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

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

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

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

Whilst he remained minister of this parish, the providence of God wonderfully interposed for the preservation of his life; for his lodgings being near a powder-mill, Mr. Morgan, a gentleman of the parish, represented to him. the danger of his situation, and at the same time invited him to his own house. Mr. Bull, at first, modestly declined the offer, but after some importunity accepted it; and, not many days after his removal to Mr. Morgan’s, the mill was blown up, and his apartment with it. In this part of his life he took a journey once a year to Oxford, where he stayed about two months, to enjoy the benefit of the public libraries. In his way to and from Oxford, he always paid a visit to sir William Masters, of Cirencester, by which means he contracted an intimacy with Mr. Alexander pregory, the minister of the place, and after some time married Bridget, one of his daughters, on the 20th of May, 1658. The same year he was presented by the lady Pool, to the rectory of Suddington St. Mary, near Cirencester, in Gloucestershire. The next year, 1659, he was made privy to the design of a general insurrection in favour of king Charles II. and several gentlemen of that neighbourhood who were in the secret, chose his house at Suddington for one of the places of their meeting. Upon the restoration, Mr. Bull frequently preached for his father-in-law, Mr. Gregory, at Cirencester, where there was a large and populous congregation; and his sermons gave such general satisfaction, that, upon a vacancy, the people were very solicitous to have procured for him the presentation; but the largeness of the parish, and the great duty attending it, deterred him Trom consenting to the endeavours they were making for that purpose. In 1662, he was presented by the lord high-chancellor, the earl of Clarendon, to the vicarage of Suddington St. Peter, which lay contiguous to Suddington St. Mary, at the request of his diocesan Dr. Nicholson, bishop of Gloucester, both livings not exceeding 100l. a year. When Mr. Bull came first to the rectory of Suddington, he began to be more open in the use of the liturgy of the church of England, though it was not yet restored by the return of the king; for, being desired to marry a couple, he performed the ceremony, on a Sunday morning, in the face of the whole congregation, according to the form prescribed by the book of common -prayer. He took the same method in governing these parishes, as in that of St. George’s, and with the same success; applying himself with great diligence to the discharge of his pastoral functions, and setting the people an admirable example in the government and œconomy of his own family. During his residence here, he had an opportunity of confirming two ladies of quality in the protestant communion, who were reduced to a wavering state of mind by the arts and subtleties of the Romish missionaries. The only dissenters he had in his parish were quakers; whose extravagances often gave him no small uneasiness. In this part of his life, Mr. Bull prosecuted his studies with great application, and composed most of his works during the twenty-seven years that he was rector of Suddington. Several tracts, indeed, which cost him much pains, are entirely lost, through his own neglect in preserving them; particularly a treatise on the posture used by the ancient Christians in receiving the Eucharist; a letter to Dr. Pearson concerning the genuineness of St. Ignatius’ s epistles; a long one to Mr. Glanvil, formerly minister of Bath, concerning the eternity of future punishments; and another, on the subject of popery, to a person of very great quality. In 1669, he published his Apostolical Harmony, with a view to settle the peace of the church, upon a point of the utmost importance to all its members; and he dedicated it to Dn William Nicholson, bishop of Gloucester. This performance was greatly disliked, at first, by many of the clergy, and others, on account of the author’s departing therein from the private opinions of some doctors of the church, and his manner of reconciling the two apostles St. Paul and St. James, as to the doctrine of justification. It was particularly opposed by Dr. Morley, bishop of WinChester; Dr. Barlow, Margaret-professor of divinity at Oxford; Mr. Charles Gataker, a presbyterian divine; Mr. Joseph Truman, a non-conformist minister; Dr. Tully, principal of St. Edmund’s-hall; Mr. John Tombes, a famous anabaptist preacher; Dr. Lewis Du Moulin, an independent; and by M. De Marets, a French writer, who tells us, “that the author, though a professed priest of the church of England, was more addicted to the papists, remonstrants, and Socinians, than to the orthodox party.” Towards the end of 1675, Mr. Bull published his “Examen Censuræ,” &c. in answer to Mr. Gataker, and his “Apologia pro Harmonia,” &c. in reply to Dr. Tully. Mr. Bull’s notion on this subject was “That good works, which proceed from faith, and are conjoined with faith, are a necessary condition required from us by God, to the end that by the new and evangelical covenant, obtained by and sealed in the blood of Christ the Mediator of it, we may be justified according to his free and unmerited grace.” In this doctrine, and throughout the whole book, Mr. Bull absolutely excludes all pretensions to merit on the part of men; but the work nevertheless excited the jealousy of many able divines both in the church and among the dissenters, as appears from the above list. About three years after, he was promoted by the earl of Nottingham, then lord chancellor, to a prebend in the church of Gloucester, in which he was installed the 9th of October, 1678. In 1680, he finished his “Defence of the Nicene Faith,” of which he had given a hint five years before in his Apology. This performance, which is levelled against the Arians and Socinians on one hand, and the Tritheists and Sabellians on the other, was received with universal applause, and its fame spread into foreign countries, where it was highly esteemed by the best judges of antiquity, though of different persuasions. Five years after its publication, the author was presented, by Philip Sheppard, esq. to the rectory of Avening in Gloucestershire, a very large parish, and worth two hundred pounds per annum. The people of this parish, being many of them very dissolute and immoral, and many more disaffected to the church of England, gave him for some time great trouble and uneasiness; but, by his prudent conduct and diligent discharge of his duty, he at last got the better of their prejudices, and converted their dislike iuto the most cordial love and affection towards him. He had not been long at Avening, before he was promoted, by archbishop Sancroft, to the archdeaconry of Landaff, in which he was installed the 20th of June, 1686. He was invited soon after to Oxford, where the degree of doctor in divinity was conferred upon him by that university, without the payment of the usual fees, in consideration of the great and eminent services he had done the church. During the reign of James II. the doctor preached very warmly against popery, with which the nation was then threatened. Some time after the revolution, he was put into the commission of the peace, and continued in it, with some little interruption, till he was made a bishop. In 1694, whilst he continued rector of Avening, he published his “Judicium Ecclesia? Catholicse, &c.” in defence of the “Anathema,” as his former book had been of the Faith, decreed by the first council of Nice. The last treatise which Dr. Bull wrote, was his “Primitive Apostolical Tradition,” &c. against Daniel Zwicker, a Prussian. All Dr. Bull’s Latin works, which he had published by himself at different times, were collected together, and printed in 1703, in one volume in folio, under the care and inspection of Dr. John Ernest Grabe, the author’s age and infirmities disabling him from undertaking this edition. The ingenious editor illustrated the work with many learned annotations, and ushered it into the world with an excellent preface. Dr, Bull was in the seventy-first year of his age, when he was acquainted with her majesty’s gracious intention of conferring on him the bishopric of St. David’s; which promotion he at first declined, on account of his ill state of health and advanced years; but, by the importunity of his friends, and strong solicitations from the governors o*f the church, he was at last prevailed upon to accept it, and was accordingly consecrated in Lambeth-chapel, the 29th of April, 1705. Two years after, he lost his eldest son, Mr. George Bull, who died of the small-pox the 11th of May, 1707, in, the thirty-seventh year of his age. Our prelate took his seat in the house of lords in that memorable session, when the bill passed for the union of the two kingdoms, and spoke in a debate which happened upon that occasion, in favour of the church of England. About July after his consecration, he went into his diocese, and was received with all imaginable demonstrations of respect by the gentry and clergy. The episcopal palace at Aberguilly being much out of repair, he chose the town of Brecknock for the place of his residence; but was obliged, about half a year before his death, to remove from thence to Abermarless, for the benefit of a freer air. He resided constantly in his diocese, and carefully discharged all the episcopal functions. Though bishop Bull was a great admirer of our ecclesiastical constitution, yet he would often lament the distressed state of the church of England, chiefly owing to the decay of ancient discipline, and the great number of lay-impropriations, which he considered as a species of sacrilege, and insinuated that he had known instances of its being punished by the secret curse which hangs over sacrilegious persons. Some time before his last sickness, he entertained thoughts of addressing a circular letter to all his clergy; and, after his death, there was found among his papers one drawn up to that purpose. He had greatly impaired his health, by too intense and unseasonable an application to his studies, and, on the 27th of September, 1709, was taken with a violent fit of coughing, which brought on a spitting of blood. About the beginning of February following, he was seized with a distemper, supposed to be an ulcer, or what they call the inward piles; of which he died the 17th of the same month, and was buried, about a week after his death, at Brecknock/ leaving behind him but two children out of eleven.

