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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10. “Letter to Anne Duchess oF York, some few months before her death,” written, 1670. This lady, the daughter of sir Edward Hyde, was instructed in the Protestant religion by our author, while he lived at Antwerp in her father’s family; but afterwards went over to the church of Rome, which occasioned this letter. 11. “Ad Viruni Janum Ulitium Epistolae dute de Invocatione Sanctorum;” written 1659. All the abo've pieces, except the first and second, were printed together in 1683, 4to. 12. “A Letter to the Earl of Anglesey, concerning the Means to keep out Popery, &c.” printed at the end of “A true Account of the whole Proceedings betwixt James Duke of Ormond and Arthur Earl of Anglesey,” 1683. 13. “Vindication of himself from Mr. Baxter’s injurious Reflexions,” &c. 1683. He made also, 14. “An Epitaph for James I. 1625” which was printed at the end of “Spotswood’s History of the Church of Scotland” and is said to have been the author of, 15. “A Character of King Charles II. 1660” in one sheet, 4to.

, an English lawyer, and classical editor, the son of Richard Mounteney of Putney in Surrey, was born there in 1707, and educated at Eton school, whence he went, in 1725, to King’s college, Cambridge, and took his degrees of A. B. in 1729, and A. M. 1735, and obtained a fellowship. He then studied law in the Inner Temple, and became, in 1737, one of the barons of the exchequer in Ireland. In 1743 he distinguished himself in the famous trial between James Annesley, esq. and Richard earl of Anglesey. In 1759 he married the countess dowager of Mount Alexander, and died in 1768. To these scanty memoirs, we have only to add that, in 1731, he published the first edition of his “Select Orations” of Demosthenes, which has been often reprinted, but seldom with accuracy. The best part of the work is the critical observations upon the Ulpian commentary by Dr. Chapman, fellow of King’s college, Cambridge; and perhaps the most curious is his dedication to the deceased sir Robert Walpole, in the edition of 1748. It was to the Walpoles he owed his promotions. In 1748 he also published “Observations on the probable issue of the Congress,” 8vo, printed by Mr. Bowyer. Mounteney’s Demosthenes was long a favourite book with the university students to give up, as it is called, on their examinations, but at Oxford it has of late been rejected by the examiners, as an insufficient proof of classical proficiency.

After some farther exchange of altercation, in which the prevailing opinions of the lawyers and others of that day are decidedly against Mr. Bee’s monopoly of biblical criticism, the parties in 1668 agreed to refer to two of his majesty’s privy-council, the marquis of Dorchester and the earl of Anglesey, who determined in favour of Mr. Pool, and, as it would seem, even to the satisfaction of Mr. Bee, whose name appears, as a vender in the title-page of vol. I. published in 1669. Pool had previously obtained his majesty’s patent, expressed in the same terms as that granted to Bee for the “Critici Sacri,” forbidding the printing of the “Synopsis” either in whole or in part, without his leave, for the space of fourteen years, under penalty of confiscation, &c. This is dated Oct. 14, 1667.

In this fatal conjuncture, and while the war with Spain was yet kept up, anew war was precipitately declared against France; for which no reasonable cause could ever be assigned. It has been said, that the king was hurried into this war, purely from a private motive of resentment in the duke of Buckingham, who, having bfeen in France to bring over the queen, had the confidence to make overtures of love to Anne of Austria, the consort of Lewis XIII.; and that his high spirit was so fired at the repulse he met with on this extraordinary occasion, as to be appeased with nothing less than a war between the two nations. Whatever was the cause, the fleet, which had been designed to have surprised Cadiz, was no sooner returned without success and with much damage, than it was repaired, and the army reinforced for the invasion of France. Here the duke was general himself, and made that unfortunate descent upon the Isle of Rhee, in which the flower of the army was lost. Having returned to England, and repaired the fleet and the army, he was about to sail to the relief of Rochelle, which was then closely besieged by the cardinal Richelieu; and to relieve which the duke was the more obliged, because at the Isle of Rhee he had received great supplies of victuals and some men from that town, the want of both which he laboured under at this time. He was at Portsmouth for this purpose, when he was assassinated by one Felton, on the 23d of August, 1628, in the thirty-sixth year of his age. The particulars of this assassination are well known, being related, at large by lord Clarendon, to whom we refer the reader; but we may subjoin another account, as being circumstantial and curious, and less known. This is given by sir Simonds D'Ewes, in a manuscript life of himself: “August the 23d, being Saturday, the duke having eaten his breakfast between eight and nine o‘clock in the morning, in one Mr. Mason-’ s house in Portsmouth, he was then hasting away to the king, who lay at Reswicke, about five miles distant, to have some speedy conference with him. Being come to the farthef part of the entry leading out of the parlour into the hall of the house, he had there some conference with sir Thomas Frier, a colonel; and stooping down in taking his leave of him, John Felton, gentleman, having watched his opportunity, thrust a long knife, with a white helfc, he had secretly ahout him, with great strength and violence, into his breast, under his left pap, cutting the diaphragm* and lungs, and piercing the very heart itself. The duke having received the stroke, and instantly clapping his right-hand on his sword-hilt, cried out ` God’s wounds! the villain hath killed me.‘ Some report his last words otherwise, little differing for substance from these; and it might have been wished, that his end had not been so sudden, nor his last words mixed with so impious an expression. He was attended by many noblemen and leaders, yet none could see to prevent the stroke. His duchess, and the countess of Anglesey (the wife of Christopher Villiers, earl of Anglesey, his younger brother), being in an upper room, and hearing a noise in the hall, into which they had carried the duke, ran presently into a gallery, that looked down into it $ and there beholding the duke’s blood gush out abundantly from his breast, nose, and mouth (with which his speech, after those his first words, had been immediately stopped), they brake into pitiful outcries, and raised great lamentation. He pulled out the knife himself; and being carried by his servants unto the table, tha,t stood in the same hall, having struggled with death near upon a quarter of an hour, at length he gave up the ghost, about ten o’clock, and lay a long time after he was dead upon the table.”

