mr. Tjrenchard, an author of the same stamp, who took him into his house, at first as his amanuensis, and afterwards into partnership, as an author. In 1720, they began to publish, in conjunction, a series of letters, under the name of “Cato,” upon various and important subjects relating to the public. About the same time they published another periodical paper, under the title of “The Independent Whig,” which was continued some years after Trenchard’s death by Gordon alone. The same spirit which appears, with more decent language, in Cato’s letters against the administration in the state, shews itself in this work in much more glaring colours against the hierarchy in the church. It is, in truth, a gross and indecent libel on the established religion, which, however, Gordon was admirably qualified to write, as he had no religion of his own to check his intemperate sallies. After Trenchard’s death, the minister, sir Robert Walpole, knowing his popular talents, took him into pay to defend his measures, for which end he wrote several pamphlets. At the time of his death, July 28, 1750, he was first commissioner of the wine-licences, an office which he had enjoyed many years, and which diminished his patriotism surprisingly. He was twice married. His second wife was the widow of his friend Trenchard by whom he had children, and who survived him. Two collections of his tracts have been preserved the first entitled, “A Cordial for Low-spirits,” in three volumes; and the second, “The Pillars of Priestcraft and Orthodoxy shaken,” in two volumes. But these, like many other posthumous pieces, had better have been suppressed. His translations of Sallust and Tacitus, now, perhaps, contribute more to preserve his name, although without conferring much reputation on it. His Tacitus appeared in 2 vols. fol. in 1728, with discourses taken from foreign commentators and translators of that historian. Sir Robert Walpole patronised a subscription for the work, which was very successful; but no classic was perhaps ever so miserably mangled. His style is extremely vulgar, yet affected, and abounds with abrupt and inharmonious periods, totally destitute of any resemblance to the original, while the translator fancied he was giving a correct imitation.

, an English poet and physician, was born at Dunse, a small town in the southern part of Scotland, about 1723. His father, a native of Cumberland, and once a man of considerable property, had removed to Dunse, on the failure of some speculations in mining, and there filled a post in the excise. His son, after receiving such education as his native place afforded, went to Edinburgh, where he was apprenticed to Mr. Lawder, a surgeon, and had an opportunity of studying the various branches of medical science, which were then begun to be taught by the justly celebrated founders of the school of medicine in that city. Having qualified himself for such situations as are attainable by young men whose circumstances do not permit them to wait the slow returns of medical practice at home, he first served as surgeon to lieut.-general Pulteney’s regiment of foot, during the rebellion (of 1745) in Scotland, and afterwards went in the same capacity to Germany, where that regiment composed part of the army under the earl of Stair. With the reputation and interest which his skill and learning procured abroad, he came over to England at the peace of Aix-laChapelle, sold his commission, and entered upon practice as a physician in London.

, son of Antony duke of Gramont, served as a volunteer under the prince of Conde, and Turenne, and came into England about two years after the restoration. He was under a necessity of leaving France for having the temerity to pay his addresses to a lady to whom Lewis XIV. was known to have a tender attachment. He possessed in a high degree every qualification that could render him agreeable to the licentious court of Charles II. He was gay, gallant, and perfectly well-bred, had an inexhaustible fund of ready wit, and told a story with extraordinary humour and effect. His vivacity infused life wherever he came, and was generally inoffensive. He had also another qualification very well suited to the company he kept. He had great skiil and success in play; and seems to have been chiefly indebted to it for support. Several of the ladies engaged his attention upon his first coming over; but miss Elizabeth Hamilton, whom he afterwards married, seems to have been his favourite, though some say he endeavoured to break off the connection. She was the daughter of sir George Hamilton, fourth son of James first earl of Abercorn. His “Memoirs” were written from his own information, and probably in much the same language in which they are related, by his brother-in-law, Anthony, who, following the fortunes of James II. entered the French service, and died at St. Germain’s, April 21, 1720. He was generally called Count Hamilton. Count Gramont died Jan. 10, 1707. There have lately been several editions of the “Memoirs” printefd here, both in French and English, and in a splendid form, illustrated with portraits. They contain many curious particulars respecting the intrigues and amusements of the court of Charles II. but present upon the whole a disgusting picture of depraved manners.

, a well-known biographer, but who has been himself left without any memorial, was the son of Mr. William Granger, by Elizabeth Tutt, daughter of Tracy Tutt. Of the condition of his parents, or the place of his education, we have not been able to recover any particulars. He studied, however, for some time at Christ-church, Oxford, which he probably left without taking a degree; and having entered into holy orders, was presented to the vicarage of Shiplake, in Oxfordshire, a living in the gift of the dean and chapter of Windsor. He informs us, in the dedication of his “Biographical History,” that his name and person were known to few at the time of its publication (1769), as he had “the good fortune to retire early to independence, obscurity, and content.” He adds, that “if he has an ambition for any thing, it is to be an honest man and a good parish priest,” and in both those characters he was highly esteemed by all who knew him. To the duties of his sacred office, he attended with the most scrupulous assiduity and zeal, and died in the performance of the most solemn office of the church. Such was his pious regard for the day appointed for religious observances, that he would not read the proofs of his work while going through the press on that day; and with such an impression of what was his duty, found no great difficulty in resisting the arguments of his bookseller, Tom Davies, who endeavoured to persuade him that this was a “work of necessity.” It appears that some time before his death he was anxious to obtain a living within a tenable distance of Shiplake, but did not succeed. In 1773 or 1774 he accompanied lord Mountstuart, now earl of Bute, on a tour to Holland, where his lordship made an extensive collection of portraits. In 1772 he published a sermon entitled “An Apology for the Brute Creation, or Abuse of Animals censured.” This was preached in his parish^church, Oct. 18, 1772, and, as we are informed in a postscript, gave almost universal disgust; “the mention of horses and dogs was censured as a prostitution of the dignity of the pulpit, and considered as a proof of the author’s growing insanity;” but more competent judges, and indeed the public at large, applauded him for exerting his humanity and benevolence in a case which is so often overlooked, the treatment of the brute creation. Mr. Granger, who was a man of some humour, and according to the evidence of his friend and correspondent the rev. Mr. Cole, a frequent retailer of jokes, dedicated this sermon “To T. B. Drayman,” for which he gives as a reason that he had seen this man exercise the lash with greater rage, and heard him at the same time swear more roundly and forcibly, than he ever heard or saw any of his brethren of the whip in London. Mr. Granger appears to have taken some pains with this man, but to little purpose. He was, however, afterwards killed by a kick from one of the horses whom he delighted to torment, which gave Mr. Granger an opportunity of strength-. cning his arguments with his parishioners by a warning like this, which could not fail, for sorneaime at least, to make an impression on their minds. In 1773 he printed another sermon, entitled “The nature and extent of Industry,” preached before his grace Frederic, archbishop of Canterbury, July 4, 1775, in the parish church of Shiplake. This was gravely dedicated, “To the inhabitants of the parish of Shiplake who neglect the service of the church, and spend the Sabbath in the worst kind of idleness, this plain sermon, which they never heard, and probably will never read, is inscribed by their sincere wellwisher and faithful minister J. G.” Both these discourses were favourably received by the public, and many clergymen and others purchased quantities of them for distribution. His memory, however, is best preserved by his “Biographical History of England from Kgbert the Great to the Revolution,” at which he employed himself for many years, and lived to see two editions sold, and a taste created for collections of portraits, which is indeed the principal intention of the author, his biography including only those persons of whom some engraved portrait is extant. It was first published in 4 thin 4to vols. in 1769, but the second and subsequent editions have been printed in 8vo. The preparation of such a work could not fail to yield the author much amusement, and likewise procured him the correspondence of many eminent scholars and gentlemen who were either collectors of portraits, or conversant in English biography. He had amassed considerable materials for a continuation of this work, which was prevented by his sudden and much-lamented death. On Sunday April 14, 1776, he read prayers and preached apparently in good health, but while afterwards at the communion-table, in the act of administering the sacrament, he was seized with an apoplectic fit, and notwithstanding immediate medical assistance, died next morning. This affecting circumstance was happily expressed by a friend in these lines:

, lord Cullen, an eminent lawyer ind judge in Scotland, was descended from a younger >ranch of the ancient family of the Grants, of Grant, in iat kingdom; his ancestor in a direct line, being sir John Grant, of Grant, who married lady Margaret Stuart, daughter of the earl of Athol. He was born about 1660, and received the first part of his education at Aberdeen; but, being intended for the profession of the law, was sent to finish his studies at Leyden, under the celebrated Voet, with whom he became so great a favourite by his singular application, that many years afterwards the professor mentioned him to his pupils, as one that had done honour to the university, and recommended his example to them. On his return to Scotland, he passed through the examination requisite to his being admitted advocate, with such abilities as to attract the particular notice of sir George Mackenzie, then king’s advocate, one of the most ingenious men, as well as one of the ablest and most eminent lawyers, of that age. Being-thus 'qualified for practice, he soon got into full employ, by the distinguishing figure which he made at the Revolution in 1688. He was then only twenty-eight years of age; but, as the measures of the preceding reign had led him to study the constitutional points of law, he discovered a masterly knowledge, when the convention of estates met to debate that important affair concerning the vacancy of the throne, upon the departure of king James to France. Some of the old lawyers, in pursuance of the principles in which they had been bred, argued warmly against those upon which the Revolution, which had taken place in England, was founded; and particularly insisted on the inability of the convention of estates to make any disposition of the crown. Grant opposed these notions with great strength and spirit, and about that time published a treatise, in which he undertook, by the principles of law, to prove that a king might forfeit his crown for himself and his descendants -, and that in such a case the states had a power to dispose of it, and to establish and limit a legal succession, concluding with the warmest recommendations of the prince of Orange to the regal dignity.

, viscount Lansdowne, an English poet, was descended of a family distinguished for their loyalty; being second son of Barnard Granville, esq. brother to the first earl of Bath of this name, who had a principal share in bringing about the restoration of Charles II. and son of the loyal sir Bevil Greenvile, who lost his life fighting for Charles I. at Lansdowne in 1643. He was born in 1667, and in his infancy was sent to France, under the tuition of sir William Ellys, a gentleman bred up under Dr. Busby, and who was afterwards eminent in many public stations. From this excellent tutor he not only imbibed a taste for classical learning, but was also instructed in all other accomplishments suitable to his birth, in which he made so quick a proficiency, that after he had distinguished himself above all the youths of France in martial exercises, he was sent to Trinity-college, Cambridge, in 1677, at ten years of age; and before he was twelve, spoke some verses of his own composing to the duchess of York, afterwards queen-consort to James II. at her visit to that university in 1679. On account of his extraordinary merit, he was created M. A. at the age of thirteen, and left the college soon after.

In the first stage of his life, he seems rather to have made his Muse subservient to his ambition and thirst after military glory, in which there appeared such a force of genius as raised the admiration of Mr. Waller. But his ambition shewed itself most active on the duke of Monmouth’s rebellion and he requested his father to let him arm in defence of his sovereign but being then only eighteen years of age, he was thought too young for such an enterprize. It was not without extreme reluctance that he submitted to the tenderness of paternal restraint; which was the more mortifying, as his uncle the earl of Bath had on this occasion raised a regiment of foot for the king’s service; with the behaviour and discipline of which his majesty was so well pleased, that, on reviewing them at Hounslow, as a public mark of his approbation he conferred the honour of knighthood upon our author’s elder brother Bevil, who was a captain, at the head of the regiment. Thus, forbidden to handle his pike on this important occasion, he took up his pen after the rebellion was crushed, and addressed some congratulatory lines to the king.

Upon the accession of queen Anne, he stood as fair in the general esteem as any man of his years, now about thirty-five. He had always entertained the greatest veneration for the queen, and he made his court to her in the politest manner in Urganda’s prophecy, spoken by way of epilogue at the first representation of the “British Enchanters,” where he introduced a scene representing the queen, and the several triumphs of her reign. He entered heartily into the measures for carrying on the war against France; and, with a view to excite a proper spirit in the nation, he translated the second “Olynthian” of Demosthenes, in 1702. This new specimen of his, learning gained him many friends, and added highly to his reputation; and, when the design upon Cadiz was projected the same year, he presented to Mr. Harley, afterwards earl of Oxford, an authentic journal of Mr. Wimbledon’s expedition thither, in 1625; in order that, by avoiding the errors committed in a former attempt upon that place, a more successful plan might be formed. But, little attention being given to it, the same mistakes were committed, and the same disappointment ensued: with this difference only, that the duke of Ormond had an opportunity to take his revenge at Vigo, and to return with glory, which was not Wimbledon’s fate.

By a laudable oeconomy Granville had hitherto preserved himself from those embarrassments, which in more advanced life he is said to have incurred, and his father, who was just dead, had made some provision for him, which was increased by a small annuity left him by his uncle the earl of Bath, who died not long after. These advantages, added to the favours which his cousin John Grenville had received from her majesty in being raised to the peerage by the title of lord Grenville of Pothericlge, and his brother being made governor of Barbadoes, with a fixed salary of 2000l. the same enabled him to come into the house of commons, as member for Fowey in Cornwall, in the first parliament of the queen. In 1706, his fortune was improved farther by the loss of his eldest brother, sir Bevil, who died that year, in his passage from Barbadoes, in the flower of his age, unmarried, and universally lamented. Hence our younger brother stood now as the head-branch of his family, and he still held his seat in the house of commons, both in the second and third parliaments of the queen. But the administration being taken out of the hands of his friends, with whom he remained steadily connected in the same principles, he was cut off from any prospect of being preferred at court.