In 1598 he produced a comedy entitled “The Blind Beggar of Alexandria, most pleasantly discoursing his various humours in disguised shapes, full of conceit and pleasure,” 4to, but not divided either into acts or scenes, and dedicated to the earl of Nottingham, lord high admiral. The following year he published another comedy in 4to, called “Humorous Day’s Mirth,” which was acted by the earl of Nottingham’s servants. He is said to have been much countenanced and encouraged by sir Thomas Walsingham, who, as Wood informs us, had a son of the same name, “whom Chapman loved from his birth.” Henry, prince of Wales, and Carr, earl of Somerset, also patronized him; but the former dying, and the latter being disgraced, Chapman’s hopes of preferment by their means were frustrated. His interest at court was likewise probably lessened by the umbrage taken by king James at some reflections cast on the Scotch nation in a comedy _ called “Eastward Hoe,” written by Chapman, in conjunction with Ben Jonson and John Marston. He is supposed, however, to have had some place at court, either under king James, or his queen Anne.

Thus did Collier, by such ways and means as were in his power, continue to oppose with great vigour and spirit the revolution and all its abettors: and thus he became obnoxious to the men in power, who only waited for an occasion to seize him. That occasion at length came; for information being given to the earl of Nottingham, then secretary of state, that Collier, with one Newton, another nonjuring clergyman, was gone to Romney marsh, with a view of sending to, or receiving intelligence from the other side of the water, messengers were sent to apprehend them. They were brought to London, and, after a short examination by the earl, committed to the Gate-house. This was in the latter end of 1692, but as no evidence of their being concerned in any such design could be found, they were admitted to bail, and released. Newton, as far as appears, availed himself of this but Collier refused to remain upon bail, because he conceived that an acknowledgment of the jurisdiction of the court in which the bail was taken, and consequently of the power from whence the authority of the court was derived, and therefore surrendered in discharge of his bail before chief justice Holt, and was committed to “the king’s-bench prison. He v/as released again at the intercession of friends, in a very few days; but still attempted to support his principles and justify his conduct by the following pieces, of which, it is said, there were only five copies printed: 8.” The case of giving Bail to a pretended authority examined, dated from the King’s-bench, Nov. 23, 1692,“with a preface, dated Dec. 1692; and, 9,” A Letter to sir John Holt,“dated Nov. 30, 1692; and also, 10.” A Reply to some Remarks upon the case of giving bail, &c. dated April, 1693.“He wrote soon after this, 11.” A Persuasive to consideration, tendered to the Royalists, particularly those of the Church of England,“1693, 4to. It was afterwards reprinted in 8vo, together with his vindication of it, against a piece entitled” The Layman’s Apology.“He wrote also, 12.” Remarks upon the London Gazette, relating to the Streights’ Fleet, and the Battle of Landen in Flanders," 1693, 4to.