Among these are, 1. “A Letter to the author of the late Letter out of the country, occasioned by a former Letter to a member of the House of Commons, concerning the bishops lately in the Tower, and now under suspension.” 2. “An Answer to a late pamphlet entitled Obedience and Submission to the present Government demonstrated from bishop Overall’s Convocation Book: with a postscript in answer to Dr. Sherlock’s Case of Allegiance,” London, 1690. 3. “An Answer to Dr. Sherlock’s Vindication of the Case of allegiance due to sovereign powers, which he made in reply to an Answer to a late pamphlet entitled Obedience and Submission to the present government demonstrated from bishop Overall’s Convocation book, with a postscript in answer to Dr. Sherlock’s Case of Allegiance, &c,” London, 1692. 4. “An Answer to a Letter to Dr. Sherlock written in vindication of that part of Josephus’s History, wtiicb gives the account of Jaddas’s submission to Alexander, against the Answer to the piece entitled Obedience and Submission to the present Government,” Lond. 1692. 5. “A Letter out of Suffolk to a friend in London, giving some account of the late sickness and death of Dr. William Sancroft late lord archbishop of Canterbury,” London, 1694. 6. “A Letter out of Lancashire to a friend in London, giving some account of the tryals there. Together with some seasonable and proper remarks upon it; recommended to the wisdom of the Lords and Commons assembled in parliament,” London, 1694. 7. “A Letter to a gentleman elected a knight of the shire to serve in the present parliament,” London, 1694. 8. “Remarks on some late Sermons, and in particular on Dr. Sherlock’s sermon at the Temple December the 30th, 1694, in a letter to a friend. The second edition, with additions. Together with a letter to the author of a pamphlet entitled A Defence of the archbishop’s Sermon, &c. and several other Sermons, &c.” London, 1695. 9. “An account of the proceedings in the House of Commons, in relation to the recoining the clipped money, and falling the price of guineas. Together with a particular list of the names of the members consenting and dissenting; in answer to a Letter out of the country,” London, 1696. 10. “A Vindication of king Charles the Martyr; proving that his majesty was the author of ' Eixav BawiAjw, against a memorandum said to be written by the earl of Anglesey, and against the exceptions of Dr. Walker and others. To which is added a preface, wherein the bold and insolent assertions published in a passage of Mr.JBayle’s Dictionary relating to the present controversy are examined and confuted. The third edition, with large additions together with some original letters of king Charles the First, &c.” Lond. 1711, in 4to. The two former editions were in 8vo, the first printed in 1693, and the second in 1697. 11. “A Defence of the Vindication of king Charles the Martyr; justifying his majesty’s title to Efxcuv 'BacriMw, in answer to a late pamphlet entitled Amyntor,” London, 1699. Mr. Wagstaffe also wrote prefaces before, I. “Symmons’s Restitutus: containing two epistles, four whole sections or chapters, together with a postscript, and some marginal observations, &c. which were perfectly omitted in the first edition of Mr Symmons’s book, entitled” A Vindication of king Charles I. and republished by Dr Hollingworth,“London, 1693. 2.” The devout Christian’s Manual, by Mr. Jones,“London, 1703. 3.” A Treatise of God’s Government, and of the justice of his present dispensations in this world. By the pious, learned, and most eloquent Sulvian, a priest of Marseilles, who lived in the fifth century. Translated from the Latin by R. T. presbyter of the church of England,“London, 1700. These two pamphlets are also of Mr. Wagstaffe’s writing, 1.” The present state of Jacobitism in England,“ibid. 1700;” A second part in answer to the first“which was written by the bishop of Salisbury, &c. &c. Wagstaflfe derived most credit from his endeavours to prove the” Eikon Basilike“to be the genuine production of king Charles; but on this subject we must refer our readers to the life of bishop Gauden, and especially the authorities there quoted. Mr. Wagstaffe had a son who resided at Oxford in the early part of his life, but afterwards went abroad, and resided at Rome many years in the character of protestant chaplain to the chevalier St. George, and afterwards to his son. He was there esteemed a man of very extensive learning. Dr. Townson was acquainted with him at Rome, both on his first and second tour in 1743 and 1768. He lived in a court near a carpenter’s shop, and upon Dr. Townson’s inquiring for him, the carpenter knew of no such person.” He did live somewhere in this yard some years ago.“” I have lived here these thirty years, and no person of such a name has lived here in that time.“But on farther explanation, the carpenter exclaimed,” Oh, you mean // Predicatore; he lives there,“pointing to the place. This Mr. Wagstaffe died at Rome, Dec. 3, 1770, aged seventy-eight. Mr. Nichols has preserved some jeux d‘esprits, and some epitaphs written by him, and there is a letter of his to Tom Hearne, in the ’.' Letters written by Eminent Persons,” lately published at Oxford, 1813, 3 vols. 8vo.