SacheverelPs trial, which happened not long after, brought on that remarkable change in the ministry in 1710, when Mr. Granville^s friends came again into power. He was elected for the borough of Helston, but, being returned at the same time for the county of Cornwall, he chose to represent the latter; and on September 29, he was declared secretary at war, in the room of Robert Walpole, esq. afterwards the celebrated minister. He continued in this office for some time, and discharged it with reputation; and, towards the close of the next year, 1711, he married the lady Mary, daughter of Edward Villiers, earl of Jersey, at that time possessed of a considerable jointure, as widow of Thomas Thynne, esq. He had just before succeeded to the estate of the elder branch of his family, at Stow; and December 31, he was created a peer of Great Britain, by the title of lord Lansdowne, baron of Bideford, in the county of Devon. In this promotion he was one of the twelve peers who were all created at the same time; and so numerous a creation, being unprecedented, gave much offence, although but little in his case. His lordship was now the next male-issue in that noble family, in which two peerages, that of the earl of Bath, and that of lord Grenville of Potheridge, had been extinguished almost together: his personal merit was universally allowed; and as to his political sentiments, those who thought him most mistaken, allowed him to be open, candid, and uniform. He stood always high in the favour of queen Anne; and with great reason, having upon every occasion testified the greatest zeal for her government, and the most profound respect for her person. For these reasons, in the succeeding year, 1712, he was sworn of her majesty’s privy-council, made controller of her household, about a year after advanced to the post of treasurer in. the same office; and to his other honours, says Dr. Johnson, was added the dedication of Pope’s “Windsor Forest.” His lordship continued in his office of treasurer to the queen, until her death, when he kept company with his friends in falling a sacrifice to party-violence, being removed from his treasurer’s place by George I. Oct. 11, 1714.

His lordship continued steady in the same sentiments, which were so opposite to those of the court, and inconsistent with the measures taken by the administration, that he must needs be sensible a watchful eye was kept ever upon him. Accordingly, when the flame broke out against his friends, on account of what is sometimes called Atterbury’s plot, in 1722, his lordship, as some say, to avoid a second imprisonment in the Tower, withdrew to France, but others attribute his going thither to a degree of profusion which had embarrassed his circumstances. He had been at Paris but a little while, when the first volume of Burnet’s “History of his oun Times” was published. Great expectations had been raised of this work, which accordingly he perused with attention; and finding the characters of the duke of Albemarle and the earl of Bath treated in a manner he thought they did not deserve, he formed the design of doing them justice. This led him to consider what had been said by other historians concerning his family; and, as Clarendon and Echard had treated his uncle sir Richard Granvilie more roughly, his lordship, being possessed of memoirs from which his conduct might be set in a fairer light, resolved to follow the dictates of duty and inclination, by publishing his sentiments upon these heads. These pieces are printed in his works, under the title of “A Vindication of General Monk,” &c. and “A Vindication of Sir Richard Greenville, General of the West to King Charles I.” &c. They were answered by Oldmixon, in a piece entitled “Reflections historical and politic,” c. 1732, 4to, and by judge Burnet, in “Remarks,” &c. a pamphlet. His lordship replied, in “A Letter to the author of the Reflections,” &c. 1732, 4to, and the spring following, there came out a very rough answer in defence of Echard, by Dr. Colbatch, entitled “An Examination of Echard’s Account of the Marriage Treaty,” &c.

He was educated at Eton, under the protection of Mr. Antrobus, his maternal uncle, who was at that time assistant to Dr. George, and also a fellow of Peter-house, Cambridge, where Gray was admitted as a pensioner in 1734, in his nineteenth year. At Eton his friendship with Horace Walpole (the late earl of Orford), and more particularly with Richard West, commmenced. In the latter, who was a son of the Irish lord chancellor West, henet with one whose proficiency in literature was considerable for his age, whose mind was amiable and ingenuous, wnose disposition was similar to his own, but whose loss he had to deplore, after a strict friendship of eight years. When Gray removed to Peter-house, West went to Christ church, Oxford, and Walpole to King’s -college, Cambridge. It is difficult to trace the line of study which Gray pursued at college. His correspondence at that time treats chiefly of his poetry, and other private pursuits; and he seems to have withdrawn himself entirely from the severity of mathematical studies, while his inquiries centered in classical literature, in the acquisition of modern languages, in history and other branches of polite literature. During his residence at college from 1734 to 1738, his poetical productions were some Latin verses entitled “Luna habitabilis,” inserted in the “Musae Etonenses;” a poem “Onthe marriage of the prince of Wales;” and a “Sapphic Ode to West,” both in Latin also a Latin version of the “Care selve beate” of the Pastor Fido, and fragments of translations in English from Statins and Tasso.

At this time he had not only read the writings of Copernicus, Regiomoritanus, Purbach, Tycho Brahe, and Kepler, with other celebrated astronomers of that and the preceding age, but had made 1 the ancient Greek, Arabian, and Persian authors familiar to him, having before gained an accurate skill in the oriental languages; but the acquisitions he had already made serving to create a thirst for more, he determined to travel for farther improvement. Accordingly he went to Holland in 1635, and having attended for some time the lectures of Goliusj the learned professor of Arabic at Leyden, he proceeded to Paris, where he conversed with the celebrated Claudius Hardy, about the Persian language; but finding very scanty aid in that country, he continued his journey to Rome, in order to view the antiquities of that cily. He also visited other parts of Italy; and before his departure, meeting with the earl of Arundel, was offered 200l. a year to live with his lordship, and attend him as a companion in his travels to Greece; the earl also promising every other act of friendship that might lie in his power. A proposal so advantageous would have been eagerly accepted by Mr. Greaves, but he had now projected a voyage to Egypt, and was About to return to England, in order to furnish himself with every thing proper to complete the execution of his design.

The bishop resigned the mastership of Bene't college in July 17G4. After the death of lord Willoughby of Parham in 1765, the literary conversation meetings of the royal society, &c. which used to be held weekly at his lordship’s house, were transferred to the bishop of Lincoln’s in Scotland yard, as one of their most accomplished members. In July 1771, on a representation to his majesty, that, with distinguished learning and abilities, and a most extensive diocese, bishop Green (having nocommendam) had a very inadequate income, he was presented to the residentiaryship of St. Paul’s, which bishop Egerton vacated on his translation to the see of Durham. He now removed to his residentiary-house in Amen-corner, and took a small country-house at Tottenham. It has often been noticed as a circumstance conducing to our prelate’s honour, that, in May 1772, when the bill for relief of protestant dissenters, &c. after having passed the house of commons, was rejected, on the second reading, by the house of lords (102 to 27), he dissented from his brethren, and was the only bishop who voted in its favour. Without any particular previous indisposition, his lordship died suddenly in his chair at Bath, on Sunday, April 25, 1779. This elegant scholar was one of the writers of the celebrated “Athenian Letters,” published by the earl of Hardwicke in 1798, 2 vols. 4to.

, a younger son of the preceding, and brother to sir John Greenville first eari of Bath, of his name, was born in Cornwall, admitted gentleman commoner of Exeter college, Sept. 22, 1657, actually created in convocation master of arts Sept. 28, 1660. About this time he married Anne, the daughter of Dr. Cosin, bishop of Durham, who conferred several preferments on him, as the rectories of Easington and Elwick in. the county palatine of Durham; the archdeaconry of Durham, to which he was collated on the death of Dr. Gabriel Clarke, Sept. 16, 1662, and to the first stall of prebendaries of the church of Durham, Sept. 24, 1662, from whence he was removed to the second, April 16, 1668. On December 20, 1670, he was created doctor of divinity, being then one of the chaplains in ordinary to Charles II.; and on the 14th of December, 1684, he was installed dean of Durham in the place of Dr. John Sudbury deceased. In the register of Eton college we find that immediately after the restoration, Dr. Greenville was recommended in very strong terms to the master and fellows for a fellowship, by three several letters from the king, but for what reason this recommendation did not take effect, does not appear; probably he might wave his interest on account of other preferment which was more acceptable to him. On the 1st of February 1690, he was deprived of all his >referments upon his refusal to comply with the new oaths >f allegiance and supremacy to the prince of Orange then in possession of the throne, a change which he utterly abhorred, always considering the revolution as a rebellion and usurpation. Soon after the prince of Orange’s landing, he left Durham in order to retire into France; and sometimes lived at Corbeil (from whence it is supposed his family originally sprung), but more frequently at Paris and St. Germain’s, where he was very civilly treated and much countenanced by the queen-mother, as we find in several of his own letters, notwithstanding what has been falsely asserted by Mackay in an account of the court of St. Germain’s. He owns he _was sometimes attacked by the priests, but with much good manners and civility. Mr* Wood says, that during his retirement, he was, on the death of Dr. Lamplugh, nominated to the see of York, by king James II. though never consecrated; but this seems rery doubtful. In April 1695 he came incognito into EngJand; but soon returned. For some time before his death he enjoyed but a very indifferent state of health, having been much troubled with a sciatica, and other infirmities. He died at Paris, after a series of many sufferings, on April 7, 1703, N. S. and was buried at the lower end of the Holy Innocents’ church in that city. Lord Lansdowne in a letter to a nephew of his, who was going to enter into holy orders, says of him, “You had an uncle whose mejnory I shall ever revere: make him your example. Sanctity sate so easy, so unaffected, and so graceful upon him, that in him we beheld the very beauty of holiness. He was as cheerful, as familiar, as condescending in his conversation, as he was strict, regular, and exemplary in his piety; as well bred and accomplished as a courtier, and as reverend and venerable as an apostle. He was indeed apostolical in every thing, for he abandoned all to follow his Lord and Master.” There seems little reason to doubt this character, as far as it respects Dr. Greenville’s private character, but in bigotry for restoration of James II. he probably excelled all his contemporaries, and from some correspondence lately published in the Life of Dr. Comber, his successor in the deanery of Durham, there is reason tp doubt whether in his latter days his mind was not unsound. He published, 1. “The Complete Conformist, or seasonable advice concerning strict conformity and frequent celebration of the Holy Communion,” preached on the 7th of January, being the first Sunday after the Epiphany, 1682, in the cathedral church of Durham, on John i. 29, Loud. 1684, 4to. To which is added “Advice or a letter written to the clergy of the archdeaconry of Durham,” to the same purpose. 2. “A Sermon preached in the cathedral church of Durham, upon the revival of the ancient and laudable practice of that and some other cathedrals, in having sermons on Wednesdays and Fridays during Advent and Lent,” on Rom. xiii. 11, Loud. 1686, 4to. 3. “Counsels and Directions divine and moral: in plain and familiar letters of advice to a young gentleman his nephew, soon after his admission into a college in Oxford,” Lond. 1685, 8vo. Besides these pieces which we have just mentioned, our author, immediately after his retiring into France, published some small tracts at Rouen, which are very scarce, and not very correctly printed; and perhaps it is remarkable that such an unusual favour should be permitted in a popish country to a dignified clergyman of the church of England. The titles of the pieces printed at Rouen are, viz. 4. “The resigned and resolved Christian and faithfull and undaunted loyalist: in two plaine farewell sermons, and a loyal farewell visitation speech. Both delivered amidst the lamentable confusions occasioned by the late foreign invasion and home-defection of his majestie’s subjects in England. By Denis Granville, D. D. deane and archdeacon of Durham, now in exile, chaplaine in ordinary to his majestic. .Whereunto are added certaine Letters to his relations and friends in England, shewing the reasons and manner of his withdrawing out of the kingdom.” “A Letter to his brother the earl of Bathe.” “A Letter to his bishop the bishop of Durham.” “A Letter to his brethren the prebendaries” “A Letter to the clergy of his archdeaconry.” “A Letter to his curates, at Easington and Sedgefield,” printed at Rouen, 1689. 5. “The chiefest matters contained in sundry Discourses made to the clergy of the archdeaconry of Durham, since his majestic‘ s coming to the crown. Summed up and seasonably brought again to their view in a loyal farewell visitation speech on the 13th of November last, 88, being ten days after the landing of the prince of Orange.*’ This is dated from his study at Rouen Nov. 15, 1689. With a preface to the reader and an advertisement. 6.” A copy of a paper penned at Durham, by the author, Aug. 27, 1688, by way of reflection on the then dismal prognostics of the time.“7.” Directions which Dr. Granville, archdeacon of Durham, rector of Sedgefield and Easington, enjoins to be observed by the curates of those his parishes, given them in charge at Easter-visitation held at Sedgefield, in the year 1669."

Though sir Thomas had purchased very large estates in several counties of England, yet he thought a country seat near London, to which he might retire from business and the hurry of the city as often as he pleased, would be very convenient. With this view he bought Osterley-park, near Brentford, in Middlesex, where he built a large magnificent seat within the park, which he impaled, being well wooded, and furnished with many ponds stocked with fish and fowl, and of great use for mills, as paper-mills, oilmills, and corn-mills. In 1578, queen Elizabeth visited Osterley, where sir Thomas entertained her magnificently. On this occasion, having given it as her opinion that the court before the house would look better divided with a wajl, sir Thomas in the night sent for workmen from London, who so speedily and so silently performed their task, that before morning the wall was finished, to the great surprize of the queen and her courtiers, one of whom, however, observed, that it was no wonder that he who could build a change should so soon change a building. This became afterwards the property of the family of Child, and is now that of the right hon. the earl of Jersey, by marriage into that family.

Our author was not then above twenty-two years of age, so that this post may be esteemed an honourable attestation of his merit. But the nature of it did not please him; his ambition prompted him to another course of life. He had already made some advances in the queen’s favour, had attained a competent familiarity with the modern languages, and some expertness in the martial exercises of those times; these were qualifications for a foreign employment, which was more agreeable to the activity of his temper, and promised a quicker access to some of the first posts in the state. In reality he was so eager to advance his fortune in this line, that to gratify his desire, he ventured to incur his royal mistress’s displeasure, and made several attempts in it, not only with, but even without her majesty’s consent. Out of many of these we have an account of the few following from his own pen. First, when the two mighty armies of Don John and the duke Casimire were to meet in the Low-countries, he applied and obtained her majesty’s leave under her own hand, to go thither; but after his horses with all other preparations were shipped at Dover, the queen (who always discouraged these excursions) sent her messenger, sir Edward Dyer, with her mandate to stop him. He was so much vexed at this disappointment, that afterwards, when secretary Walsingham was sent ambassador in 1578, to treat with those two princes, an opportunity of seeing an affair in which so much Christian blood and so many Christian empires were concerned, was so tempting, that he resolved not to risque a denial, and therefore stole away without leave, and went over with the secretary incog. The consequence was, that at his return the queen forbade him her presence for many months. To the same ambition may also be referred his engagement with sir Philip Sidney to accompany sir Francis Drake in his last expedition but one to the WestIndies in 1515, in which they were both frustrated by the same authority. Again, when the earl of Leicester was sent general of her majesty’s forces the same year, and had given Mr. Greville the command of one hundred horse, “Then I,” to use his own words, “giving my humour over to good order, yet found that neither the intercession of this grandee, seconded with my own humble suit, and many other honourable friends of mine, could prevail against the constant course of this excellent lady (the queen) with her servants, so as I was forced to tarry behind, and for this importunity of mine to change my course, and seem to press nothing before my service about her; this princess of government as well as kingdoms made me live in her court a spectacle of disfavour too long as I conceived.”