The ear) met with nothing in Ireland but disappointments, in the midst of which, an army was suddenly raised in England, under the command of the earl of Nottingham; nobody well knowing why, but in reality from the suggestions of the earl’s enemies to the queen, that he rather meditated an invasion on his native country, than the reduction of the Irish rebels. This and other considerations made him resolve to quit his post, and come over to England; which he accordingly did, and presented himself before the queen. He met with a tolerable reception; but was soon after confined, examined, and dismissed from all his offices, except that of master of the horse. In the summer of“1600, he recovered his liberty; and in the autumn following, he received Mr. Cuffe, who had been his secretary in Ireland (See Cuffe), into his councils. Cuffe, who was a man of his own disposition, laboured to persuade him, that submission would never do him any good; that the queen was in the hands of a faction, who were his enemies; and that the only way to restore his fortune was to obtain an audience, by whatever means he could, in order to represent his case. The earl did not consent at first to this dangerous advice; but afterwards, giving a loose to his passion, began to declare himself openly, and among other fatal expressions let fall this, that” the queen grew old and cankered; and that her mind was become as crooked as her carcase.“His enemies, who had exact intelligence of all that he proposed, and had provided effectually against the execution of his designs, hurried him upon his fate by a message, sent on the evening of Feb. 7, requiring him to attend the council, which he declined. This appears to have unmanned him, and in his distraction of mind, he gave out, that they sought his life kept a watch in Essex-house all night; and summoned his friends for his defence the next morning. Many disputes ensued, and some blood was spilt; but the earl at last surrendered, and was carried that night to the archbishop’s palace at Lambeth, and the next day to the Tower. On the 19th, he was arraigned before his peers, and after a long trial was sentenced to lose his head: upon which melancholy occasion he said nothing more than this, viz.” If her majesty had pleased, this body of mine might have done her better service; however, I shall be glad if it may prove serviceable to her any way.“He was executed upon the 25th, in his thirty-fourth year, leaving behind him one only son and two daughters. As to his person, he is reported to have been tall, but not very well made; his countenance reserved; his air rather martial than courtly; very careless in dress, and a little addicted to trifling diversions, He was learned, and a lover of learned men, whom he always encouraged and rewarded. He was sincere in his friendships, but not so careful as he ought to have been in making a right choice; sound in his morals, except in point of gallantry, and thoroughly well affected to the protestant religion. Historians inform us, that as to his execution, the queen remained irresolute to the very last, and sent sir Edward Carey to countermand it but, as Camden says, considering afterwards his obstinacy in refusing to ask her pardon, she countermanded those orders, and directed that he should die. There is an odd story current in the world about a ring, which the chevalier Louis Aubrey de Mourier, many years the French minister in Holland, and a man of great parts and unsuspected credit, delivers as an undoubted truth; and that upon the authority of an English minister, who might be well presumed to know what he said. As the incident is remarkable, and has made much noise, we will report it in the words of that historian:” It will not, I believe, be thought either impertinent or disagreeable to add here, what prince Maurice had from the mouth of Mr. Carleton, ambassador of England in Holland, who died secretary of state so well known under the name of lord Dorchester, and who was a man of great merit. He said, that queen Elizabeth gave the earl of Essex a ring, in the height of her passion for him, ordering him to keep it; and that whatever he should commit, she would pardon him when he should return that pledge. Since that time the earl’s enemies having prevailed with the queen, who, besides, was exasperated against him for the contempt he had shewed her beauty, now through age upon the decay, she caused him to be impeached. When he was condemned, she expected to receive from him the ring, and would have granted him his pardon according to her promise. The earl, finding himself in the last extremity, applied to admiral Howard’s lady, who was his relation; and desired her, by a person she could trust, to deliver the ring into the queen’s own hands. But her husband, who was one of the earl’s greatest enemies, and to whom she told this imprudently, would not suffer her to acquit herself of the commission; so that the queen consented to the earl’s death, being full of indignation against so proud and haughty a spirit, who chose rather to die than implore her mercy. Some time after, the admiral’s lady fell sick; and, being given over by her physicians, she sent word to the queen that she had something of great consequence to tell her before she died. The queen came to her bedBide i and having ordered all her attendants to withdraw, the admiral’s lady returned her, but too late, that ring from the earl of Essex, desiring to be excused for not having returned it sooner, since her husband had prevented her. The queen retired immediately, overwhelmed with the utmost grief; she sighed continually for a fortnight, without taking any nourishment, lying in bed entirely dressed, and getting up an hundred times a night. At last she died with hunger and with grief, because she had consented to the death of a lover who had applied to her for mercy." Histoire de Hollancle, p. 215, 216.

, 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.

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”

, 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.”

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.

Upon the Revolution in 1688, Dr. Hickes, with many others, refusing to take the oaths of allegiance, fell under suspension in August 1689, and was deprived the February following. He continued, however, in possession till the beginning of May; when reading in the Gazette that the deanery of Worcester was granted to Talbot, afterwards bishop of Oxford, Salisbury, and Durham, successively, he immediately drew up in his own hand-writing a claim of right to it, directed to all the members of that church and, in 1691, affixed it over the great entrance into the choir, that none of them might plead ignorance in that particular. The earl of Nottingham, then secretary of state, called it “Dr. Hickes’ s Manifesto against Government;” and it has since been published by Dr. Francis Lee, in the appendix to his “Life of Mr. Kettlewell,” with this title, “The Protestation of Dr. George Hickes, and claim of right, fixed up in the cathedral church of Worcester.” Expecting on this account the resentment of the government, he privately withdrew to London, where he absconded for many years, till May 1699, when lord Somers, then chancellor, out of regard to his uncommon abilities, procured an act of council, by which the attorneygeneral was ordered to cause a. noli prosequi to be entered to all proceedings against him.

, earl of Nottingham, lord high admiral of England, was son of William lord Howard of Effingliam, and grandson of Thomas second duke of Norfolk/ He was born in 1536, and initiated early into the affairs of state, being sent in 1559, on the death of Henry II. king of France, with a compliment or condolence to his successor Francis II. and to congratulate him on "his accession to the throne, &c. On his return he was elected one of the knights of the shire for the county of Surrey in 1562, and in 1569 was general of the horse under the earl of Warwick, in the army sent against the earls of Northumberland and Westmoreland, then in rebellion. The year following he went with a fleet of men of war to convoy the princess Anne of Austria, daughter of the emperor Maximilian, going into Spain, over the British seas; and in 1573, upon the death of his father, succeeded him in honours and estate. The same year he was installed knight of the garter, and likewise made lord chamberlain of the household; and in 1585 constituted lord high admiral of England.

In 1588, the memorable year of the Spanish invasion, the queen, knowing his abilities in naval affairs, and popularity with the seamen, gave him the command of her whole fleet, with which he entirely dispersed and destroyed the Spanish armada; and when, in 1596, another invasion was apprehended from the Spaniards, and a fleet of 150 ships was equipped with a proper number of land forces, he was appointed commander in chief at sea, as the earl of Essex was at land. In this expedition Cadiz was taken, and the Spanish fleet there burnt; and the lord high admiral had so great a share in this success, that on Oct. 22 of the same year he was advanced to the dignity of Earl of Nottingham, and appointed justice itinerant for, life of all the forests south of Trent. In 1599, upon an apprehension of the Spaniards again designing the invasion of England, and on private intelligence, that the earl of Essex, then lord deputy of Ireland, discontented at the power of his adversaries, was meditating to return into England with a select party of men, the queen having raised 6000 foot soldiers to be ready on any emergency, reposed so entire a confidence in the earl of Nottingham, that she committed to him the chief command. But these forces being again disbanded a few days after, he had no opportunity for action until 1601, when he suppressed the carl of Essex’s insurrection. The same year he was appointed one of the commissioners for exercising the office of earl marshal of England; and in the beginning of 1602-3, dnring the queen’s last illness, he was deputed by the council, with the lord keeper Egerton and secretary Cecil, to know her majesty’s pleasure in reference to the succession, which she declared in favour of James king of Scotland.