In 1558 Mr. Greville attended his kinsman, the earl of Essex, to Oxford; and among other persons in that favourite’s train was created M. A. April 11, that year. In 1558 he was accused to the lords of the council, by a certificate of several gentlemen borderers upon Farickwood in Warwickshire, of having made waste there to the value of 14,000 but the prosecution seems to have been dropped, and, October 1597, he received the honour of knighthood. In the beginning of March the same year, he applied for the office of treasurer of the war; and about two years afterwards, in the 41st of Elizabeth, he obtained the place of treasurer of marine causes for life. In 1599 a commission was ordered to be made out for him as rear-admiral of the fleet, which was intended to be sent forth against another threatened invasion by the Spaniards.

During the life of the treasurer Cecil, he obtained no advancement in the court or state; but, in 1615, some time after his death, was made under-treasurer and chancellor of the exchequer; in consequence of which he was called to the board of privy-council. In 1617 he obtained from the king a special charter, confirming all such liberties as had been granted to any of his ancestors in behalf of the town of Alcester, upon a new reserved rent of ten shillings a year; and, in 1620, was created lord Brooke of Beau* champ-court. He obtained this dignity as well by his merit and fidelity in the discharge of his offices as by his noble descent from theNevils, Willoughbys de Brook, and Beauchamps. In September 1621, he was made one of the lords of the king’s bed-chamber; and on this, resigning his post in the exchequer, he was succeeded therein by Richard Weston, afterwards earl of Portland. After the demise of king James, he continued in the privy-council of Charles I. in the beginning of whose reign he founded a historylecture in the university of Cambridge, and endowed it with a salary of lOOl. per annum. He did not long survive this last act of generosity; for, though he was a munificent patron of learning and learned men, he at last fell a sacrifice to the extraordinary outrage of a discontented domestic. The account we have of this fatal event is, that his lordship, neglecting to reward one Ralph Heywood, who had spent the greatest part of his life in his service, this attendant expostulated thereupon with his lordship in his bed-chamber, at Brook-house in Holborn; and, being severely reproved for it, presently gave his lordship a mortal stab in the back with a knife or sword; after which he withdrew into another room, and, locking the door, murdered himself with the same weapon. He died September 30, 1628, and his corpse being wrapt in lead, was conveyed from Brook-house, Holborn, to Warwick; where it was interred on the north side of the choir of St. Mary’s church, there, in his own vault, which had formerly been a chapter-house of the church; and where, upon his monument, there is this inscription: “Fulke Greville, servant to queen Elizabeth, counsellor to king James, and friend to sir Philip Sidney. Tropheum peccati.” He made that dear friend the great exemplar of his life in every thing; and Sidney being often celebrated as the patron of the muses in general, and of Spenser in particular, so we are told, lord Brooke desired to be known to posterity under no other character than that of Shakspeare’s and Ben Jonson’s master, lord-chancellor Egerton and bishop Overal’s patron. His lordship also obtained the office of clarencieux at arms for Mr. Camden, who very gratefulty acknowledged it in his life-time, and at his death left him a piece of plate in his will. He also raised John Speed from a mechanic to be an historiographer.

The Robert Greville, whom we have mentioned as the adopted heir of lord Brooke, was educated by him as became the estate and dignity to which he was to succeed; but when the civil war commenced, he joined the parliament army, in whose cause he had written some treatises, and was killed in battle at Litchfield, in 1643, in the thirtyfilth year of his age. He wrote, i. “The Nature of Tiuth; its union and unity with the soule, which is one in its essence, faculties, acts; one with truth,” Lond. 1641, 12mo, an abstruse piece of metaphysical reasoning, which, however, Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Waliis, professor of geometry, understood so well as to be able to answer it, in 1643. 2. “A Discourse opening the nature of that Episcopacie which is exercised in England,” ibid. 1641, 4to. 3. “Two Speeches, spoken in the Guildhall, London, concerning his majesty’s refusal of a Treaty of Peace,” ibid. 1642. 4. “Answer to the Speech of Philip earl of Pembroke, concerning Accommodation, in the house of lords, Dec. 19, 1642,” printed by order of the house, and reprinted in lord Somers’s tracts; but which appears to have been drawn up by lord Clarendon, as containing the substance of lord Brooke’s sentiments. 5. “Speech at the Election of his captains and commanders at Warwick-castle,” London, 1643.

If lady Jane received this letter in the country, it is probable she did not stay there long after, since some changes happened in the family which must have brought her to town; for, her maternal uncles, Henry and Charles Brandon, both dying at Buckden, the bishop of Lincoln’s palace, of the sweating sickness, her father was created duke of Suffolk, October 1551. Dudley earl of Warwick was also created duke of Northumberland the same day, and in November the duke of Somerset was imprisoned for a conspiracy against him as privy-counsellor. During this interval came the queen-dowager of Scotland from France, who, being magnificently entertained by king Edward, was also, among other ladies of the blood royal, complimented as her grandmother, by lady Jane, who was now at court, and much in the king’s favour. In the summer of 1552 the king made a great progress through some parts of England, during which, lady Jane went to pay her duty to his majesty’s sister, the lady Mary, at Newhall, in Essex; and in this visit her piety and zeal against popery prompted her to reprove the lady Anne Wharton for making a curtesy to the host, which, being carried by some officious person to the ear of the princess, was retained in her heart, so that she never loved lady Jane afterwards; and, indeed, the events of the following year were not likely to work a reconciliation.

Though the writers of his life tell us of some prose piece before it, yet the first production we know of is “Poesie Liriche,” Parma, 1681; which, with “L'Amalasunta,” an opera, printed there the same year, he afterwards made no account of, they being written during the depravity of his taste. In 1687 he published at Rome, “Accademia per musica;” written by order of Christina of Sweden, for an entertainment, which that princess gave to the earl of Castlemain, whom James II. of England sent ambassador to Innocent XI. to notify his accession to the throne, and to implore his holiness’ s assistance in reconciling his three kingdoms to Popery. “L'Endimione di Erilo Cleoneo, pastor Arcade, con un discorso di Bione Crateo al card male Albano. In Roma, 1692.” The queen of Sweden formed the plan of this species of pastoral, and furnished the author with some sentiments, as well as with some lines, which are marked with commas to distinguish them from the rest. The discourse annexed, to point out the beauties of the piece, was written by John Vincent Gravina. “LeRime,” Roma, 1704. In this he declares, that he rejects all his works, which had appeared before these poems, except his “L'Endimione.” “Sei Omelie di M. S. Clemente XI. Spiegate in versi,” Roma, 1712, folio, a very magnificent work, and adorned with cuts, but not properly either a version or a paraphrase, the author having only taken occasion, from some passages in these homilies, to compose verses according to his own genius and taste.

It is not, however, in their style that he wrought, hut he chose for himself his objects and manner of imitation and his various styles exhibit how anxiously he sought for fame at one time imitating Passerotti, at another Carravaggio, and then, stimulated by a remark of A. Cafracci, framing one for himself; the reverse of Carravaggio’s, all gentleness and softness. Skilful in execution, he had no difficulty in imitating whatever he desired his pencil was light, and his touch free and delicate and he took great pains to finish his pictures not with, minute detail, but with great roundness in the figures, correct arrangement of the folds of his draperies, which he perfectly understood, and made great use of in filling up his canvas, and the most careful management of all the inferior parts. The beauty he gave to his females, he sought for in the antique, and the group of Niobe particularly. He has frequently expressed the pathetic and the tender. One of his heads, formerly the property of earl Moira, and now in possession of the venerable president of the royal academy, exhibits our Saviour with the crown of thorns upon his head, and has been admirably engraved by Sharp. It is not possible for painting to go beyond it in the perfect attainment ef its object, the expression of pious resignation under acute suffering of mind and body, with beauty and truth of character. Mr. Fuseli, in his late edition of Pilkington, has. given justly the character of the generality of Guide’s works he says, “his attitudes seldom elevate themselves to the fine expression and graceful simplicity of the face the grace of Guido is the grace of theatre; the mode, not the motive, determines the action: his Magdalens weep to be seen, his Hero throws herself over Leander, Herodias holds the head of her victim, his Lucretias stab themselves, with the studied airs, and ambitious postures, of buskined heroines; it would, however, be unjust not to allow there are exceptions from this affectation in his works. Helen departing with Paris, is one which alone niight atone for every other blemish. In her divine face, the sublime purity of the Niobe is mixed with the charms of the Venus; the wife, the mother, give indeed way to the lover; but spread a soft melancholy which tempers her fervour with dignity. This expression is supported by the careless unconscious elegance of her attitude, whilst that of Paris, stately, courteous, insipid, gives him more the air of an ambassador, attending her as proxy, than that of a lover carrying her off for himself.”

, an English mathematician, was of Welsh extraction, from a family at Gunter’s-town, in Brecknockshire but his father being settled in the county of Hereford, had this son born to him there in 1581. As he was a gentleman possessed of a handsome fortune, he thought proper to give him a liberal education, to which end he was placed by Dr. Busby at Westminster-school, where he was admitted a scholar on the foundation, and elected student of Christ-church, Oxford, in 1599. Having taken both his degrees in arts at the regular times, he entered into orders, and became a preacher in 1614, and proceeded B. D. November 23, 1615. But genius and inclination leading him chiefly to mathematics, he applied early to that study; and about 1606, merited the title of an inventor by the new projection of his sector, which he then described, together with its use, in a Latin treatise; and several of the instruments were actually made according to his directions. These being greatly approved, as being more extensively useful than any that had appeared before, on account of the greater number of lines upon them, and those better contrived, spread our author’s fame universally their uses also were more largely and clearly shewn than had been done by others and though he did not print them, yet many copies being transcribed and dispersed abroad, carried his reputation along with them, recommended him to the patronage of the earl of Bridgewater, brought him into the acquaintance of the celebrated Mr. Oughtred, and Mr. Henry Briggs, professor of geometry at Gresham; and thus, his fame daily increasing the more he became known, he was preferred to the astronomy-chair at Gresham-college, on March 6, 1619.

, an eminent clergyman of the presbyterian church of Scotland, descended from the ancient family of Pitforthy in the shire of Angus, was horn on his father’s estate of Pitforthy in 1620, and educated at the university of St. Andrew’s under his cousin, professor James Guthrie, who was executed at the restoration for his opposition to episcopal government, although he had with equal zeal opposed the usurpation of Cromwell. Under this tutor our author became a very hard student, well versed in the classical languages; and after taking his degree of M. A. studied divinity under professor Samuel Rutherford. He became afterwards private tutor to the eldest son of the earl of London, chancellor of Scotland, and in November 1644 was presented to the church of Finwick, a newly erected parish, and consisting of inhabitants rude and unacquainted with religion. The pains he bestowed upon them, however, soon produced a favour able change in their manners, and his easy and affable address and example had a remarkable elfcct upon them. With this view, as he was fond of fishing, fowling, and other field sports, he took those opportunities to mix among his people, and recommend morals and piety. He was not less happy in curbing the insolence of Cromwell’s army when in Scotland, by addressing them with an eloquence and air of authority which they could not resist. In the mean time his great fame as a preacher procured him invitations from the more eligible churches of Renfrew, Linlithgow, Stirling, Glasgow, and Edinburgh, to all which he preferred his humble situation at Finwick, and continued among his parishioners until 1664, when he was ejected by Burnet, archbishop of Glasgow, notwithstanding the solicitations of the earl of Glencairn, then chancellor of Scotland, and other persons of rank, who represented Mr. Guthrie as an excellent man and well affected to government. He did not long survive this sentence, dying Oct. Jo, 1665. Some spurious publications were attributed to him; but the only genuine work extant is his “Christian’s Great Interest,” which has long been a standard book in Scotland, and has been translated into Dutch and French, and, as reported, into one of the Eastern languages, at the expence of the Hon. Robert Boyle.

William Habington, his eldest son, was born at Hindlip, Nov. 5, 1605, and was educated in the Jesuits’ college at St. Omer’s, and afterwards at Paris, with a view to induce him to take the habit of the order, which he declined. On his return from the continent he resided principally with, his father, who became his preceptor, and evidently sent him into the world a man of elegant accomplishments and virtues. Although allied to some noble families, and occasionally mixing in the gaieties of high life, his natural disposition inclined him to the purer pleasures of rural life. He wa probably very early a poet and' a lover, and in both successful. He married Lucy, daughter of William Herbert, first lord Powis, by Eleanor, daughter of Henry Percy, eighth earl of Northumberland, by Katharine, daughter and coheir of John Neville, lord Latimer. It is to this lady that we are indebted for his poems, most of which were written in allusion to his courtship and marriage. Sha> was the Castara who animated his imagination with tenderness and elegance, and purified it from the grosser opprobria of the amatory poets. His poems, as was not unusual in that age, were written occasionally, and dispersed confidentially. In 1635 they appear to have been first collected into a volume, which Oidys calls the second edition, under the title of “Castara.” Another edition was published in 1640, which is by far the most perfect and correct. The reader to whom an analysis may be necessary, will find a vsry judicious one in the last voluai of the “Censura Literaria.” His other works are, the “Queen of Arragon,” a tragi-comedy, which was acted at court, and at Black-friars, and printed in 1640. It has since been reprinted among Dodsley’s Old Plays. The author having communicated the manuscript to Philip earl of Pembroke, lord chamberlain of the household to king Charles I. he caused it to be acted, and afterwards published against the author’s consent. It was revived, with the revival of the stage, at the restoration, about 1666, when a new prologue and epilogue were furnished by the author of Hudibras.

In 1625 he was named by the king himself to attend an ambassador in to Germany; but was dissuaded from the journey by being told, that on account of his severe treatment of the Jesuits in his “Loyola,” he might be in danger, though in an ambassador’s train. In 1628, he commenced D. D. and in 1631 was made archdeacon of Bedford, to which charge he usually went once in a year, and frequently exhorted his clergy “to all regular conformity to the doctrine and discipline by law established, without under or overdoing, asserting in his opinion, that puritanism lay on both sides; whosoever did more than the church commanded, as well as less, were guilty of it; and that he only was a true son of the church, who broke riot the boundals of it either way.” His church of St. Andrew being old and decayed, he undertook to rebuild it, and for that purpose got together a great sum of money in stock and subscriptions; but, upon the breaking out of the civil war, this was seized by the parliament, as well as what had been gathered for the repair of St. Paul’s cathedral. In March 1641, he was one of the sub-committee appointed by the house of lords to consult of what was amiss and wanted correction in the liturgy, in hopes by that means to dispel the cloud hanging over the church. He delivered a masterly speech against the bill for taking away deans and chapters, which is published at length in his life by Dr. Plume. In March 1642 he was presented to a residentiary’s place in St. Paul’s, London; but the troubles coming on, he had no enjoyment of it, nor of his rectory of St. Andrew’s. Besides, some of his parishioners there having articled against him at the committee of plunderers, his friend Seltlen told him it was in vain to make any defence; and advised him to retire to Cheam, where he would endeavour to prevent his being molested. He was disturbed here by the earl of Essex’s army, who, marching that way, took him prisoner along with them; but he was soon after dismissed, and from that time lay hid in his retirement at Cheam, where we hear no more of him, except that in 1648-9, he attended in his last moments Henry Rich, earl of Holland, who was beheaded for attempting the relief of Colchester.

Some time before the civil wars broke out, he was called to the bar, and began to make a figure in the world; but, observing how difficult it was to preserve his integrity, and yet live securely, he resolved to follow those two maxims of Pomponius Atticus, who lived in similar times; viz. “To engage in no faction, nor meddle in public business, and constantly to favour and relieve those that were lowest.” He often relieved the royalists in their necessities, which so ingratiated him with them, that he became generally employed by them in his profession. He was one of the counsel to the earl of Strafford, archbishop Laud, and king Charles himself 5 as also to the duke of Hamilton, the earl of Holland, the lord Capel, and the lord Craven. Being esteemed a plain honest man, and of great knowledge in the law, he was equally acceptable to the presbyterians and the loyalists. In 1643 he took the covenant, and appeared several times with other lay -persons among the assembly of divines. He was then in great esteem with the parliament, and employed by them in several affairs, particularly in the reduction of the garrison at Oxford; being as a lawyer added to the commissioners named by the parliament to treat with those appointed by the king. In that capacity he was instrumental in saving the university, by advising them, especially the general Fairfax, to preserve that seat of learning from ruin. Afterwards, though no man more lamented the murder of Charles I. he took the oath called “The Engagement;” and, January 1651-2, was one of those appointed to consider of the reformation of the law. Cromwell, who well knew the advantage it would be to have the countenance of such a man as Hale to his courts, never left importuning him, till he accepted the place of one of the justices of the common bench, as it was called; for which purpose he was by writ made serjeant at law January 25, 1653-4. In that station he acted with great integrity and courage. He had at first serious scruples concerning the authority under which he was to act and, after having gone two or three circuits, he refused to sit any more on the crown side that is, to try any more criminals*. He had indeed so carried himself in some trials, that the powers then in being were not unwilling he should withdraw himself from meddling any farther in them; of which Burnet gives the following instance. Soon after he was made a judge, a trial was brought before him, upon the circuit at Lincoln, concerning the murder of one of the townsmen who had been of the king’s army, and was killed by a soldier of the garrison there. He was in the field with a fowling-piece on his shoulder, which the soldier seeing, he came to him, and said, he was acting

, a very eminent, pious, and learned English prelate, was born July 1, 1574, in Bristow-park, within the parish of Ashby de la Zouch, in Leicestershire. His father was an officer to Henry earl of Huntingdon, then president of the North, and under him had the government of that town, which was the chief seat of the earldom. His mother was of the family of the Bembridge’s, and according to his own account, a woman of great piety. His parents had twelve children, and therefore, although disposed to bring up Joseph for the church, were inclined from motives of oeconomy to confine his education to the care of a private tutor. But Mr. Gilby, fellow of Emanuel college, hearing of this design, represented its disadvantages in such a manner to Mr. Hall’s eldest son, that the latter importuned his father that Joseph might be sent to the university, and generously offered to sacrifice part of his inheritance, rather than prevent his brother from enjoying the advantages of academical education. His father, struck with this mark of brotherly affection, declared that, whatever it might cost him, Joseph should be sent to the university.

He was accordingly removed to Cambridge at the age of fifteen, and admitted of Ernanuel college, of which he was chosen scholar, and took the degree of bachelor of arts. His residence, however, was not without its difficulties. In 1591, as his expences began to be felt in so large a family, he was recalled to fill the office of schoolmaster at Ashby de la Zouch, and would have been prevented from ever returning to college, had not Mr. Edmund Sleigh of Derby, an uncle by marriage, offered to defray half the expences of his residence at Cambridge, until he should attain the degree of master of arts; and this he liberally performed. Another difficulty still presented itself. In 1395, his rholar&hip exnir*^ a^rj +h Q statutes of the college permitting only one person of a county to become fellow, he was about to leave the university a second time, when the earl of Huntingdon prevailed on his countryman and tutor, Mr. Gilby, to resign his fellowship, on promise of being made his lordship’s chaplain, and receiving higher promotion Mr. Gilby consented, and the days of examination for the fellowship were appointed; but before two of the three days of trial had expired, news was brought of the sudden death of the earl, by which event Mr. Gilby was likely to be deprived of the conditions on which he resigned. Alarmed at this, our author, with very honourable feeling, went to the master of the college, Dr. Chaderton, and stated the case, offering at the same time to leave college, and hoping that Mr. Gilby could be re-admitted. The latter, however, he was told, could not take place, as the fellowship had been declared void, and the election must proceed whether he continued to be a candidate or not. Mr. Hall accordingly went to the third examination, and was unanimously chosen.

and still fewer that his poems were Wood’s Ath. vpl. I. Fasti. 155. Halsted, notwithstanding the remonstrances of the incumbent, who assured him that with such a deduction it was an incompetent maintenance, and that he had been obliged to write books in order to be able to buy some. These arguments not prevailing, he was about to resign Halsted, when Edward lord Denny, afterwards earl of Norwich, gave him the donative of Waltham Holy Cross in Essex. About the same time (1612) he took the degree of doctor in divinity.

, earl of Orkney, a brave officer, was the fifth son of William earl of Selkirk, and very early embraced the profession of arms. In March 1689-90 he was made a colonel, and distinguished himself with particular bravery at the battle of the Boyne, under king William, July 1, 1690; and those of Aghrim, July 12, 1691; of Steinkirk, Aug. 3, 1692, and of Lauden, July 19, 1693. Nor did he appear to less advantage at the sieges of Athlone, Limerick, and Namur. His eminent services in Ireland and Flanders through the whole course of the war, recommended him so highly to the favour of William III. that on Jan. 10, 1695-6, he was advanced to the dignity of a peer of Scotland, by the title of earl of Orkney. His lady, likewise, whom he married in 1695, and who was the daughter of sir Edward Villiers, knight-marshal, and a special favourite with the king, received a grant under the great seal of Ireland, of almost all the private estates of the abdicated king James, of very considerable value. Upon the accession of queen Anne, the earl of Orkney was promoted to the rank of majorgeneral March 9, 1701-2, to that of lieutenant-general Jan. 1, 1703-4, and in February following was made knight of the thistle. In 1704 his lordship was at the battle of Blenheim, which was crowned with so important a victory in favour of the allies; and he made prisoners of war a body of 1300 French officers and 12,000 common soldiers, who had been posted in the village of Blenheim. In July 1705, he was detached with 1200 men to march before the main body of the army, and to observe the march of a great detachment of the enemy, which marshal Villars had sent off to the Netherlands, as soon as he found the march of the allies was directed thither; and his lordship used such expedition, that he seasonably reinforced the Dutch, and prevented marshal Villeroy’s taking the citadel of Liege, about which his troops were then formed. The next month his lordship marched with fourteen battalionsof foot, and twenty-four squadrons of horse, to support the passage over the Dyle, which was immediately effected. In July 1706, he assisted at the siege of Menin; and on Feb. 12, 1706-7, was elected one of the sixteen peers for Scotland, to sit in the first parliament of Great Britain after the union. The same year he again served under the duke of Marlborough in Flanders; being in the latter end of May detached with seven battalions of foot from Meldart to the pass of Louvain, in order to preserve the communication with it, and on that side of Flanders; which his lordship did, and abode there during the time of the allied army’s encamping at Meldart. When they decamped on Aug. 1, to Nivelle, within two leagues of the French army, and a battle was expected, the earl, with twelve battalions of foot, and thirty squadrons of horse and dragoons, and all the grenadiers of the army, advanced a little out of the front of it, and lay all night within cannon-shot of the enemy; and the next morning charged their rear in their retreat for above a league and a half, and killed, disabled, and caused to desert, above 4000 of them. In the beginning of September following his lordship was again detached with another considerable body of troops to Turquony, under a pretence of foraging by the Scheld, but really with the design of drawing the enemy thither from Tournay to battle, and getting between them and the city. In November 1708, the earl commanded the van of the army at the passing of the Scheld; and in June the year following, assisted at the siege of Tournay, and took St. Amand and St. Martin’s Sconce; and on Aug. 20, was detached from the camp at Orchies towards St. Guilliampass, on the river Heine, towards the northward of Moms, in order to attack and take it, for the better passage of the army to Mons; and on the 30th of that month, was present at the battle of Malplaquet. In 1710 he was sworn of the privy-council; and made general of foot in Flanders, and in 1712 colonel of the royal regiment of foot-guards called the fuzileers, and served in Flanders under the duke of Ormond. In October, 1714, his lordship was appointed gentleman extraordinary of the bed-chamber to king George I. and on Dec. 17 following, governor of Virginia. He was likewise afterwards constable, governor and captain of Edinburgh castle, lord-lieutenant of the county of Clydesdale, and field-marshal. He died in London, at his house in Albemarle-street, Jan, 29, 1736-7.

, usually reckoned the first Scotch reformer, is said by all the Scotch ecclesiastical writers to have been of royal descent, as by his father, he was nephew to James Hamilton, earl of Arran, and by his mother, nephew to John Stewart, duke of Albany: Mackenzie, however, who cannot be suspected of any wish to degrade his countryman, maintains that his father was only a bastard brother of the earl of Arran, and his mother a bastard sister of the duke of Albany. Whatever truth there may be in this, it appears that he had great family interest, and being possessed of uncommon abilities, was intended for the higher offices in the church, had he not become its decided enemy. He was born in 1503, and after completing the usual course of studies at the university of St. Andrew’s, went to Germany, where he was, according to Dempster, made a professor in the university of Marpurg, which was newly erected by Philip, Landgrave of Hesse. During his residence abroad he imbibed the opinions of Luther, Melanchthon, and other reformers; and on his return to his own country, where he had been made abbot of Ferme, or Feme, in Ross-shire, he spared no pains in exposing what he considered as the corruptions of the Church of Rome, and the many errors, both in doctrine and practice, that had crept into the Christian religion.

, a statesman of some note, was the only son of William Hamilton, esq. an advocate of the court of session in Scotland, who after the union came to London, and was admitted to the English bar. His son was born in Lincoln’s-inn Jan. 28, 1728-9, and was educated at Winchester school, and at Oriel college, Oxford, where he was admitted a gentleman commoner, March 1, 1744-5. During his residence at Oxford, it is supposed he wrote those poems which were printed in 1750, 4to> for private distribution only, but have lately been published by Mr. Malone. On leaving Oxford, he became a member of Lincoln’s-inn, with a view to study the law; but on his father’s death in 1754, he betook hifnself to a political life, and in the same year was chosen, member of parliament for Petersfield in Hampshire. His first effort at parliamentary eloquence was made Nov. 13, 1755, when, to use the words of Waller respecting Denham, “he broke out, like the Irish rebellion, threescore thousand strong-, when nobody was aware, or in the least suspected it.” Certainly no first speech in parliament ever produced such an effect, or acquired such eulogies, both within and without the house of commons. Of this speech, however, no copy remains. For many years it was supposed to have been his only attempt, and hence the familiar name of Single-speech was fixed upon him; but he spoke a second time, Feb. 1756, and such was the admiration which followed this display of his talents, that Mr, P\>jc, then one of the principal secretaries of state, procured him to be appointed, in April of the same year, one of the lords of trade. At this board he sat five years without ever exerting his oratorical talents; and in 1761 accepted the office of principal secretary to George earl of Halifax, then appointed lord-lieutenant of Ireland. In the Irish parliament, as he filled an office of responsibility, it was necessary for him to support the measures of administration; and accordingly in 1761 and 1762, he made five speeches on various occasions, which fully gratified the expectations of his auditors. Mr. Hamilton continued secretary to the succeeding lord lieutenant, Hugh earl of Northumberland, in 1763, but it is believed his exertions in that session were less splendid and less frequent; and before it concluded, on some disgust he resigned his office. On his return to England, and for a long time afterwards, he meditated taking an active part in the political warfare of the house of commons, but he never again addressed the chair, though he was chosen into every new parliament that was summoned from that time till May 1796, a little before his death. In this period, the only office hg filled was that of chancellor of the exchequer in Ireland, which he held from Sept. 1763 to April 1784. During this interval he was one of those on whom common rumour bestowed the authorship of Junius’s letters, and perhaps never was any rumour so completely devoid of a probable foundation. He died at his house in Upper Brook-street, July 16, 1796, and was buried in the chancel vault of the church of St. Martin in the Fields. In 1803, Mr. Malona published his works under the title of “Parliamentary Logic; to which are subjoined two Speeches delivered in the House of Commons in Ireland, and other pieces,” 8vo f with a life of the author prefixed. These speeches give us but a faint idea of the splendid abilities which once so enraptured his hearers, nor does his poetry entitle him to rank above the elegant versifiers of his time. His Parliamentary Logic“is a performance of a more singular cast. It consists of a string of maxims, or rules, for managing a debate in parliament, in which the author appears serious, else we should have supposed parliamentary logic” to imply a ridicule on the language of that house. These maxims, however, seem admirably qualified to make a partizan; although we much doubt whether they have a tendency to make that more valuable character, an honest man.