Upon the accession of that king to the throne of England, the earl was continued in his post of lord admiral, and at the coronation was made lord high steward of England for that occasion; and the year following, upon the renewing the commission to seven lords for exercising the office of earl marshal, he was appointed one of that number. In 1604 he was one of the commissioners to treat of an union between England and Scotland; and in 1605, sent ambassador to the court of Spain, attended with a splendid retinue, who being, as Wilson says, “persons of quality, accoutred with all ornaments suitable, were the more admired by the Spaniards for beauty and excellency, by how much the Jesuits had made impressions in the vulgar opinion, that since the English left the Roman religion, they were transformed into strange horrid shapes, with heads and tails like beasts and monsters.” His employment there was to take the oath of the king of Spain to the treaty of peace lately made with him; and he had a particular instruction, that in performing that ceremony, which was most likely to be in the royal chapel, he should have especial care, that it might be done, not in the forenoon in the time of mass, but rather in the afternoon, at which time the Romish service is most free from superstition. During this embassy, the king of Spain did more honour to the earl than ever he had done to any person in his employment in that kingdom; and the people in general shewed all possible regard for him, as his lordship’s behaviour there justly deserved; and at his departure from thence in June the same year, he had presents made him by that king in plate, jewels, and horses, to the value of 20.000l. besides the gold chains and jewels given to his Upon the marriage of the lady Elizabeth to the Elector Palatine, February 14, 1612-13, the earl of Nottingham with the duke of Lenox conducted her highness from the chapel; and had the honour of convoying Jierwith a royal navy to Flushing. He continued lord high admiral of England till February 6, 1618-19, when finding himself unable any longer to perform the necessary duties of that great employment, which he ha4 enjoyed about thirty-three years with the highest applause, he voluntarily resigned it to his majesty; who being sensible of the important services which he had done the nation, remitted him a debt owing to the crown of 1 8,000l. settled upon him a pension of 1000l. a year for life, and granted him the place and precedency of John Mowbray, who had been created earl of Nottingham by king Richard II. at the time of his coronation.

About this time Hyde became known to Mr. Boyle, to whom he was very useful in communicating from Oriental writers several particulars relating to chemistry, physic, and natural history. In Oct. 1666, he was collated to a prebend in the church of Salisbury. In 1674, he published “A Catalogue of the books in the Bodleian library.” In 1678, he was made archdeacon of Gloucester; and, in 1682, took the degree of doctor in divinity. Dec. 1691, he was elected Arabic professor, on the death of Dr. Edward Pocock; and the same year published the “Itinera Mundi” of Abraham Peritsol, the son of Mordecai Peritsol, a very learned Jew. This was done to supply in some measure the Arabic geography of Abulfeda, which, at the request of Dr. Fell, he had undertaken to publish with a Latin translation: but the death of his patron putting an end to that work, he sent this smaller performance abroad, and dedicated it to the earl of Nottingham, then secretary of state, in hopes that it might excite a stronger curiosity amongst the learned to search into this branch of literature. Dr. Altham, regius-professor of Hebrew, and canon of Christ-church, being, on some dispute about the oaths, removed from both preferments, Hyde became possessed of both, as they are always annexed, in July 1697.

Archbishop Wake’s character of him was that of vir sobrius, et bonus pradicator: and a considerable dignitary in the church used to say, that he looked upon his life to have been spent in the service of learning and virtue, and thought the world to be more concerned for its continuance than himself: that it would be happy for us if there were many more of the profession like him, &c. It was his misfortune, however, to live in a time of much party violence, and being a moderate man, he met with ill usage from both parties, particularly from the clergy of his own diocese. His only object was the security of our church-establishment as settled at the Revolution. He was so diligent a preacher, that we are told he composed more than a thousand sermons. He was always of opinion that a clergyman should compose his own sermons, and therefore ordered his executor to destroy his stock, lest they should contribute to the indolence of others. Having no family, for his wife died young without issue, he expended a great deal of money on his library and the repairs of his dilapidated parsonage-houses; and was, at the same time, a liberal benefactor to the poor. His chief, and indeed only, failing was a warmth of temper, which sometimes hurried him on to say what was inconsistent with his character and interest, and to resent imaginary injuries. Of all this, however, he was sensible, and deeply regretted it. Hearne and Mr. Lewis Vvere, it appears, accustomed to speak, disrespectfully of each other’s labours, but posterity has done justice to both. The political prejudices of antiquariss are of very little consequence. Mr. Lewis’s works are, 1> “The Church Catechism efcplained,” already mentioned, 1700, 12mo. 2. A short Defence of Infant Baptism,“1700, 8vo. 3.” A serious Address to the Anabaptists,“a single sheet, 1701, with a second in 1702. 4.” A Companion for the afflicted,“1706. 5.” Presbyters not always an authoritative part of provincial synods,“1710, 4to. 6.” An apologetical Vindication of the present Bishops,“1711. 7.” The Apology for the Church of England, in an examination of the rights of the Christian church,“published about this time, or perhaps in 1714. 8.” The poor Vicar’s plea against- his glebe being assessed to the Church,“1712. 9.” A Guide to young Communicants,“1715. 10.” A Vindication of the Bishop of Norwich“(Trimnell), 1714. 11.” The agreement of the Lutheran churches with the church of England, and an answer to some exceptions to it,“1715. 12.” Two Letters in defence of the English liturgy and reformation,“1716. 13.” Bishop Feme’s Church of England man’s reasons for not making the decisions of ecclesiastical synods the rule of his faith,“1717, 8vo. 14.” An Exposition of the xxxivth article of Religion,“1717. 15.” Short Remarks on the prolocutor’s answer, &c.“16.” The History, &c. of John Wicliffe, D. D.“1720, 8vo. 17.” The case of observing such Fasts and Festivals as are appointed by the king’s authority, considered,“1721. 18.” A Letter of thanks to the earl of Nottingham, &c.“1721. 19.” The History and Antiquities of the Isle of Thanet in Kent,“1723, 4 to, and again, with additions, in 1736. 20.” A Specimen of Errors in the second volume of Mr. Collier’s Ecclesiastical History, being a Vindication of Bur-net’s History of the Reformation,“1724, 8vo. 21.” History and Antiquities of the abbey church of Faversham, &c.“1727, $to. 22.” The New Testament, &c. translated out of the Latin vulgate by John WicklifFe; to which is prefixed, an History of the several Translations of the Holy Bible,“&c. 1731, folio. Of this only 160 copies were printed by subscription, and the copies unsubscribed for were advertised the same year at I/. 1*. each. Of the” New Testament“the rev. H. Baber, of the British Museum, has lately printed an edition, with valuable preliminary matter, in 4to. 23.” The History of the Translations, &c.“reprinted separately in 1739, 8vo. 24.” The Life of Caxton,“1737, 8vo. For an account of this work we may refer to Dibdiu’s new edition of Ames. 25.” A brief History of the Rise and Progress of Anabaptism, to which is prefixed a defence of Dr. Wicliffe from the false charge of his denying Infant-baptism,“1738. 26.” A Dissertation on the antiquity and use of Seals in England,“1710. 27.” A Vindication of the ancient Britons, &c. from being Anabaptists, with a letter of M. Bucer to bishop Hooper on ceremonies,“1741. 28.” A Defence of the Communion office and Catechism of the church of England from the charge of favouring transubstantiation,“1742. 29.” The Life of Reynold Pecock, bishop of St. Asaph and Chichester,“1744, 8vo. Mr. Lewis published also one or two occasional sermons, and an edition of Roper’s Life of sir Thomas More. After his death, according to the account of him in the‘ Biog. Britannica (which is unpardonably superficial, as Masters’s History of Bene’t College had appeared some years before), was published” A brief discovery of some of the arts of the popish protestant Missioners in England,“1750, 8vo. But there are other curious tracts which Mr. Lewis sent for publication to the Gentleman’s Magazine, and which, for reasons stated in vol. X. of that work, were printed in” The Miscellaneous Correspondence," 1742 1748, a scarce and valuable volume, very little known to the possessors of the Magazine, no set of which can be complete without it. Of these productions of Mr. Lewis, we can ascertain, on the authority of Mr. Cave, the following: an account of William Longbeard, and of John Smith, the first English anabaptist; the principles of Dr. Hickes, and Mr. Johnson; and an account of the oaths exacted by the Popes. Mr. Lewis left a great many manuscripts, some of which are still in public or private libraries, and are specified in our authorities,