, an historical painter, the son of a Scotch gentleman who resided many years at Chelsea, as deputy to Mr. Robert Adams, the celebrated architect, when clerk of the works to that college, was born in 1750, and sent to Italy, when very young, under the patronage of Mr. Adams. He was there some time under the tuition of Zucchi, the painter of arabesque ornaments at Rome, and although Mr. Edwards thinks he was then too young to receive any material benefit from this tour, it served at least to increase his early taste for the art, and he caught a pleasant manner of painting, much in the style of his master. When he returned to England he became a pupil in the royal academy, and by attention to his studies, acquired considerable employment. He practised in many different ways, mostly history, and frequently arabesque, of which latter kind he executed some decorations at the seat of the late earl of Bute at High Cliff, Hampshire. He sometimes painted portraits, but his manner was not well adapted to that branch, yet his portrait of Mrs. Siddons in the character of lady Randolph (now in the possession of Samuel Whitbread, esq.) was allowed to have great merit. He was much employed by the late alderman Boydell, for his Shakspeare, and by Macklin for his edition of the Bible and of the Poets. In the former his “Woman of Samaria 7 ' deserves much praise. One of his most capital works was a picture of the” Queen of Sheba entertained at a banquet by Solomon," a design for a window in Arundel castle. His manner of painting was light, airy, and pleasant, and he excelled in ornaments to which he gave a propriety, richness, and a classic air. His coloured drawings imitate the fulness of his oil-paintings with more freshness, and, without much labour, are finished with taste. He was elected associate of the royal academy Nov. 8, 1784, and royal academician, February 10, 1789. He died in the vigour though not in the bloom of life, Dec. 2, 1801, of a violent fever of only three days 1 duration, deeply lamented by his friends, and regretted by the public. He was a man of great affability and gentle manners; his politeness covered no insincerity, nor his emulation envy. He was one of the few artists we have personally known who spoke with high respect of his brethren, and was equally respected by them for his amiable temper.

, descended from a family long situated at Somersham-place, in Huntingdonshire, was born in 16u3, and educated at St. John’s college, Cambridge. He was a commissioner of the navy, a good speaker in parliament, had the name of “silver-tongued Hammond” given him by lord Bolingbroke, and was a man of note among the wits, poets, and parliamentary writers, in the beginning of the last century. A volume of “Miscellany Poems,” was inscribed to him, in 1694, by his friend Mr. Hopkins; and in 1720 he was the editor of “A new Miscellany of Original Poems,” in which he had himself no small share. His own pieces, he observes in his preface, “were written at very different times, and were owned by him, lest in a future day they should be ascribed to other persons to their prejudice, as the ‘ Ode on Solitude’ has been, in wrong, to the earl of Roscommon, and as some of the rest have been to others.” He was the intimate friend of Mr. Moyle, and wrote the “Account of his Life and Writings,” prefixed to his works in 1727. Their acquaintance began, through sir Robert Marsham, in the latter end of 1690, soon after Hammond’s return from a short tour into Holland and some parts of Flanders. The places of resort for wits at that period were May n waring' s coifee-house in Fleet-street, and the Grecian near the Temple; where Moyle, having taken a disgust against the clergy, had several friendly disputes with Hammond, and at the same place had a share with Trenchard in writing the argument against a standing army. In Moyle’s works are three valuable letters to Hammond; a copy of verses, by Hammond, to Moyle; another, by Hopkins, to the same; and a third, by Hopkins, to Hammond. Mr. Hammond is said to have married Susanna, a sister of Mr. Walpole, afterwards the celebrated minister of state; but that Mr. Hammond was a different person. Our author married a Miss Clarges, and died in 1738, as Winston informs us, in the Fleet-prison, where he was confined for debt, and so preserved what he had not spent of his estate for his eldest son. His second son is the subject of the following article.

, well remembered as a man esteemed and caressed by the elegant and great, was the second son of Anthony Hammond mentioned above: he was born about 1710, and educated at Westminster-school; but it does not appear that he was of any university, although Mr. Cole claims him for Cambridge, but without specifying his college. When about eighteen, he was introduced to the earl of Chesterfield, and from a conformity of character, manners, and inclinations, soon became particularly attached to his lordship. He was equerry to the prince of Wales, and seems to have come very early into public notice, and to have been distinguished by those whose patronage and friendship prejudiced mankind at that time in favour of those on whom they were bestowed; for he was the companion of Cobham, Lyttelton, and Chesterfield. He is said to have divided his life between pleasure and books; in his retirement forgetting the town, and in his gaiety losing the student. Of his literary hours all the effects are exhibited in his memorable “Love Elegies,” which were written very early, and his “Prologue” not long before his death. In 1733, he obtained an income of 400l. a year by the will of Nicholas Hammond, esq. a near relation. In 1741 he was chosen into parliament for Truro in Cornwall, probably one of those who were elected by the prince’s influence; and died June 2, 1742, at Stowe, the famous seat of the lord Cobham. His mistress long outlived him, and, in 177D, died unmarried, bed-chamber woman to the queen. The character which her lover bequeathed her was, indeed, not likely to attract courtship, yet it was her own fault that she remained single, having had another very honourable offer. The “Elegies” were published after his death; and while the writer’s name was remembered with fondness, they were read with a resolution to admire them. The recommendatory preface of the editor, who was then believed, and is affirmed by Dr. Maty, to be the earl of Chesterfield, raised strong prejudices in their favour; but Dr. Johnson is of opinion that they have neither passion, nature, nor manners, and Dr. Beattie was informed on very good authority that Hammond was not in love when he wrote his “Elegies.”

, a learned English divine, was born at Chertsey in Surrey, August 18, 1605; and was the youngest son of Dr. John Hammond, physician to Henry prince of Wales, svho was his godfather, and gave him his own name. In his infancy he was remarkable for sweetness of temper, the love of privacy, and a devotional turn. He was educated at Eton-school, and sent to Magdalen-college, Oxford, in 1618; of which, after taking his degrees in a regular way, he was elected fellow in July 1625. During the whole of his residence here, he generally spent thirteen hours every day in study; in the course of which he not only went through the usual academic studies, but read almost all the classics, writing emendations, critical remarks, &c. as he proceeded. Having applied himself also with great diligence to the study of divinity, he was admitted to holy orders in 1629, and soon, after took the degree of bachelor of divinity. In 1633 he was presented to the rectory of Penshurst in Kent, by Robert Sidney earl of Leicester. That nobleman, happening to be one of his auditors while he was supplying a turn at court for Dr. Frewen, the president of his college, and one of his majesty’s chaplains, was-so deeply affected with the sermon, and conceived so high an opinion of the preacher’s merit, that he conferred on him this living, then void, and in his gift. Upon this he quitted his college, and went to his cure, where he resided as long as the times permitted him, punctually performing every branch of the ministerial function in the most diligent and exemplary manner. In 1639 he took the degree of D. D.; in 1640, was chosen one of the members of the convocation, called with the long parliament, which began that year; and, in. 1643, made archdeacon of Chichester by the unsolicited favour of Dr. Brian Duppa, then bishop of Chichester, and afterwards of Winchester. The same year also he was named one of the assembly of divines, but never sat amongst them.

In the beginning of the national troubles he continued undisturbed at his living till the middle of July 1643; but, joining in the fruitless attempt then made atTunbridge in favour of the king, and a reward of 100l. being soon after promised to the person that should produce him, he was forced to retire privily and in disguise to Oxford. Having procured an apartment in his own college, he sought that peace in retirement and study which was no where else to be found. Among the few friends he conversed with was Dr. Christopher Potter, provost of Queen’s college; by whose persuasion it was, that he published his “Practical Catechism,” in 1644. This was one of the most valuable books published at that time; but great objections were raised against it by fifty-two ministers within the provincQ, of London; and especially by the famous Francis Cheynell, on account of its containing Arminian tenets. Hammond, however, defended his book, and the same year and the following, published several useful pieces, adapted to the times. In December of the same year he attended as chaplain the duke of Richmond and earl of Southampton; who were sent to London by Charles I. with terms of peace and accommodation to the parliament; and when a treaty was appointed at Uxbridge, he appeared there as one of the divines on the king’s side, where he managed, greatly to his honour, a dispute with Richard Vines, one of the presbyterian ministers sent by the parliament.

, of Hamden, in Buckinghamshire, a celebrated political character in the reign of Charles I. was born at London in 1594. He was of as ancient (Whitlocke says the ancientest) extraction as any gentleman in his county; and cousin-german to Oliver Cromwell, his father having married the protector’s aunt. In 1609 he was sent to Magdalen college in Oxford whence, without taking any degree, be removed to the inns of court, and made a considerable progress in the study of the law. Sir Philip Warwick observes, that “he had great knowledge both in scholarship and the law.” In his entrance into the world, he is said to have indulged himself in all the licence of sports, and exercises, and company, such as were used by men of the most jovial conversation; but afterwards to have retired to a more reserved and austere society, preserving, however, his natural cheerfulness and vivacity. In the second parliament of king Charles, which met at Westminster, February 1625-6, he obtained a seat in the house of commons, as he also did in two succeeding parliaments; but made no figure till 1636, when he became universally known, by a solemn trial at the king’s bench, on his refusing to pay the ship-money. He carried himself, as Clarendon tells us, through this whole suit with such singular temper and modesty, that he obtained more credit and advantage by losing it, than the king did service by gaining it. From this time he soon grew to be one of the most popular men in the nation, and a leading member in the long parliament. “The eyes of all men,” says the same writer, “were fixed upon him as their pater patrite, and the pilot that must steer the vessel through the tempests and rocks which threatened it.” After he had held the chief direction of his party in the house of commons against the king, he took up arms in the same cause, and was one of the first who opened the war by an action at a place called Brill, a garrison of the king’s, on the edge of Buckinghamshire, about five miles from Oxford. He took the command of a regiment of foot under the earl of Essex, and shewed such skill and bravery, that, had he lived, he would; probably, soon have been raised to the post of a general. But he was cut off early by a mortal wound, which he received in a skirmish with prince Rupert, at Chalgrove-field, in Oxfordshire, where, it is generally reported, he was shot in the shoulder with a brace of bullets, which broke the bone, June 18, 1643; and, after suffering much pain and misery, he died the 24th, an event which affected his party nearly as much as if their whole army had been defeated . “Many men observed,” says Clarendon, “that the field in which this skirmish was, and upon which Hampden received his deathwound, namely, Chalgrove-field, was the same place in which he had first executed the ordinance of the militia, and engaged that county, in which his reputation was very great, in this rebellion: and it was confessed by the prisoners that were taken that day, and acknowledged by all, that upon the alarm that morning, after their quarters were beaten up, he was exceeding solicitous to draw forces together to pursue the enemy; and, being a colonel of foot, put himself amongst those horse as a volunteer, who were first ready, and that, when the prince made a stand, all the officers were of opinion to stay till their body came up, and he alone persuaded and prevailed with them to advance: so violently did his fate carry him to pay the mulct in the place where he had committed the transgression about a year before. This was an observation made at that time;” but lord Clarendon does not adopt it as an opinion of his own.

Handel was now settled in England, and well provided for. The first three years he was chiefly, if not constantly, at the earl of Burlington’s, where he frequently met Pope. The poet one day asked his friend Arbuthnot, of whose knowledge'in music he had an high idea, what was his real opinion of Handel, as a master of that science? who re-, plied, “Conceive the highest you can of his abilities, and they are much beyond any thing that you can conceive.” Pope nevertheless declared, that Handel’s finest things, so untoward were his ears, gave him no more pleasure than the airs of a common ballad. The two next years Handel spent at Cannons, then in its glory, and composed music for the chapel there. About this time a project was formed by the nobility for erecting an academy in the Haymarket; the intention of which was to secure a constant supply of operas, to be composed by Handel, and to be performed under his direction. For this purpose the sum of 50,000^. was subscribed, the king subscribing lOOOl. and a society was formed called “the Royal Academy.” Handel immediately was commissioned to go to Dresden in quest of singers, whence he brought Senesino and Duristanti. At this time Buononcini and Attilto, whom we have mentioned before, composed for the opera, and had a strong party in their favour, which produced a violent opposition, ridiculed by Swift and the other wits of the time, although of great importance to the fashionable world; but at last the rival composers and performers were all united, and each was to have his particular part.

, a benevolent and amiable character, was born at Portsmouth in 1712. He was at a very early age bound apprentice to a merchant at Lisbon, and afterwards connected himself with a mercantile house at Petersburgh, in consequence of which he was induced to travel into Persia. On leaving Russia with an independent fortune, he returned to his own country, and passed the remainder of his life as a private gentleman, honourably to himself and useful to the world. In 1753, he published an account of his travels through Russia into Persia, and back again through Russia, Germany, and Holland. To this work also was added an account of the revolutions of Persia during the present century. His other publications are very numerous; most of them were well received, and all of them calculated to prove him an excellent citizen and liberal-minded man. The institution of the Marine Society, justly attributed to his activity and benevolence, was the favourite object of Mr. Han way’s care; and in 1758, he was also particularly instrumental in the establishment of the Magdalen charity. His public spirit, and, above all, his disinterestedness, were so conspicuous, that a deputation of the principal merchants in London waited upon the earl of Bute, when prime minister, and represented to him that an individual like Mr. Hanway, who had done so much public good to the injury of his private fortune, was deserving of some signal mark of the public esteem. He was accordingly made a commissioner of the navy, a situation which he held more than twenty years, and, when he resigned, he was allowed to retain the salary for life, on account of his known exertions in the cause of universal chanty. To enumerate the various instances in which the benevolent character of his heart was successfully exerted, would be no easy task. Sunday-schools in a great measure may look upon' Mr. Hanway as their father; the chimney-sweepers’ boys are much indebted to his humanity; and perhaps there never was any public calamity in any part of the British empire which he did not endeavour to alleviate. So greatly and so universally was he respected, that when he died, in 1786, a subscription of many hundred pounds was raised to erect a monument to his memory. The great character of his numerous works is a strong masculine spirit of good sense, and a very chaste simplicity. In his private life he was remarkable for the strictest integrity of conduct, and for a frankness and candour which naturally inspired confidence. The number of his publications amounted to almost seventy, a catalogue of which is annexed to his Life by Mr. Pugh, a work highly edifying and entertaining.

, one of our old English historians, descended from a reputable northern family, was born in 1373, and at the age of twelve was admitted into the family of sir Henry Percy, eldest son to the earl of Northumberland, familiarly known by the name of Harry Hotspur, on account of his impatient spirit. He was one of the most esteemed warriors of his time, active and enterprising, had a large vassalry, numerous partizans, and unlimited authority. His household, as lord of the east march of England, was constantly held at Berwick^ upon-Tweed. Harding, it appears, was with his patron, as a volunteer, in the battles of Homildon and Cokelawe. After the death of Percy, he enlisted under the banners of sir Robert Umfravile, with whom he had fought at Horoildon, and who was connected with the Percies by the ties of affinity as well as those of arms. In 1405, when king Henry IV. reduced the fortresses of lord Bardolph and the earl of Northumberland, sir Robert Umfravile’s services in the expedition were rewarded with the castle of Warkworth, under whom Harding became the constable. How long he remained at Warkworth does not appear, but his knowledge of Scottish geography seems soon to have engaged him in the secret service of his country, In 1415 we find him attendant on the king at Harfleur, and his journal of the march which preceded the memorable battle of Agincourt forms one of the most curious passages among the additions to the late reprint of his Chronicle. In 1416 he appears to have accompanied the duke of Bedford to the sea-fight at the mouth of the Seine. In 1424 he was at Rome, and employed partly in inspecting “the great Chronicle of Trogus Pompeius;” but soon after he was again employed in collecting documents for ascertaining the fealty due from the Scottish kings, which seems to have been attended with some personal danger. He has even been accused of forging deeds to answer his royal master’s purpose; but the truth of this charge cannot now be ascertained.

, third and last baron of that name and family, descended from John, younger brother to sir Nicholas Hare, baronet, master of the rolls, and privy-counsellor to Henry VIII. (both sons to Nicholas Hare of Homersfield, in the county of Suffolk, the elder branch being seated at Stow Bardolph, in Norfolk) was born at Blechingley, in Surrey, May 10, 1693; educated at Enfield, under Dr. Uvedale, who had also the honour of educating, among many other eminent men, the late earl of Huntingdon, and sir Jeremy Sambrooke, bart. After the death of his grandfather, Hugh lord Colerane, in 1708, he succeeded to the title, and was admitted a gentleman commoner of Corpus Christi college, Oxford, under the tuition of Dr. Rogers, who afterwards married Lydia, one of his lordship’s sisters . A lyric poem by lord Colerane appeared in the “Academiae Oxoniensis Comitia Philologica, 1713,” and in the “Musaj Anglicanae,” vol. III. p. 303, under the title of “Musaruin oblatio ad reginam.” Dr. Basil Kennet, who succeeded Dr. Turner in the presidency of that society, inscribed to his lordship an epistolary poem on his predecessor’s death. He was a great proficient in the learned languages, particularly the Greek; and eminently versed in history, both civil and ecclesiastical. He was grand master of the society of free-masons, and had made the tour of Italy three times; the second time with Dr. Con yers Middle ton, about 1723, in which he made a noble collection of prints and drawings of all the antiquities, buildings, and pictures in Italy; given after his decease to Corpus Christi college. The esteem in which he was held by the literati procured him admittance into the Republica Literaria di Arcadia, and the particular intimacy of the marquis Scipio Maffei; who afterwards visited him at his ancient manor and seat at Tottenham, in Middlesex. His lordship died at Bath, Aug. 4, 1749; and was buried in the family vault at Tottenham, built, with the vestrv, by his grandfather. His very valuable collection of prints relative to English antiquities, with a portrait of him when a young man, by Richardson, were obtained after his death by Mr. Henry Baker for the Society of Antiquaries. His books were sold to T. Osborne, who detained some of the family papers, which were with difficulty recovered from him. The pictures, bronzes, marble, tables, urns, vases, and other antiquities, were sold by auction, March 13 and 14, 1754, for 904l. 135. 6d. The coins, it is supposed, were disposed of privately. His lordship married in 1717, Anne, only daughter of John Hanger, esq. by whom he had a fortune of 100,000l. but she, having unaccountably left him within three years, and resisted every effort of his to recall her, after twenty more years he formed a connexion with a foreign lady, Miss Duplessis, by whom he had a natural daughter, Henrietta Rosa Pevegrina, born in Italy, and afterwards naturalized. She was married in 1764 to James Townsend, esq. alderman of Bishopsgate ward, who in her right -enjoyed the extensive manor of Tottenham, and repaired the family seat, commonly called Bruce-castle, from having anciently belonged to theBruces earls of Huntingdon, which had been considerably modernized in the close of the seventeenth century. It is now the property of William Curtis, esq. son to sir William Curtis, bart.

, afterwards earl of Oxford and earl Mortimer, and lord high treasurer in the reign of queen Anne, was eldest son of sir Edward Harley, and born at London, in Bow-street, Covent Garden, December 5, 1661. He was educated under the rev. Mr. Birch, at Shilton, near Burford, Oxfordshire, which, though a private school, was remarkable for producing at the same time, a lord high treasurer, viz. lord Oxford a lord high chancellor, viz. lord Harcourt a lord chief justice of the common pleas, viz. lord Trevor and ten members of the house of commops, who were all contemporaries, as well at school as in parliament. Here he laid the foundation of that extensive knowledge and learning, which rendered him afterwards so conspicuous in the world. At the revolution, sir Edward Harley, and this his eldest son, raised a troop of horse at their own expence; and, after the accession of king William and queen Mary, he was first chosen member of parliament for Tregony in Cornwall, and afterwards served for the town of Radnor till he was called to the house of lords. In 1690 he was chosen by ballot one of the nine members of the house of commons, commissioners for stating the public accounts; and also one of the arbitrators for uniting the two India companies. In 1694 the house of commons ordered Mr. Harley, November 19, to prepare and bring in a bill “For the frequent meeting and calling of parliaments;” which he accordingly did upon the 22d, and it was received and agreed to by both houses, without any alteration or amendment. On February 11, 1701-2, he was chosen speaker of the house of commons; and that parliament being dissolved the same year by king William, and a new one called, he was again chosen speaker, December 31st following, as he was in the first parliament called by queen Anne.

In 1711, queen Anne, to reward his many eminent services, was pleased to advance him to the peerage of Great Britain, by the style and titles of baron Harley of Wigmore, in the county of Hereford, earl of Oxford, and earl Mortimer, with remainder, for want of issue male of his own body, to the heirs male of sir Robert Harley, knight of the Bath, his grandfather. May 29, 1711, he was appointed lord high treasurer of Great Britain; and August 15th following, at a general court of the South-sea company he was chosen their governor, as he had been their founder and chief regulator. October 26, 1712, he was elected a knight companion of the most noble order of the garter. July 27, 1714, he resigned his staff of lord high treasurer of Great Britain, at Kensington, into the queen’s hand, she dying upon the 1st of August following. June 10, 1715, he was impeached by the House of commons of high-treason, and high crimes and misdemeanors; and on July the 16th was committed to the Tower by the House of lords, where he suffered confinement till July 1, 1717, and then, after a public trial, was acquitted by his peers. He died in the 64th year of his age, May 21, 1724, after having been twice married.

Hewas a great encourager of learning, and the greatest collector in his time of all curious books in print and manuscript, especially those concerning the history of his own country, which were preserved and much augmented by the earl his son, and afterwards purchased for the British Museum. The dispersion, however, of his printed books must ever be regretted. He was also a man of taste and letters himself; and under this character we find a proposal addressed to him by Dr. Swift, “for correcting, improving, and ascertaining the English tongue.” He wrote also “An Essay upon Public Credit,” 1710, inserted in Somers’s Tracts; where are also “An Essay upon Loans,” and “A Vindication of the Rights of the Commons of England,” said to be by him, but signed Humphrey Mackworth. Various letters by him are preserved among the Harleian Mss.; and a few jocular verses in the correspondence between Swift and his friends.

, an ingenious English poet, was the son of John Harrington, esq. who was imprisoned in the Tower, under queen Mary, for holding a correspondence with the lady Elizabeth, with whom he continued in great favour to the time of his death. He also was somewhat of a poet and a translator. Sir John was born at Kelston, near Bath, in Somersetshire, in 1561, and had queen Elizabeth for his godmother. He was instructed in classical learning at Eton-school, and from thence removed to Cambridge, where he took the degree of M. A. In his thirtieth year, 159J, he published a translation of Ariosto’s “Orlando Furioso,” by which he gained a considerable reputation, and for which he is now principally known. Warton says, that although executed without spirit or accuracy, unanimated and incorrect, it enriched our poetryby a communication of new stores of fiction and imagination, both of the romantic and comic species, of gothic machinery and familiar manners. Mr. Harrington was knighted in the field by the earl of Essex, which gave much offence to the queen, who was sparing of such honours, and chose to confer them herself. In the reign of James, he was created knight of the Bath; and, being a courtier, presented a ms. to prince Henry, levelled chiefly against the married bishops, which was intended only for the private use of his royal highness; but, being published afterwards, created great clamour, and made several of the clergy say, that his conduct was of a piece with his doctrines; since he, together with Robert earl of Leicester, supported sir Walter Raleigh in his suit to queen Elizabeth for the manor of Banwell, belonging to the bishopric of Bath and Wells; on a presumption that the right rev. incumbent bad incurred a pr&munire, by marrying a second wife. Wood’s account of it is this "That sir John Harrington, being minded to obtain the favour of prince Henry, wrote a discourse for his private use, entitled * A brief View of the State of the Church of England, as it stood in queen Elizabeth’s and king James’s reign, to the year 1608.' This book is no more than a character and history of the bishops of those times, and was written to the said prince Henry, as an additional supply to the catalogue of bishops of Dr. Francis Godwin, upon occasion of that proverb,

, an eminent mathematician, was born at Oxford, or, as Anthony Wood expresses it, “turn-; bled out of his mother’s womb in the lap of the Oxonian Muses,” in 1560. Having been instructed in grammarlearning in that city, he became a commoner of St. Maryhall, where he took the degree of B. A. in 1579. He had then so distinguished himself, by his uncommon skill in mathematics, as to be recommended soon after to sir Walter Raleigh as a proper preceptor to him in that science. Accordingly, that noble knight became his first patron, took him into his family, and allowed him a handsome pension. In 1585 he was sent over by sir Walter with his first colony to Virginia; where, being settled, he was employed in discovering and surveying that country, in observing what commodities it produced, together with the manners and customs of its inhabitants. He published an account of it under this title, “A brief and true Report of the Newfoundland of Virginia;” which was reprinted in the third voyage of Hakluyt’s “Voyages.” Upon his return to England, he was introduced by his patron to the acquaintance of Henry earl of Northumberland who, “finding him,” says Wood, “to be a gentleman of an affable and peaceable nature, and well read in the obscure pan of learning,” allowed him a yearly pension of 120l. About the same time, Robert Hues, well known by his ' Treatise upon the Globes,“and Walter Warner, who is said to have communicated to the famous Harvey the first hint concerning the circulation of the blood, being both of them mathematicians, received pensions from him of less value, ^o that in 1606, when the earl was committed to the Tower for life, Harriot, Hues, and Warner, were his constant companions, and were usually called the earl of Northumberland’s Magi. They had a table at the earl’s charge, who did constantly converse with them, to divert the melancholy of his confinement; as did also sir Walter Raleigh, who was then in the Tower. Harriot lived for some time at Sion-college, and died in London, July 2, 1621, of a cancer in his lip. He was universally esteemed on account of his learning. When he was but a young man, he was styled by Mr. Hakluyt” Juvenis in disciplinis mathematicis excellens;“and by Camden,” Mathematicus insignis.“A ms. of his, entitled” Ephemeris Chryrometrica,“is preserved in Sion-college library and his” Artis Analytic* Praxis“was printed after his death, in a thin folio, and dedicated to Henry earl of Northumberland. Des Cartes is said to have been obliged to this book for a great many improvements in algebra, which he published to the world as his own, a fact that has been amply proved, in the astronomical ephemeris for 17vS8, by Dr. Zach, astronomer to the duke of Saxe Gotha, from manuscripts which he found in 1784 at the seat of the earl of Egremont at Petworth, a descendant of the above-mentioned earl of Northumberland. These papers also show that Mr. Harriot was an astronomer as well as an algebraist, As to his religion, Wood says, that,” notwithstanding his great skill in mathematics, he had strange thoughts of the Scripture, always undervalued the old story of the Creation of the World, and could never believe that trite position, * Ex nihilo nihil fit.‘ He made a Philosophical Theology, wherein he cast off the Old Testament, so that consequently the New would have uo foundation. He was a deist; and his doctrine he did impart to the earl, and to sir Walter Raleigh, when he was compiling the ’ History of the World,' and would controvert the matter with eminent divines of those times: who, therefore, having no good opinion of him, did look on the manner of his death, as a judgment upon him for those matters, and for nullify, ing the Scripture.“Wood borrowed all this from Aubrey, without mentioning his authority; and it has been answered, that Harriot assures us himself, that when he was with the first colony settled in Virginia, in every town where he came,” he explained to them the contents of the Bible, &c. And though I told them,“says he,” the book materially and of itself was not of such virtue as I thought they did conceive, but only the doctrine therein contained; yet would many be glad to touch it, to embrace it, to kiss it, to hold it to their breasts and heads, and stroke over all their bodies with it, to shew their hungry desires of that knowledge which was spoken of." To which we may add, that, if Harriot was reputed a deist, it is by no means probable that Dr. Corbet, an orthodox divine* and successively bishop of Oxford and Norwich, sending a poem, dated December 9, 1618, to sir Thomas Aylesbury, when the comet appeared, should speak of

, esq. an English gentleman of very uncommon parts and learning, was the eldest son of James Harris, esq. of the Close of Salisbury, by his second wife the lady Elizabeth Ashley, who was third daughter of Anthony earl of Shaftesbury, and sister to the celebrated author of the Characteristics, as well as to the Hon. Maurice Ashley Cooper, the elegant translator of Xenophon’s Cyropaedia. He was born July 20, 1709. The early part of his education was received at Salisbury, under the rev. Mr. Hele, master of the grammar-school, in the Close, who was long known and respected in the West of England as an instructor of youth. From Mr. Hele’s school, at the age of sixteen, he was removed to Oxford, where he passed the usual number of years as a gentleman commoner of Wadham college. His father, as soon as he had finished his academical studies, entered him at Lincoln’s-Inn, not intending him for the bar, but, as was then a common practice, meaning to make the study of the law a part of his education.