Notwithstanding his long and faithful services, he had the misfortune to fall into disgrace; and, through the resentment of some powerful courtiers, was imprisoned in the Tower in 1616: but, after having been examined by the chief justice Coke and secretary Winwood, he was discharged. He wrote a vindication of his conduct, entitled “Concerning the insolences of the Dutch, and a Justification of sir William Monson” and directed it to the lord chancellor Ellesmere, and sir Francis Bacon, attorneygeneral and counsellor. His zeal against the Dutch, and his promoting an inquiry into the state of the navy, contrary to the inclination of the earl of Nottingham, then lord high admiral, seems to have been the occasion of his troubles. He had also the misfortune to bring upon himself a general and popular odium, in retaking lady Arabella Steuart, after her escape out of England in June 1611, though it was acting agreeably to his orders and duty. This lady was confined to the Tower for her marriage with William Seymour, esq. as was pretended; but the true cause of her confinement was, her being too high allied, and having a title or claim to the crown of England. Sir William, however, soon recovered his credit at court: for, in 1617, he was called before the privy council, to give his opinion, how the pirates of Algiers might be suppressed, and the town attacked. He shewed the impossibility of taking Algiers, and was against the expedition; notwithstanding which, it was rashly undertaken by Villiers duke of Buckingham. He was also against two other undertakings, as ill-managed, in 1625 and 162$, namely, the expeditions to Cadiz and the isle of Rhee. He was not employed in these actions, because he objected to the minister’s measures; but, in 1635, it being found necessary to equip a large fleet, in order to break a confederacy that was forming between the French and the Dutch, he was appointed vice-admiral in that armament, and performed liis duty with great honour and bravery. After that he was employed no more, but spent the remainder of his days in peace and privacy, at ins seat at Kinnersley in Surrey, where he digested and finished his “Naval Tracts,” published in Churchill’s “Collection of Voyages.” He died there, Feb. 1642-3, in his seventy-third year, and left a numerous posterity, the ancestors of the present noble family of Monson, baron Monson of Burton, in the county of Lincoln.

, an eminent English prelate, was the son of Thomas Moore of Market- Harborough in Leicestershire, where he was born. He was admitted June 28, 1662, of Clare-hall college, Cambridge, where he took the degree of B. A. in 1665, M. A. in 1669, and D. D. in 1681. He was also fellow of that college, and afterwards became chaplain to Heneage Finch, earl of Nottingham, by whose interest he rose to considerable preferments, and in particular, was promoted to the first prebendal stall in the cathedral church of Ely. His next preferment was the rectory of St. Austin’s, London, to which he was admitted Dec, 3, 1687, but he quitted that Oct. 26, 1689, on his being presented by king William and queen Mary (to whom he was then chaplain in ordinary) to the rectory of St. Andrew’s, Holborn, vacant by the promotion of Dr. Stillingfleet to the see of Worcester. On the deprivation of Dr. William Lloyd, bishop of Norwich, for not taking the oaths to their majesties, he was advanced to that see, and consecrated July 5, 1691, and was thence translated to Ely, July 31, 1707, in which he remained until his death f He died'at Ely-house, in Holborn, July 31, 1714, in his sixty-eighth year. He was interred on the north side of the presbytery of his cathedral church, near his predecessor bishop Patrick, where an elegant monument was erected to his memory.

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

, a dramatic and miscellaneous writer, was the son of colonel Mottley, who was a great favourite with king James II. and followed the fortunes of that prince into France. James, not being able himself to provide for him so well as he desired, procured for him, by his interest, the command of a regiment in the service of Louis XIV. at the head of which he lost his life in the battle of Turin, in 1706. The colonel married a daughter of John Guise, esq. of Abload’s Court, in Gloucestershire, with whom, by the death of a brother, who left her his whole estate, he had a very considerable fortune. The family of the Guises, however, being of principles diametrically opposite to those of the colonel, and zealous friends to the revolution, Mrs. Mottley, notwithstanding the tenderest affection for her husband, and repeated invitations from the king and queen, then at St. Germains, preferred living at home on the scanty remains of what he had left behind. The colonel was sent over to England three or four years after the revolution, on a secret commission from king James; and during his stay our author was born, in 1692. Mr. Mottley received the first rudiments of his education at St. Martin’s library-school, founded by archbishop Tenison; but was placed in the excise-office at sixteen years of age, under the comptroller, lord viscount Howe, whose brother and sister were both related by marriage to his mother. This situation he retained till 1720, when, in consequence of an unhappy contract he had made, probably in pursuit of some of the bubbles of that infatuated year, he was obliged to resign it. Soon after the accession of George I. Mr. Mottley had been promised by the lord Halifax, at that time first lord of the treasury, the place of one of the commissioners of the wine-licence office; but when the day came that his name should have been inserted in the patent, a more powerful interest, to his great surprize, had stepped in between him and the preferment, of which he had so positive a promise. This, however, was not the only disappointment of that kind which this gentleman met with; for, at the period above mentioned, when he parted with his place in the excise, he had one in the exchequer absolutely given to him by sir Robert Walpole, to whom he lay under many other obligations; but in this case as well as the preceding, he found that the minister had made a prior promise of it to another, and he was obliged to relinquish it. Other domestic embarrassments induced him to employ his pen, which had hitherto been only his amusement, for the means of immediate support; and he wrote his first play, “The Imperial Captives,” which met witU tolerable success. From that time he depended chiefly on his literary abilities for a maintenance, and wrote five dramatic pieces, with various success. He had also a hand in the composition of that many-fathered piece, “The Devil to Pay.” He published in 1739 a “Life of the great Czar Peter,” 3 vols. 8vo, by subscription, in which he met with the I sanction of some of the royal family, and great numbers of the nobility and gentry; and, on occasion of one of his benefits, which happened Nov. 3, queen Caroline, on the 30th of the preceding month (being the prince of Wales’s birth-day), did the author the singular honour of disposing of a great number of his tickets, with her own hand, in the drawing-room, most of which were paid for in gold, into the hands of colonel Schutz, his royal highness’s privypurse, from whom Mr. Mottley received it, with the addition of a very liberal present from the prince himself. Jn 1744 he published in 2 vols. 8vo, “The History of the Life and Reign of the empress Catherine of Russia.” Both this and the preceding are compilations from the journals and annals of the day, but are now valuable from the scarcity of those authorities. He died Oct. 30, 1750. It has been surmised, with some appearance of reason, that Mr. Mottley was the compiler of the lives of the dramatic writers, published at the end of Whincop’s “Scanderbeg.” It is certain that the life of Mr. Mottley, in that work, is rendered one of the most important in it, and is particularized by such a number of various incidents, as it seems improbable should be known by any but either himself or some one nearly related to him. Among others he relates the following humourous anecdote. When colonel Mottley, our author’s father, came over, as has been before related, on a secret commission from the abdicated monarch, the government, who had by some means intelligence of it, were very diligent in their endeavours to have him seized. The colonel, however, was happy enough to elude their search; but several other persons were, at different times, seized through mistake for him. Among the rest, it being very well known that he frequently supped at the Blue Posts tavern, in the Hay-Market, with one Mr. Tredenhatn, a Cornish gentleman, particular directions were given for searching that house. Colonel Mottley, however, happening not to be there, the messengers found Mr. Tredenham alone, and with a heap of papers before him, which being a suspicious circumstance, they immediately seized, and carried him before the earl of Nottingham, then secretary of state. His lordship, who, however, could not avoid knowing him, as he was a member of the House of Commons, and nephew to the famous sir Edward Seymour, asked him what all those papers contained. Mr. Tredenham made answer, that they were only the several scenes of a play, which he had been scribbling for the amusement of a few leisure-hours. Lord Nottingham then only desired leave just to look over them, which having done for some little time, he returned them again to the author, assuring him that he was perfectly satisfied; “for, upon my word,” said he, “I can find no plot in them,”

, a learned English divine, was born at Padstow, in Cornwall, May 3, 1648. He was the son of Edmund Prideaux, esq. of an ancient and honourable family in that county, and was equally well descended by his mother, the daughter of John Moyle, esq. of Bake, in Cornwall. After some elementary education at Liskard and Bodmin, he was placed under Dr. Busby, at Westminster-school, and in 1668 admitted a student of Christ Church, Oxford, by dean Fell. His attainments here must have distinguished him very early: for we find that in 1672, when he took his bachelor’s degree, Dr. Fell employed him to add some notes to an edition of Florus, then printing at the university press: and soon after, he was requested to be the editor of Malela, a Greek historian, from a ms. in the Bodleian library but having represented this as a work not worth the printing, being fabulous and trifling, the design was laid aside, until Dr. Hody, who was of a different opinion, undertook the task. Mr. Prideaux, about the same time, was employed in giving a history of the Arundelian marbles, with a comment, which was published in May 1676, under the title *' Marmora Oxoniensia,“folio. Such a work was well calculated to advance his reputation abroad, as well as at home; and there was such a demand for it, that within a few years it could not be procured but at a very high price. It suffered, however, very much from the carelessness and neglect of a Mr. Bennet, then corrector to the university press, and contained so many typographical errors, that Mr. Prideaux never could speak of it with complacency. A more correct edition was published by Maittaire, in 1732. In 1675 Mr. Prideaux took his degree of M. A. Having, by order, presented one of the copies of the” Marmora“to the lord chancellor Finch, this introduced him to his lordship’s patronage, who soon after placed one of his sons under him, as tutor at Christ Church and in 1679 presented him to the rectory of St. Clement’s, in the suburb of Oxford, where he officiated for several years. The same year he published two tracts out of Maimonides in Hebrew, with a Latin translation and notes, under the title ec De Jure pauperis et peregrini apud Judeos.” This he did in consequence of having been appointed Dr. Busby’s Hebrew lecturer in Christ Church, and with a view to teach students the rabbinical dialect, and to read it without points. In 1681, the lord chancellor Finch, then earl of Nottingham, presented him to a prebend in the cathedral of- Norwich. In Nov. 1682, he was admitted to the degree of bachelor in divinity, and on the death of lord Nottingham, found another patron in his successor sir Francis North; who, in February of the following year, gave him the rectory of Bladen, with Woodstock chapelry, in Oxfordshire; and as Mr. Prideaux had been appointed librarian to Christ Church, to which no salary belongs, he was allowed to hold this living with his student’s place.

, a very eminent sculptor, was born in 1694, at Antwerp. His father was a landscape-painter, and had been in England, but quitted it with Largilliere, and went to Paris, where he married, and returning to Brussels and Antwerp, died in the latter in 1726, at the age of eighty. Michael, his son, arrived here in 1720, and after modelling some small figures in clay, to show his skill, succeeded so well in a bust of the earl of Nottingham, that he began to be employed on large works, particularly monuments, in which his art and industry gave general satisfaction. His models were thoroughly studied, and ably executed; and as a sculptor capable of furnishing statues was now found, our taste in monuments improved, which till Rysbrach’s time had depended more on masonry and marbles than statuary, on which he taught the age to depend for its best ornaments; and although he is too fond of pyramids for back-grounds, his figures are well disposed, simple and great.

By his first wife, daughter of Henry Spencer, earl of Sunderland, he had a son William, who succeeded him; and by a second wife, the daughter of William Pierrepoint, second son of Robert earl of Kingston, he had a daughter Gertrude, who was married to Philip Stanhope, third earl of Chesterfield, and was mother to the celebrated earl, who, says Maty, may be perhaps justly compared to his grandfather in extent of capacity, fertility of genius, and brilliancy of wit. They both, adds he, distinguished themselves in parliament by their eloquence; at court, by their knowledge of the world; in company, by their art of pleasing. They were both very useful to their sovereigns, though not much attached either to the prerogative or to the person of any king. They both knew, humoured, and despised the different parties. The Epicurean philosophy was their common study. William, the second marquis of Halitax, died in 1699, when the dignity became extinct in his family, but was revived in 1700 in the person of Charles Montague. The -marquis William left three daughters Anne, married to Charles Bruce, earl of Aylesbury Dorothy, to Richard Boyle, the last earl of Burlington; and Mary, to Sackville Tuftou, earl of Thanet. George,: marquis of Halifax, was the author of some tracts, written with considerable spirit and elegance. Besides his “Character of a Trimmer,” he wrote “Advice to a Daughter;” “The Anatomy of an Equivalent;” “A Letter to a Dissenter, upon his Majesty’s laie Glorious Declaration of Indulgences;” “A rough Draught of a new Model at Sea, in 1694;” “Maxims of State.” Ah which were printed together after his death; and the third edition came out in 1717, 8vo. Since these, /there was alsa published under his name, “The Character of king Charles the Second to which is subjoined, Maxims of State, &c,” 1750, 8vo. “Character of Bishop Burnet,” printed at the end of his “History of his own Times;” “Historical Observations upon the Reigns of Edward I. II. III. and Richard II. with Remarks upon their faithful Counsellors and false Favourites,” 1689. He also left memoirs of his own times* from a journal which he kept every day of all the conversations which he had with Charles II. and the most distinguished men of his time. Of these memoirs two fair copies were made, one of which fell into the hands of Daniel earl, of Nottingham, and was destroyed by him. The other devolved on the marquis’s grand-daughter, lady Burlington, in whose possession it long remained; but Pope, as the late lord Orford informed Mr. Mai one, finding, on a perusal of these memoirs, that the papists of those days were represented in an unfavourable light, prevailed on her to burn them; and thus the public have been deprived of probably a curious and valuable work.

, a brave English officer, was descended of a family said to be more ancient than the Norman conquest. He was the son of sir Lionel Tolmach of Helmingnam in the county of Suffolk, bart. by Elizabeth, daughter and heir of William Murray, earl of Dysart, afterwards married to John, duke of Lauderdale. His talents and education were improved by his travels, in which he spent several years, and after he entered into the army, distinguished himself so much by skill and bravery, as very soon to acquire promotion. But L| the reign of James If. whose measures he thought hostile to the true interests of the kingdom, he resigned his commission, and went again abroad. The same political principles inclining him to favour the revolution, he was, on the accession of William III. appointed colonel of the Coldstream regiment, which had been resigned by William, carl of Craven, on account of his great age and infirmities; and was soon advanced to the rank of lieutenant-general. In 1691, he exerted himself with uncommon bravery in the passage over the river Shannon, at the taking of Athlone in Ireland, and in the battle of Aghrim. In 1693, he attended king William to Flanders, and at the battle of Landen against the French, commanded by marshal Luxemburg, when his majesty himself was obliged to retire, the lieutenant-general brought off the English foot with great prudence, resolution, and success. But, in June the year following, he fell in the unfortunate attempt for destroying the harbour of Brest in France. He had formed this desigrt, and taken care to be well instructed in every circumstance relating to it. Six thousand men seemed to be more than necessary for taking and keeping Cameret, a small neck of land, which lies in the mouth of and commands the river of Brest. The project and the preparations were kept so secret, that there was not the least suspicion till the hiring of transport-ships discovered it. A proposition for that purpose had indeed been made two years before to the earl of Nottingham; who, among other things, charged admiral Russel with having neglected that scheme, when it was laid before him by some persons who came from Brest. Whether the French apprehended the design from that motion, or whether it was now betrayed to them by some who were in the secret; it is certain, that they had such timely knowledge of it, as put them upon their guard. The preparations were not quite ready by the day that had been fixed; and when all was ready, they were stopt by a westerly wind for some time; so that they arrived a month later than was intended. They found the place well fortified with many batteries, which, were raised in different lines upon, the rocks, that lay over the place of descent; and great numbers were posted there to dispute their landing. When the English fleet came so near as to see all this, the council of officers declared against making the attempt; but the lieutenant-general was so possessed with the scheme, that he could not be diverted from it. He imagined, that the men they saw were only a rabble brought together to make a shew; though it proved, that there were regular bodies among them, and that their numbers were double to his own. He began with landing of six hundred men, and put himself at the head of them, who followed him with great courage; but they were so exposed to the enemies’ fire, and could do them so little harm, that the attempt was found absolutely impracticable. The greatest part of those, who landed, were killed or taken prisoners; and not above an hundred of them came back. The lieutenant-general himself was shot in the thigh, of which he died in a few days, extremely lamented. Thus failed a design, which, if it had been undertaken before the French were so well prepared to receive it, might have been attended with success, and followed with very important effects. In this manner bishop Burnet represents the affair, who styles the lieutenant-general a brave and generous man, and a good officer, very fit to animate and encourage inferior officers and soldiers. Another of our historians speaks of this affair in somewhat a different strain, declaring, that the lieutenantgeneral “fell a sacrifice in this desperate attempt, being destined, as some affirmed, to that fall by the envy of some of his pretended friends.” His body was brought to England, and interred on the 30th of June, 1694, at Helmingham in Suffolk.

, a Dutch painter, was born at Haerlem in 1566. In a voyage to Spain, he was shipwrecked on the coast of Portugal. Relating at Lisbon the danger he had escaped, a portrait-painter there engaged him to draw the storm he described, in which he succeeded so happily, that it was sold to a nobleman for a considerable price. Vroon continued to be employed; and improved so much in sea-pieces, that having got money, and returning home, he applied himself entirely to that style oi: painting. At this period, the great earl of Nottingham, lord high admiral of England, whose defeat of the Spanish armada had established the throne of his mistress, being desirous of preserving the detail of that illustrious event, had bespoken a suit of tapestry, describing the particulars of each day’s engagement. Vrobn was engaged to draw the designs, and came to England to receive instructions. The excellence of the performance, obvious to the public eye, makes encomiums unnecessary. It was chiring the republic that this noble trophy was placed in a temple worthy of it, the House of Lords, which was then used for committees of the Commons. Mr. Walpole, from whom the above extract is taken, has not certified the date of Vroon’s death.

In the same spirit archbishop Wake joined the earl of Nottingham in bringing a bill into parliament in 1721, levelled at the Arian heresy, and entitled “A Bill for the more effectual suppression of blasphemy and profaneness,” which, however, was rejected in the House of Lords, and brought on the archbishop the charge of inconsistency, because in the cases of Whiston and Clarke, in 1711 and 1712, he had spoken with moderation of their Arianism. Whiston wrote a very angry letter to the archbishop on this occasion, which is printed in his life, but to which the archbishop thought, and probably most of those who read it will think, no answer necessary.

In 1715, 1716, 1717, a society for promoting primitive Christianity met weekly at his house in Cross-street, Hatton-garden, composed of about ten or twelve persons; to which society Christians of all persuasions were equally admitted. Sir Peter King, Dr. Hare, Dr. Hoadly, and Dr. Clarke, were particularly invited; but none of them, he says, ever came. In 1719, he published “A Letter of Thanks to Robinson, bishop of London, for his late Letter to his Clergy against the use of new Forms of Doxology.” The common forms having been changed by Whiston, and indeed by Dr. Clarke, was the occasion of Robinson’s admonitory letter to his clergy: and this admonitory letter tempted Whiston to do a thing, he says, which he never did before or since; that is, to expose him in the way of banter or ridicule, and to cut him with great sharpness. Upon the publication of this a Letter of Thanks“to the bishop of London, Dr. Sacheverell attempted to shut him out of St. Andrew’s, Holborn, which was then his parish* church; and Whiston published an account of it. He relates, that Mr. Wilson, a lawyer, who did not love Sacheverell, would willingly have prosecuted him for the insult) and promised to do it without any costs to him; but Whiston replied,” if I should give my consent, I should shew myself to be as foolish and as passionate as Sacheverell himself/ 7 In the same year, 1719, he published a letter to the earl of Nottingham, “concerning the eternity of the Son of God, and his Holy Spirit;” and, in the second and following editions, a defence of it; for lord Nottingham had published “an Answer” in 1721, for which he wa highly complimented by addresses from both the universities, and from the London clergy. In 1720 he was proposed by sir Hans Sloane and Dr. Halley to the royal society as a member, for he was publishing something or other in the' way of philosophy; but was refused admittance by sir Isaac Newton, the president. He tells us he had enjoyed a large portion of sir Isaac’s favour for twenty years together; but lost it at last by contradicting him when he was old. “Sir Isaac,” adds he, “was of the most fearful, cautious, and suspicious temper, that I ever knew; and, had he been alive when I wrote against his Chronology, and so thoroughly confuted it that nobody has ever since ventured to vindicate it, I should not have thought proper to publish my confutation; because I knew his temper so well, that I should have expected it would have killed him,: as Dr. Bentiey, bishop Stillingfleet’s chaplain, told me that he believed Mr. Locke’s thorough confutation of the bishop’s metaphysics about the Trinity hastened his end also.”

In 1679 he took the degree of B. A. when he was but twelve years and five months old; and, the winter following, was invited to London by Dr. Gilbert Burner, then preacher at the Rolls, who introduced him to almost all the learned; and among the rest to Dr. William Llovd, bishopi of St. Asaph, who was so highly pleased with him, that he took him a an assistant in making the catalogue of his library, and carried him the summer following to St. Asaph. Upon his return, Dr. Turner, afterwards bishop of Ely^ procured him by his interest a fellowship in St. John’s colege, where he took his degree of ML A. in 1683, and iri 1691 he commenced bachelor of divinity. The same year bishop Lloyd gave him the sinecure of LlandriUo, in Denbighshire. He was afterwards made chaplain to the earl of Nottingham, then secretary of state, who in 1693 presented him to the rectory of Middleton Keynes, in Buckinghamshire. In 1694- he published “Reflections upon Ancient and modern Learning” and dedicated his book to his patron the earl of Nottingham^ To settle the bounds of all branches of literature, and all arts and sciences, as they have been extended by both ancients and moderns, and thus to make a comparison between each, was a work too vast, one should think, for any one man, even for a whole life spent in study; yet it was executed with very considerable ability by Mr. Wotton at twenty-eight years of age; and if it did involve him somewhat in the controversy between Boyle and Bentley, that was rather owing to his connections with Bentley, whose “Dissertations upon Phalaris,” &c. were printed at the end of the 2d edition of his book in 1697, than to any intermeddling of his own. Boyle himself acknowledged that “Mr. Wotton is modest and decent, speaks generally with respect of those he differs from, and with a due distrust of his own opinion. His book has a vein of learning running through it, where there is no ostentation of it.” This and much more is true of Wotton’s performance yet it must not be dissembled, that this,as it stands in Boyle’s hook, appears to have been said rather for the sake of reflecting on Bentley than to commend Wotton. Wotton suffered, as is well known, under the satirical pen of Swift; and this induced him to write “A Defence of the Reflections upon Ancient and Modern Learning, in answer to the objections of sir William Temple and others;” with “Observations upon the Tale of a Tub;” reprinted with a third corrected edition of the “Reflections,” &c. in 1705, 8vo. He says that this “Tale is of a very irreligious nature, and a crude banter upon all that is esteemed as sacred among all sects and religions among men;” and his judgment of that famous piece is confirmed by that of Mr. Moyle, in the following passage: “I have read over the * Tale of a Tub.' There is a good deal of wild wit in it, which pleases by its extravagance and uncommonness; but I think it, upon the whole, the profanest piece of ribaldry which has appeared since the days of Rabelais, the great original of banter and ridicule.”

After his return from Wales he preached a sermon in Welsh before the British Society in 1722; and was, perhaps, the only Englishman who ever attempted to preach in that language. The same year, his account of the life and writings of Mr. Thomas Stanley was published at Eysenach, at the end of Scaevola Sammartbanus’s “Elogia Gallorum.” In 1723 he printed in the “Bibliotheca Literaria” an account of the “Caernarvon Record, 7 ' a manuscript in the Harleian library. This manuscript is an account of several ancient Welsh tenures, and had some relation to the Welsh laws, which he was busy in translating. He undertook that laborious work at the instance of Wake, who knew that the trouble of learning a new and very difficult language would be no discouragemen t to Dr. Wotton. It was published in 1730, under this title,” Cysreithjeu Hywel Dda, ac erail; ceu, Leges Wallicae Ecclesiasticae et Civiles Hoeli Boni, et aliorum Walliae princjpum, quas ex variis Codicibus Manuscriptis eruit, interpretatione Latina, notis et glossario illustravit Gulielmus Wottonus,“in foijo. But this way a posthumous work, for he died at Buxted, in Essex, Feb. 13,1726. He left a daughter, who was the wife of the late Mr. William Clarke, canon-residentiary of Chichester. After his death came out his” Discourse concerning the Confusion of Languages at Babel,“1730, 8vo; as did the same year his” Advice to a young Student, with a method of study. for the four first years.“He was likewise the author of five anonymous pamphlets: 1.” A Letter to Eusebia,“1707. 2.” The case of the present Convocation considered,“1711. 3.” Reflections on the present posture of Affairs, 1712. 4. “Observations on the State of the Nation,” 1713. 5. “A Vindication of the Earl of Nottingham,” 1714.