, president of Trinity-college, Oxford, was born at Broad Campden, in Gloucestershire, in 1578, and sent for education to the free-school of Chipping-Campden, where owing to irregular conduct of the masters and their frequent changes, he appears to have profited little. From thence he was removed to the city of Worcester, and lastly to Magdalen-hall, Oxford, which was preferred from his relationship to Mr. Robert Lyster, then principal, a man somewhat popishly inclined. Here, however, he had a tutor of a different stamp, a reputed puritan, under whom he studied with great assiduity. Although his parents designed him for the law, as soon as he took his bachelor’s degree, he determined to make trial of his talents for the pulpit, and went to Chipping-Campden, where he preached a sermon which gave satisfaction. He afterwards officiated for a clergyman in Oxfordshire, and in both cases without being ordained. At length he was examined by bishop Barlow, who found him a very accomplished Greek, and Latin scholar, and he had the living of Hanweli given him, near Ban bury, in Oxfordshire. During his residence here he was often invited to London, and preached at St. Paul’s cross, also before the parliament, and on other public occasions. He had also considerable offers of preferment in* London, but preserved his attachment to Hanweli, where he was extremely useful in confirming the people’s minds, then much unsettled, in the reformed religion, as well as in attachment to the church of England, although he afterwards concurred with those who overthrew it so far as to accept preferment under them. On the commencement of the civil war, tjie tranquillity of his part of the country was much disturbed by the march of armies, and himself obliged at last to repair to London, after his premises were destroyed by the soldiery. On his arrival in London, he became a member of the assembly, but appears to have taken no active part in their proceedings.or some time, Hanwell having now been taken from him, he officiated at the parish-church of St. Botolph, Bishopsgate-street, until the rilling powers ordered him to Oxford, as one of the reforming visitors. Here during the visitation of the earl of Pembroke, the chancellor of the university, he was admitted; D. D. and president of Trinity-college in April 1,648, in the room of Dr. Hannibal Potter, who was ejected by the visitors. This situation he retained until his death, Uec. 11, 1658,. in his eightieth year. He was buried in^ Trinity-college chapel, with an inscription from the ele-“gant pen of Dr. Bathurst, one of his successors, and contaming praises of his conduct as a president more than sufficient to answer the charges brought against him by others. The only words Dr. Bathurst is said to have struck out are these in Italics,” per decennium hujus collegii Præses æternum cdebrandus“nor was this alteration made in the epitaph itself, but in Wood’s ms. of the” Hist, et Antiquitates Univ. Oxon.“The only fault of which Dr. Harris can be accused, and which was very common with other heads of houses put in by the parliamentary visitors, was taking exorbitant fines for renewals of college leases, by which they almost sold out the whole interest of >the college in such estates. On the other hand he appears to have made some liberal grants of money to the posterity of the founder, sir Thomas Pope.” One is surprized,“says Warton,” at those donations, under the government of Dr. Robert Harris, Cromwell’s presbytenan president. But Harris was a man of candour, and I believe a majority of the old loyal fellows still remained.“Durham, the author of Harris’s life, gives him the character of” a man of admirable prudence, profound judgment, eminent gifts and graces, and furnished with all qualifications which might render him a complete man, a wise governor, a profitable preacher, and a good Christian." He appears to have very little relished some of the innovations of his time, particularly that easy and indiscriminate admission into the pulpits, which filled them with illiterate enthusiasts of every description. His works, consisting of sermons and pious treatises, were collected in 1 vol. fol. published in 1654.

, a young gentleman high in esteem, and (as Swift expresses it) “a little pretty fellow, With a great deal of wit, good sense, and good nature,” was educated at Winchester, and was afterwards of New college, Oxford, of which he became a fellow. He appears to have been employed in private tuition, which was not a very profitable employment. He had no other income than 40l. a year as tutor to one of the duke of Queensbury’s sons. In this employment he fortunately attracted the favour of Dr. Swift, whose generous solicitations with Mr. St. John obtained for him the reputable employment of secretary to lord Raby, ambassador at the Hague, and afterwards earl of Stafford. A letter of his, whilst at Utrecht, dated December 16, 1712, printed inthedean’s works, informs us that his office was attended with much vexation and little advantage. Even in Jan. 13, 1713, when he brought over the barrier treaty, and, as Swift says, was the queen’s minister, entrusted in affairs of the greatest importance, he had not a shilling in his pocket to pay his hackney coach. He died soon after this, Feb. 14,1712-13. See the “Journal to Stella” of that and the following day, where Dr. Swift laments his loss with the most unaffected sincerity. Mr. Tickell has mentioned him with respect, in his “Prospect of Peace;” and Dr. Young, in the beautiful close of an “Epistle to lord Lansdown,” most pathetically bewails his loss. Dr. Birch, who has given a curious note on Mr. Harrison’s “Letter to Swift,” has confounded him with Thomas Harrison, M. A. of Queen’s college. In the “Select Collection,” by Nichols, are some pleasing specimens of his poetry; which, with “Woodstock-Park” in Dodsley’s “Collection,” and an “Ode to the duke of Marlborough, 1707,” in Duncombe’s “Horace,” are all the poetical writings that are known of this excellent young man, who figured both as an humourist and a politician in the fifth volume of the “Tatler,” of which (under the patronage of Bolingbroke, Henley, and Swift) he was professedly the editor. There was another William Harrison, author of “The Pilgrim, or the happy Convert, a pastoral tragedy,” 1709.

In 1727, he published the volume of poems, already mentioned, dedicated to the gallant and eccentric earl of Peterborough, who was, as the, author acknowledges, the first “who took notice of him.” This volume was ushered in by a very numerous list of subscribers, among whom is the name of Alexander Pope, for four copies. An edition of these poems may be sometimes picked up, dated 1739, and printed for John Cecil, instead of Bernard Lintot, the original publisher. As the same list of subscribers is repeated, it is probable that these were the remaining copies bought at Lintot’s sale (who died in 1737), and published with a new title-page.

In 1730 he published his “Essay on Satire,” 8vo, and in 1735 the “Essay on Reason,” folio, to which Pope contributed very considerably, although no part of his share can be exactly ascertained, except the first two lines. He afterwards published two sermons, the one entitled “The Union and Harmony of Reason, Morality, and Revealed Religion,” preached at St. Mary’s, Oxford, February 27, 1736-7, which excited so much admiration, or curiosity, as to pass through five editions. The other was a “Fastsermon,” preached at the same place, Jan. 9, 1739-40. He was afterwards vice-principal of St. Mary-hall, and in so much reputation as a tutor, that lord Lyttelton, who was one of his earliest friends, recommended him to the earl of Chesterfield, as a private and travelling preceptor to his natural son. With this young man, to whom his lordship addressed those letters which have so much injured his reputation, Mr. Harte travelled from 1746 to 1750. Lord Chesterfield is said to have procured for him a canonry of Windsor, in 1751, “with much difficulty,” arising from his college connections, St. Mary-hall, of which Dr. King was principal, being at that time noted for jacobitism.

Dr. Maty expresses his wonder, that lord Chesterfield should not have chosen a tutor who understood a little better the external decorations which his lordship prized so highly. “Harte,” says this biographer, “had none of the amiable connecting qualifications, which the earl wished in his son.” “It was impossible he should succeed in finishing the polish of his education in the manner lord Chesterfield wished; and it is a matter of astonishment that the earl should not have perceived how much the tutor’s example must have defeated his precepts. The three principal articles he recommended to his son, were his appearance, his elocution, and his style. Mr. Harte, long accustomed to a college life, was too aukward both in his person and address to be able to familiarize the graces with his young pupil. An unhappy impediment in his speech, joined to his total want of ear, rendered him equally unfit to perceive as to correct any defects of pronunciation, a careful attention to which was so strongly recommended in all lord Chesterfield’s letters, as absolutely necessary for an orator.”

, the historian of Kent, was the only son of Edward Hasted of Hawley, in Kent, esq. barrister at law, descended paternally from the noble family of Clifford, and maternally from the ancient and knightly family of the Dingleys of Woolverton in the Isle of Wight. He was born in 1732, and probably received a liberal education; but we have no account of his early life. At one time he possessed a competent landed property in the county of Kent, and sat in the chair for a little while at the quarter sessions at Canterbury. His laborious “History of Kent” employed his time and attention for upwards of forty years; and such was his ardour in endeavouring to trace the descent of Kentish property, that he had abstracted with his own hand, in two folio volumes, all the wills in the prerogative office at Canterbury. His materials, in other respects, appear to have been ample. He had access to all the public offices and repositories of records in London; to the libraries and archives of the archbishop at Lambeth, the dean and chapter of Canterbury, and that at Surrenden in Kent. He had also the ms collections of Thorpe, Le Neve, Warburton, Edmondson, Lewis, Twisden, and many others, with much valuable correspondence with the gentlemen of the county. This work was completed in four folio volumes, 1778 1799. The whole exhibits more research than taste, either in arranging the information, or in style; and it is very defective in notices of manners, arts, or biographical and literary history. Its highest praise is that of a faithful record of the property of the country, and of its genealogical history. During the latter part of his labours, he fell into pecuniary difficulties, which are thought to have prevented his making a proper use of his materials, and obliged him to quit his residence in Kent. After this he lived in obscure retirement, and for some time in the environs of London. A few years before his death, the earl of Radnor presented him to the mastership of the hospital at Corsham in Wiltshire, to which he then removed; and some time after by a decree in the court of chancery, recovered his estates in Kent. He died at the master’s lodge at Corsham, Jan. 14, 1812. By Anne his wife, who died in 1803, Mr. Hasted left four sons and two daughters, of whom the eldest son is vicar of Hollingborne, near Maidstone in Kent, and in the commission of the peace for that county.

, a lady of high rank and higher virtues, the daughter of Theophilus earl of Huntingdon, was born April 19, 1682. Her mother was the daughter of sir John Lewis, of Ledstone, in the county of York. The accession of a large fortune, after the death wf her brother George earl of Huntingdon, enabled her to afford an illustrious example of active goodness and benevolence. She fixed her principal residence at Ledstonehouse, where she became the patroness of merit, the benefactress of the indigent, and the intelligent friend and counsellor of the surrounding neighbourhood. Temperate, chaste, and simple, in her habits, she devoted her time, her fortune, and the powers of her understanding, which was of a high order, to the benefit and happiness of all around her. “Her cares,” says her biographer, “extended even to the animal creation; while over her domestics she presided with the dispositions of apparent, providing for the improvement of their minds, the decency of their behaviour, and the propriety of their manners. She would have the skill and contrivance of every artificer used in her house, employed for the ease of her servants, and that they might suffer no inconvenience or hardship. Besides providing for the order, harmony, and peace of her family, she kept great elegance in and about her house, that her poor neighbours might not fall into idleness and poverty for want of employment; and while she thus tenderly regarded the poor, she would visit those in the higher ranks, lest they should accuse her of pride or superciliousness.” Her system of benevolence was at once judicious and extensive. Her benefactions were not confined to the neighbourhood in which she lived; to many families, in various parts of the kingdom, she gave large annual allowances. To this may be added her munificence to her relations and friends, her remission of sums due to her in cases of distress or straitened circumstances, and the noble hospitality of her establishment. To one relation she allowed five hundred pounds annually, to another she presented a gift of three thousand pounds, and to a third three hundred guineas. She acted also with great liberality towards a young lady whose fortune had been injured in the Southsea scheme: yet the whole of her estates fell short of three thousand pounds a-year. In the manors of Ledstone, Ledsham, Thorpe-arche, and Colhngham, she erected charity-schools; and, for the support of them and other charities she gave, in her life-time. Collingham, Shadwell, and her estate at Burton Salmon. Sht also gave Wool for building a new church at Leeds; but, that this donation might not hurt the mother church there, she afterwards offered a farm near Leeds, of 23l. per annum, and capable of improvement, to be settled on the vicar and his successors, provided the town would do the like; which the corporation readily agreed to, and to her ladyship’s benefaction added lands of the yearly value of 24l. for the application of which they were to be entirely answerable to her kindred This excellent lady also bequeathed at her death considerable sums for charitable and public uses; amongst which were five scholarships in Queen’s college, Oxford, for students in divinity, of 28l. a year each, to be enjoyed for five years, and, as the rents should rise, some of her scholars to be capable, in time, of having 60l. per annum, for one or two years after the first term. She died Dec. 22, 1739. She was fond of her pen, and frequently employed herself in writing; but, previous to her death, destroyed the greater part of her papers. Her fortune, beauty, and amiable qualities, procured her many solicitations to change her state; but she preferred, in a single and independent life, to be mistress 01 her actions, and the disposition of her income.

The first appearance of Hawkwood in Italy-was in the 1*isan service in 1364; after which period he was every where considered as a most accomplished soldier, and fought, as different occasions presented themselves, in the service of many of the Italian states. In 1387 we find him engaged in a hazardous service in defence of the state of Florence. The earl of Armagnac, the Florentine general, having been lately defeated by Venni, the governor of the Siannese, the victors marched to surprize Hawkwood, and encamped within a mile and a half of him. But this cautious general retreated into the Cremonese, and when by several skirmishes he had amused the enemy, who kept within a mile of him, and thought to force his camp, he sallied out and repulsed them with loss. This success a little discouraged them. Venni is said to have sent Hawkwood a fox in a cage, alluding to his situation; to which Hawkwood returned for answer, “the fox knew how to find his way out.” This he did by retreating to the river Oglio, placing his best horse in the rear till the enemy had crossed the river, on whose opposite bank he placed 400 English archers on horseback. The rear by their assistance crossed the river and followed the rest, who, after fording the Mincio, encamped within ten miles of the Adige. The greatest danger remained here. The enemy had broken down the banks of the river, and let out its waters, swoln by the melting of the snow and mountains to overflow the plains. Hawkwood’s troops, surprized at midnight by the increasing floods, had no resource but immediately to mount their horses, and, leaving all their baggage behind them, marched in the morning slowly through the water, which came up to their horses bellies. By evening, with great difficulty, they gained Baldo, a town in the Paduan. Some of the weaker horses sunk under the fatigue. Many of the foot perished with cold, and struggling against the water; many supported themselves by laying hold on the tails of the stronger horses. Notwithstanding every precaution, many of the cavalry were lost as well as their horses. The pursuers, seeing the country under water, and concluding the whole army had perished, returned back. The historian observes, that it was universally agreed no other general could have got over so many difficulties and dangers, and led back his small army out of the heart of the enemy’s country, with no other loss than that occasioned by the floods, which no precaution could have prevented. One of the most celebrated actions of Hawkwood’s life, says Muratori, was this treat, performed with so much prudence and art, that ! deserves to be paralleled with the most illustrious Roman generals; having, to the disgrace of an enemy infinitely superior in number, and in spite of all obstructions from the rivers, given them the slip, and brought off his army safe to Castel Baldo, on the borders of the Paduan. Sir John Hawkwood, as soon as he found himself among his allies, employed himself in refreshing his troop and watching the enemy’s motions.

, a strenuous advocate for Socinianism, was born in 1672, and became assay-master of the mint, and principal tally-writer of the exchequer. In defence of the independence and prerogatives of his office, he printed and privately dispersed a tract entitled “A hriel enquiry relating to the right of his majesty’s Chapel Royal, and the privileges of his servants within the Tower, in a Memorial addressed to the rignt hon. the lord viscount Lonsdale, constable of his majesty’s Tower of London,” 1728, folio. His principal effort in favour of Socicianism was entitled “The Scripture account of the attributes and worship of God, and of the character and offices of Jesus Christ, by a candid Enquirer after Truth.” This he left for the press, and it was accordingly printed by his son, in obedience to his father’s injunctions, but probably against his own inclinations, nor was it generally known as a publication until reprinted in 1790 by the late rev. Theophilus Lindsey. Mr. Haynesdied November 19, 1749. His son Samuel Haynes was educated at King’s college, Cambridge, where he took his degrees of A. B in 1723, A. M. 1727, and D. D. in 1748. He was tutor to the earl of Salisbury, with whom he travelled, and who, in 1737, presented him to the valuable rectory of Hatfield in Hertfordshire. In March 1743, he succeeded to a canonry of Windsor; and in May 1747, he was presented by his noble patron to the rectory of Clothal, which he held by dispensation with Hatfield. He died June 9, 1752. He published “A Collection of State-papers, relating to affairs in the reigns of Henry VIII. Edward VI. Mary and Elizabeth, from 1542 to 1570,” transcribed from the Cecil Mss. in Hatfield-house, 1740, fol.

, an English historian, was educated at Cambridge, where he took the degree of LL. D. In 1599 he published, in 4to, The first Part of the Life and Raigne of King Henrie IV. extending to the end of the first yeare of his raigne,“dedicated to Robert earl of Essex; for which he suffered a tedious imprisonment, on account of having advanced something in defence of hereditary succession to the crown. We are informed, in lord Bacon’s” Apophthegms,“that queen Elizabeth, being highly incensed at this book, asked Bacon, who was then one of her council learned in the law,” whether there was any treason contained in it?“who answered,” No, madam for treason, I cannot deliver my opinion there is any but there is much felony.“The queen, apprehending it, gladly asked,” How and wherein“Bacon answered,” because he had stolen many of his sentences and conceits out of Cornelius Tacitus.“This discovery is thought to have prevented his being put to the rack. Carnden tells us, that the book being dedicated to the earl of Essex, when that nobleman and his friends were tried, the lawyers urged, that” it was written on purpose to encourage the deposing of the queen;“and they particularly insisted on these words in the dedication* in which our author styles the earl” Magnus & present! judicio, & futuri temporis expectatione.“In 1603 he published, in quarto,” An Answer to the first part of a certaine Conference concerning Succession, published not long since under the name of R. Doleman.“Tais R. Doleman was the Jesuit Parsons. In 1610 he was appointed by king James one of the historiographers of Chelsea college, near London, which, as we have often had occasion to notice, was never permanently established. In 1613, he published in 4to,” The Lives of the Three Normans, kings of England; William I; William II.; Henry I.“and dedicated them to Charles prince of Wales. In 1619, he received the honour of knighthood from his majesty, at Whitehall. In 1624, he published a discourse entitled” Of Supremacie in Affaires of Religion,“dedicated to prince Charles, and written in the manner of a conversation held at the table of Dr. Toby Matthews, bishop of Durham, in the time of the parliament, 1605. The proposition maintained is, that supreme power in ecciesiasticaJ affairs is a right of sovereignty. He wrote likewise,” The Life and Raigne of King Edward VI. with the beginning of the Raigne of queen Elizabeth,“1630, 4to, but this was posthumous; for he died June 27, 1627. He was the author of several works of piety, particularly” The Sr.nctuarie of a troubled soul,“Lond. 1616, 12mo;” David’s Tears, or an Exposition of the Penitential Psalms,“1622, 8vo. and te Christ’s Prayer on the Crosse for his Enemies,” 1623. Wood says that “he was accounted a learned and godly man, and one better read in theological authors, than in those belonging to his profession; and that with regard to his histories, the phrase and words in them were in their time esteemed very good; only some have wished that in his” History of Henry IV.“he had not called sir Hugh Lynne by so light a word as Mad-cap, though he were such; and that he had not changed his historical style into a dramatical, where he introduceth a mother uttering a woman’s passion in the case of her son.” Nicolson observes, that “he had the repute in his time, of a good clean pen and smooth style; though some have since blamed him for being a little too dramatical,” Strype recommends that our author “be read with caution that his style and language is good, and so is his fancy but that he uses it too much for an historian, which puts him sometimes on making speeches for others, which they never spake, and relating matters which perhaps they never thought on.” In confirmation of which censure, Kennet has since affirmed him to be “a professed speech-maker through all his little history of Henry IV.”

, a learned and amiable English clergyman, the second son of Thomas Heber, &sq. of Marton-hall in the deanery of Craven, one of the oldest families in that district of Yorkshire, was born at Marton, Sept. 4, 1728, O. S. He had his school education under the rev. Mr. Wilkinson at Skipton, and the rev. Thomas Hunter at Blackburn, Lancashire, afterwards vicar of Weaverham, Cheshire, author of “Observations on Tacitus,” and other works of credit. From Blackburn he ‘removed to the freeschool at Manchester, and on March 4, 1746--7, was entered a commoner of Brazen-nose college; where his elder’ brother, Richard Heber, was at that time a gentleman commoner. In October 1752, his father died, and his mother in the month of March following. He was admitted to the degree of M. A. July 5, 1753, and chosen fellow of the college November 15 following, having previously in that year been ordained deacon by bishop Trevor, Match 18, and priest by bishop Hoadly, Nov. 1, to qualify himself for the fellowship founded in 1533 by William Clifton, subdean of York, for which he was a candidate. He had private pupils when he was only B. A. and was afterwards in much esteem as a public tutor, particularly of gentlemen commoners, having at one time more than twenty of that rank under his care. In July 1766, his brother died, and, as he left no male issue, Mr. Heber succeeded to a considerable estate at Hodnet in Shropshire, which was bequeathed in 1752 to his mother, Elizabeth Heber, by Henrietta, only surviving daughter and heiress of sir Thomas Vernon of Hodnet, bart. who chose for her heir the daughter, in preference to the son, of her niece Elizabeth wife of Richard Atherton, esq. ancestor of Henrietta wife of Thomas lord Liftbrd. Dec. 5, 1766, he was inducted into the rectory of Chelsea, the presentation to which had, several years before, been purchased for him by his brother and another kind relative. He resigned his fellowship July 1, 1767. Finding the rectorial house at Chelsea bad and unfinished, he in part rebuilt and greatly improved the whole, without asking for dilapidations, as the widow of his predecessor, Sloane Elsmere, D. D. was not left in affluent circumstances. In 1770, he exchanged Chelsea for the Upper Mediety of Malpas, Cheshire, into which he was inducted, July 25, on the presentation of William. Drake, esq. of Ainersham, Bucks; whose eldest son, the late William Drake, esq. had been one of his pupils in Brazen-nose college. In the long incumbency, and latterly non-residence, of his predecessor, the honourable and rev. Henry Moore, D. D. chaplain to queen Anue, and son of the earl of Drogheda, who was instituted to Malpas, Nov. 26, 1713, the parsonage was become ruinous. Mr. Heber therefore built an excellent new house, on a new site, which commands an extensive view of Flintshire and Denbighshire, and some other counties.

As to his person, though he was tall and well-made, it was not very pleasing, from an unusual hardness of features. But he was the first to joke upon his own ugliness and he once laid a. wager with the earl of Chesterfield,that within a certain given time his lordship woukl not be able to produce so hideous a face in all Londort. After strict search, a woman was found, whose features were at first sight thought stronger than Heidegger’s; but, upon clapping her head-dress upon himself, he was universally allowed to have won the wager. Jolly, a well-known taylor, carrying his bill to a noble duke; his grace, for evasion, said, “1 never will pay you till you bring me an uglier fellow than yourself!” Jolly bowed and retired, wrote a letter, and sent it by a servant to Heidegger, saying, “his grace wished to see him the next morning on particular business.” Heidegger attended, and Jolly was tjiere to meet him; and in consequence, as soon as Heidegger’s visit was over, Jolly received the cash.

Being once at supper with a large company, when a question was debated, which nation of Europe had the greatest ingenuity; to the surprise of all present, he claimed that character for the Swiss, and appealed to himself for the truth of it. “I was born a Swiss,” said he, “and came to England without a farthing, where I have found means to gain 5000l. a year, and to spend it. Now I defy the most able Englishman to go to Switzerland, and, either to gain that income, or to spend it there.” He died Sept. 4, 1749, at the advanced age of ninety years, at his house a: Richmond, in Surrey, where he was buried. He left behind him one natural daughter, miss Pappet, who was married Sept. 2, 1750, to captain (afterwards admiral sir Peter) Denis. Part of this lady’s fortune was a house at the north-west corner of Queen -square, Ormond -street, which sir Peter afterwards sold to the late Dr. Campbell, and purchased a seat in Kent, pleasantly situated near Westram, then called Valence, but now (by its present proprietor, the earl of Hillsborough) Hill Park.

There was, for a long time, a strict friendship between /Mr. Henley and Richard Norton of Sonthwick in Hampshire, es-q. who was often chosen to represent that county. This gentleman had the same passion for the Muses; and the similarity there was in their pleasures and studies, made that friendship the more firm and affectionate. They both lived to a good age before they married, and perhaps the breach that happened between them was one reason of their entering both into the state of matrimony much about the same time. Mr. Henley married Mary youngest daughter and co-heiress of the lion. Peregrine Bertie, sister to the countess Pawlet, with whom he had 30,000l. fortune, and by her he left several children. Of these Anthony, the eldest, died in 1745; and Robert, the second son, was created baron Henley and lord keeper of the great seal in 1760; became lord chancellor in 1761 and earl of Northington in 1764.

In town, he produced several publications; as, a translation of Pliny’s “Epistles,” of several works of abbe Vertot, of Montfaucon’s “Italian Travels” in folio, and many other books. His principal patron was the earl of Macclesfield, who gave him a benefice in the country, the value of which to a resident would have been above 80/ a year; he had likewise a lecture in the city; and, according to his own account, preached more chanty-sermons about town, was more numerously followed, and raised more for the poor children, than any other preacher, however dignified or distinguished. This popularity, with his enterprising spirit, and introducing regular action into the pulpit, were “the true causes,” he says, “why some obstructed his rising in town, from envy, jealousy, and a disrelish of those who are not qualified to be complete spaniels. For there was no objection to his being tossed into a 'country benefice by the way of the sea, as far as Galilee of the Gentiles (like a pendulum swinging one way as far as the other.)” Not being able to obtain preferment in London, and not choosing to return into the country, he struck out the plan of his Lectures, or Orations, which he puffed with an astonishing vulgarity of arrogance, as may be seen in the following specimen: