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

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

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

, earl of Orrery, fifth son of Richard earl of Cork, was born April 25, 1621, and created baron Broghill in the kingdom of Ireland when but seven years old. He was educated at the college of Dublin, and about the year 1636, sent with his elder brother lord Kinalmeaky to make the tour of France and Italy. Afterhis return he married lady Margaret Howard, sister to the earl of Suffolk. During the rebellion in Ireland, he commanded a troop of horse in the forces raised by his father, and on many occasions gave proofs of conduct and courage. After the cessation of arms, which was concluded in 1643, he came over to England, and so represented to the king the Irish papists, that his majesty was convinced they never meant to keep the cessation, and therefore sent a commission to lord Inchiquin, president of Munster, to prosecute the rebels. Lord Broghill employed his interest in that county to assist him in this service; and when the government of Ireland was committed to the parliament, he continued to observe the same conduct till the king was put to death. That event shocked him so much, that he immediately quitted the service of the parliament; and, looking upon Ireland and his estate there as utterly lost, embarked for England, and returned to his seat at Marston in Somersetshire, where he lived privately till 1649. In this retirement, reflecting on the distress of his country, and the personal injury he suffered whilst his estate was held by the Irish rebels, he resolved, under pretence of going to the Spa for his health, to cross the seas, and apply to king Charles II. for a commission to raise forces in Ireland, in order to restore his majesty, and recover his own estate. He desired the earl of Warwick, who had an interest in the prevailing party, to procure a licence for him to go to the Spa. He pretended to the earl, that his sole view was the recovery of his health; but, to some of his friends of the royal party, in whom he thought he could confide, he discovered hi* real design; and having raised a considerable sum of money, came to London to prosecute his voyage. The committee of state, who spared no pains to get proper intelligence, being soon informed of his whole design, determined to proceed against him with the utmost severity. Cromwell, at that time general of the parliament’s forces, and a member of the committee, was no stranger to lord Broghill’s merit; and considering that this young nobleman might be of great use to him in reducing Ireland, he earnestly entreated the committee, that he might have leave to talk with him, and endeavour to gain him, before they proceeded to extremities. Having, with great difficulty, obtained this permission, he immediately dispatched a gentleman to lord Broghill, to let him know that he intended to wait upon him. Broghill was surprised at this message, having never had the least acquaintance with Cromwell, and therefore desired the gentleman to let the general know that he would wait upon his excellency. But while he was expecting the return of the messenger, Cromwell entered the room; and, after mutual civilities, told him in few words, that the committee of state were apprised of his design of going over, and applying to Charles Stuart for a commission to raise forces in Ireland; and that they had determined to make an example of him, if he had not diverted them from that resolution. The lord Broghill interrupted him, and assured him that the intelligence which the committee had received was false; that he was neither in a capacity, nor had any inclination, to raise disturbances in Ireland; and concluded with entreating his excellency to have a kinder opinion of him. Cromwell, instead of making any reply, drew some papers out of. his pocket, which were the copies of several letters sent by lord Broghill to those persons in whom he most confided, and put them into his hands. Broghill, finding it was to no purpose to dissemble any longer, asked his excellency’s pardon for what he had said, returned him, Vol. VI. y his humble thanks for his protection against the committee, and entreated his advice how he ought to behave in so delicate a conjuncture. Cromwell told him, that though till this time he had been a stranger to his person, he was not so to his merit and character; that he had heard how gallantly his lordship had already behaved in the Irish wars; and therefore, since he was named lord lieutenant of Ireland, and the reducing that kingdom was now become his province, that he had obtained leave of the committee to offer his lordship the command of a general officer, if he would serve in that war: that he should have no oaths or engagements imposed upon him, nor be obliged to draw his sword against any but the Irish rebels. Lord Broghill was infinitely surprised at so generous and unexpected an offer: he saw himself at liberty, by all the rules of honour, to serve against the Irish, whose rebellion and barbarities were equally detested by the royal party and the parliament: he desired, however, the general to give him some time to consider of what he had proposed to him. Cromwell briskly told him, that he must come to some resolution that very instant; that he himself was returning to the committee, who were still sitting; and if his lordship rejected their offer, they had determined to send him to the Tower. Broghill,' rinding that his life and liberty were in the utmost danger, and charmed with the frankness and generosity of Cromwell’s behaviour, gave him his word and honour, that he would faithfully serve him against the Irish rebels; upon which, Cromwell once more assured him, that the conditions which he had made with him should be punctually observed; and then ordered him to repair immediately to Bristol, to which place forces should be sent him, with a sufficient number of ships to transport him into Ireland.

Upon the king’s restoration, lord Broghill came to England; but, instead of being thanked for his service in Ireland, he was received with the utmost coldness. Upon inquiry, he learnt that sir Charles Coote had assured the king that he was the first man who stirred for him in Ireland; that lord Broghill opposed his majesty’s return, and was not at last brought to consent to it without much difficulty. His lordship, recollecting that he had still by him sir Charles’s letter, in which were these words, “Remember, my lord, that you first put rne on this design; and I beseech you, forsake me not in that which you first put me upon, which was, to declare for king and parliament,” desired his brother Shannon to put it into the hands of the king; who being fully convinced by it how serviceable Broghill had been to him, looked upon him with as gracious an eye as he could himself desire or expect. His lordship was soon after (Sept. 5, 1660 V) made earl of Orrery, sworn of the king’s privy- council, appointed one of the lords justices, and lord president of Munster.

After the king’s return the Irish Roman catholics sent over sir Nicholas Plunket, and some other commissioners, with a petition to his majesty, praying to be restored to their estates. As this would in effect have ruined the Protestants, they therefore chose the earl of Orrery, Montrath, and six more, to oppose theif adversaries before the king and his council. The Irish commissioners were so apprehensive of the earl’s eloquence and address upon this occasion, that they offered him eight thousand pounds in money, and to settle estates of seven thousand pounds a year upon him, if he would not appear against them; which proposal the earl rejected with proper disdain. When the cause came to a hearing, after the Irish commissioners had offered all they thought proper, the earl of Orrery boldly affirmed to the king that his Protestant subjects in Ireland were the first who formed an effectual party for restoring him; that the Irish had broken all the treaties which had been made with them; that they had fought against the authority both of the late and present king; and had offered the kingdom of Ireland to the pope, to the king of Spain, and the king of France. Lastly, to the great surprise, not only of the Irish, but of his own brother-commissioners, he proved his assertions by producing several original papers signed by the Irish supreme council, of which sir Nicholas Plunket himself was one. This last unexpected blow decided the dispute in favour of the Protestants; and obliged his majesty to dismiss the Irish commissioners with some harsher expressions than he commonly made use of.

Soon after this affair, his lordship, with sir Charles Coote, lately made earl of Montrath, and sir Maurice Eustace, were constituted lords justices of Ireland, and commissioned to call and hold a parliament. Some time before the meeting of the parliament, he drew with his own hand the famous act of settlement, by which he fixed the property, and gave titles to their estates to a whole nation. When the duke of Ormond was declared lord lieutenant, the earl of Orrery went into Munster, of which province he was president. By virtue of this office, he heard and determined causes in a court called the residency-court; and acquired so great a reputation in his judicial capacity, that he was offered the seals both by the king and the duke of York after the fall of lord Clarendon; but, being very much afflicted with the gout, he declined a post that required constant attendance. During the first Dutch war, in which France acted as a confederate with Holland, he defeated the scheme formed by the duke de Beaufort, admiral of France, to get possession of the harbour of Kinsale, and took advantage of the fright of the people, and the alarm of the government, to get a fort erected under his own directions, which was named Fort Charles. He promoted a scheme for inquiring into, and improving the king’s revenue in Ireland; but his majesty having applied great sums out of the revenue of that kingdom which did not come plainly into account, the inquiry was never begun. Ormond, listening to some malicious insinuations, began to entertain a jealousy of Orrery, and prevailed with the king to direct him to lay down his residential court; as a compensation for which, his majesty made him a present of 8000l. Sir Thomas Clifford, who had been brought into the ministry in England, apprehensive that he cpuld not carry his ends in Ireland whilst Orrery continued president of Munster, procured articles of impeachment of high treason and misdemeanours to be exhibited against him in the English house of commons; but his lordship being heard in his place, gave an answer so clear, circumstantial, and ingenuous, that the affair was dropt. The king laboured in vain to reconcile him to the French alliance, and the reducing of the Dutch. At the desire of the king and the duke of York, he drew the plan of an act of limitation, by which the successor would have been disabled from encroaching on civil and religious liberty; but the proposing thereof being postponed till after the exclusion-bill was set on foot, the season for making use of it was past. The iing, to hinder his returning to Ireland, and to keep him about his person, offered him the place of lord-treasurer; but the earl of Orrery plainly told his majesty that he was guided by unsteady counsellors, with whom he could not act. He died in October 1679, aged fifty-eight; leaving behind him the character of an able general, statesman, and writer. He had issue by his lady, two sons and five daughters. His writings are these: 1. “The Irish colours displayed; in a reply of an English Protestant to a letter of an Irish Roman catholic,” London, 1662, 4to. 2. “An answer to a scandalous letter lately printed, and subscribed by Peter Walsh, procurator for the secular and regular popish priests of Ireland, entitled A letter desiring a just and merciful regard of the Roman catholics of Ireland, given about the end of October 1660, to the then marquis, now duke of Ormond, and the second time lord lieutenant of that kingdom. By the right honourable the earl of Orrery, &c. being a full discovery of the treachery of the Irish rebels since the beginning of the rebellion there, necessary to be considered by all adventurers, and other persons estated in that kingdom,” Dublin, 1662, 4to. 3. “A poem on his majesty’s happy restoration.” 4. “A poem on the death of the celebrated Mr. Abraham CowJey,” London, 1667, fol. 5. “The history of Henry V. a tragedy,” London, 1668, fol. 6. “Mustapha, the son of Soliman the Magnificent, a tragedy,” London, Ifi67, fol. and 1668. 7. “The Black Prince, a tragedy,” London, 1672, fol. 8. “Triphon, a tragedy,” London, 1672, fol. These four plays were collected and published together in 1690, folio, and make now the entire first volume of the new edition of the earl’s dramatic works. 9. “Parthenissa, a romance in three volumes,” London, 1665, 4to, 1667, fol. 10. “A Dream.” In this piece he introduces the genius of France persuading Charles II. to promote the interest of that kingdom, and act upon French principles. He afterwards introduces the ghost of his father, dissuading him from it, answering all the arguments the genius of France had urged, and proving to him from his own misfortunes and tragical end, that a kind’s

chief treasure, and only real strength, is the affections of his people. 11. “A treatise upon the Art of War.” 12. Poems on the Fasts and Festivals of the Church.“His posthumous works are: 1.” Mr. Anthony, a comedy,“1692. 2.” Guzman, a comedy,“1693. 3.” Herod the great, a tragedy,“1694. 4.” Altemira, a tragedy,“brought upon the stage by Mr. Francis Manning, in 1702, with a prologue by Henry St. John, esq. afterwards lord viscount Boiingbroke, and an epilogue by the hon. Charles Boyle, esq. the late earl of Orrery, who also interspersed several songs in the work itself. 5.” State letters," published in 1742, fol. Mr. Morrice the editor, who was his biographer and chaplain, says that his patron drew up a very curious account of what was done in the court or camp, in which he had any part, or could speak of with certainty. But this has never been published. The duke of Ormond having by his majesty’s command consulted with the earl of Orrery upon the propositions to be laid before the parliament of Ireland in 1677, his lordship delivered to him five sheets of paper containing the most effectual methods of protecting the nation from foreign and domestic enemies, advancing the Protestant interest, increasing the revenue, and securing private property. But these, with other papers, were destroyed when lord Orrery’s house was burnt to the ground in 1690, by a party of king James’s soldiers, with the duke of Berwick at their head; Lionel, then earl of Orrery, and grandson to our author, being a minor, and abroad on his travels.

, earl of Orrery, second son of Roger second earl of Orrery, by lady Mary Sackville, daughter to Richard earl of Dorset and Middlesex, was born in August 1676, at his father’s house in Chelsea; and at fifteen entered a nobleman of Christ-church, in Oxford, under the care of Dr. Francis Atterbury, afterwards bishop of Rochester, and Dr. Freind. Dr. Aldrich, the head of that society, observing his uncommon application, drew up for his use that compendium of logic which is now read at Christ-church, wherein he styles him “the great ornament of our college.” Having quitted the university, he was in 1700 chosen member for the town of Huntington. A petition being presented to the house of commons, complaining of the illegality of his election, he spoke in support of that election with great warmth; and this probably gave rise to his duel with Mr. Wortley, the other candidate, in which, though Mr. Boyle had the advantage, the wounds he received threw him into a dangerous fit of sickness that lasted for many months. On the death of his elder brother, he became fourth earl of Orrery; soon after, he had a regiment given him, and was elected a knight of the Thistle. In 1706 he married lady Elizabeth Cecil, daughter to the earl of Exeter. In 1709 he was promoted to the rank of major-general, and sworn of her majesty’s privy council. He was envoy extraordinary from the queen to the states of Flanders and Brabant, with an appointment of ten pounds a day, at a very critical juncture, namely, during the treaty of Utrecht. There, some in authority at Brussels, knowing they were soon to become the emperor’s subjects, and that his imperial majesty was not on good terms with the queen, shewed less respect to her minister than they had formerly done: upon which, Orrery, who considered their behaviour as an indignity to the crown of Great Britain, managed with so much resolution and dexterity, that, when they thought his power was declining, or rather that he had no power at all, he got every one of them turned out of his post, Her majesty, in the tenth year of her reign, raised him to the dignity of a British peer, under the title of lord Boyle, baron of Marston, in Somersetshire. On the accession of king George I. he was made a lord of the bedchamber, and lord -lieutenant and custos rotulorum of the county of Somerset. His frequent voting against the ministers gave rise to a report that he was to be removed from all his posts; upon which he absented himself from the court: but his friends assuring him that they had ground to believe the king had a personal esteem for him, he wrote a letter to his majesty, signifying that though he looked upon his service as a high honour, yet, when he first entered into it, he did not conceive it was expected from him that he should vote against his conscience and his judgment; that he must confess it was his misfortune to differ widely in opinion from some of his majesty’s ministers; that if those gentlemen had represented this to his majesty as a crime not to be forgiven, and his majesty himself thought so, he was ready to resign those posts he enjoyed, from which he found he was already removed by a, common report, which was rather encouraged than contradicted by the ministers. The king going soon after to Hanover, lord Orrery’s regiment was taken from him; which his lordship looking upon as a mark of displeasure, resigned his post of lord of the bedchamber.

Lord Orford, in enumerating his works, attributes to him a translation of the life of Lysander from Plutarch, which he says is published in the English edition of that author; but the life of Lysander in that edition is given to one Lemau, a Cambridge man. His first appearance as an author, was when Dr. Aldrich, dean of Christ- church, finding him to be a good Grecian, put him upon publishing a new edition of the epistles of Phalaris, which appeared in the beginning of 1695, under the title of “Phalaridis Agrigentinorum tyranni epistolae. Ex Mss. recensuit, versione, annotationibus, &. vita insuper auctoris donavit Car. Boyle, ex aede Christi, Oxon,” 8vo. In this edition he was supposed to have been assisted by Aldrich and Atterbury. The authenticity of these epistles being called in question by Dr. Bentley, Mr. Boyle wrote an answer, entitled “Dr. Bentley’s Dissertation on the epistles of Phalaris examined.” In laying the design of this work, in reviewing a good part of the rest, in transcribing the whole, and attending the press, half a year of Atterbu-ry’s life was employed, as he declares in his “Epistolary Correspondence,” 1783, vol. II. p. 22. His lordship wrote a comedy, called “As you find it,” printed in the second volume of the works of Roger earl of Orrery. He was also author of a copy of verses to Dr. Garth, upon his Dispensary, and of a prologue to Mr. Southerne’s play, called “The Siege of Capua.”

The instrument called the Orrery obtained his name from the following circumstance: Rowley, a mathematical instrument-maker, having got one from Mr. George Graham, the original inventor, to he sent abroad with some of his own instruments, he copied it, and made the first for the earl of Orrery; sir Richard Steele, who knew nothing of Mr. Graham’s machine, thinking to do justice to the first encourager, as well as to the inventor of such a curious instrument, called it an Orrery, and gave Rowley the praise due to Mr. Graham.

, earl of Cork and Orrery, a nobleman who added fresh lustre to his name and family, was the only son and heir of Charles, the fourth earl of Orrery (the subject of the preceding article), by the lady Elizabeth Cecil, daughter of John earl of Exeter. He was born on the 2d of January, 1706-7, and put early under the tuition of Mr. Fenton, the author of Mariamne, and one of the coadjutors of Mr. Pope in the translation of the Odyssey, by whom he was instructed in English; and carried through the Latin tongue from the age of seven to thirteen. Between this amiable poet and his noble pupil a constant friendship subsisted; and his lordship always spoke of him after his decease, and often with tears, as “one of the worthiest and modestest men that ever adorned the court of Apollo.” After passing through Westminster school, lord Boyle was admitted as a nobleman at Christ-church, Oxford, of which college, as we have already seen, his father had been a distinguished ornament. One of his first poetical essays was an answer to some verses by Mrs. Howe, on an unsuccessful attempt to draw his picture.

When the earl of Orrery was committed prisoner to the Tower on account of Layer’s plot, such was the filial piety of his son, that he earnestly entreated to be shut up with his noble father; but this indulgence was thought too considerable to be granted. Not long after he had completed the twenty-first year of his age, he married, on the 9th of May 1728, lady Harriet Hamilton, the third and youngest daughter of George earl of Orkney. Though this marriage had the entire approbation of lord Orrery, it unfortunately happened that a dissension arose between the two earls, which placed the young couple in a very delicate and difficult situation; but lord Boyle maintained at the same time the tenderest affection for his wife, and the highest attachment to his father. The earl of Orrery, however, was too much irritated by the family quarrel, to see at first his son’s conduct in a proper point of light, although his excellent understanding could not fail in the end to get the better of his prejudices, when a reconciliation took place, and the little coldness which had subsisted between them served but the more to endear them to each other. The earl of Orrery was now so much pleased with lord Boyle, that he could scarcely be easy without him; and when in town, they were seldom asunder. It is to be lamented, that this happiness was rendered very transient by the unexpected death of lord Orrery and that the stroke was embittered by circumstance peculiarly painful and affecting to his noble son and successor. The father, whilst under the impression of his dissension with the earl of Orkney, had made a will, by which he had bequeathed to Christ-church, Oxford, his valuable library, consisting of above ten thousand volumes, together with a very fine collection of mathematical instruments. The only exceptions in favour of lord Boyle were the Journals of the House of Peers, and such books as related to the English history and constitution. The earl of Orrery left, besides, though he was greatly in debt, several considerable legacies to persons nowise related to him. Upon his reconciliation with his son, he determined to alter his will, and had even sent for his lawyer with that view, when the suddenness of his decease prevented the execution of his just and reasonable design. The young lord Orrery, with a true filial piety and generosity, instead of suffering his father’s effects to be sold, took his debts upon himself, and fulfilled the bequests, by paying the legacies, and sending the books and mathematical instruments within the limited time to Christ-church. The loss, however, of a parent, thus aggravated and embittered, left a deep impression upon his mind, and was succeeded by a fit of illness which endangered his life, and obliged him to repair to Bath. Whilst he was in that city, he received a letter from a friend, with a copy of verses inclosed, exhorting him to dispel his grief by poetry r and to shew that Bath could inspire, as well as Tunbridge;. from which place he had written some humorous verses the year before. To this letter his lordship returned the following answer:

In a few months lord Orrery so far recovered his health and spirits as to be able to attend his public duty as an English baron. He took his seat in the house of peers in the session of parliament which opened on the 13th of January, 1731-2, and soon distinguished himself by a speech in opposition to the ministry, against the mutiny-bill; the inconsistency of a standing army with the liberties of a free people being at that period the topic constantly insisted upon by the patriotic party. Though no notice is taken of his lordship’s speech in Timberland’s Debates, it is certain that he acquired considerable credit on this occasion. Mr. Budgell, in the dedication to his Memoirs of the Family of the Boyles, published in 1732, celebrates our noble lord as having displayed the united forces of reason and eloquence; and Mr. Ford, in a letter to Dr. Swift, written in the same year, mentions with pleasure a character which the dean had given of the earl of Orrery, and says, that he was extremely applauded for a speech he made against the army- bill. The approbation which his lordship received in this lirst exertion of his parliamentary talents, did not encourage him to become a public speaker; and we meet with only another instance in which he took any active part in a debate/ on the 13th of February, 1733-4, in favour of the duke of Marlborough’s bill for preventing the officers of the land forces from being deprived of their commissions, otherwise than by judgment of a court martial to be held for that purpose, or by address of either house of parliament. The delicacy of lord Orrery’s health, his passion for private life, and the occasions he had of sometimes residing in Ireland, seem to have precluded him from a very constant and regular attendance in the English house of peers. However, he did not fail to go thither when he apprehended himself to be called to it by particular duty; and we find his name to a considerable number of the protests which were so frequent during the grand opposition to sir Robert Waipole’s administration.

In the summer of 1732 the earl of Orrery went over to Ireland to re-establish his affairs, which were much embarrassed by the villainy of his father’s agent. As the family seat at Charleville had been burnt to the ground by a party of king James’s army in 1690, his lordship resided sometimes with a friend at that place, and sometimes at Cork. Whilst he was in this city, he met with a most severe affliction, in the loss of his countess, who died on the 22d of August, 1732. The character of this amiable lady has been drawn by lord Orrery himself, in his Observations on Pliny. The countess was interred with her ancestors, at Taplow, in Bucks; and Mr. S. Wesley, in a poem on her death, fully displayed her excellent qualities and virtues. Mr. Theobald did the same, in his dedication of Shakspeare’s Works to the earl. The dedication, it seems, was originally intended for her ladyship; and therefore lord Orrery is represented as succeeding to it by the melancholy right of executorship. Mr. Theobald professes to have borrowed many hints from hearing his patron converse on Shakspeare; and adds, “Your lordship may reasonably deny the loss of the jewels which I have disparaged in the unartful setting.” Such language, however, must be considered as partly complimentary; for if the earl of Orrery had contributed any material criticisms upon our great dramatic poet, they would undoubtedly have been distinctly specified. Some pathetic verses on the death of the countess, dated Marston, Dec. 17, 1734, were addressed by his lordship to Mrs. Rowe, who lived in his neighbourhood, and with whom he had an intimate friendship during the latter part of her life. How much this ingenious and excellent lady valued his esteem and regard, is evident from her observing, that “his approbation would be her vanity and boast, if she could but persuade herself she deserved it.” The house where she was born belonged to him; and he always passed by it, after her decease, with the utmost veneration. It appears from Mrs. Rowe’s posthumous letter to his lordship, that he had charged her with “a message to his Henrietta (Harriet), when she met her gentle spirit in the blissful regions.”

In October 1733, lord Orrery returned to England, and having now no attachment to London, he disposed of his house in Downing-street, Westminster, as likewise of his seat at Britwell, near Windsor, and retired to his seat at Marston, in Somersetshire. As this place had been much neglected by his ancestors, and was little more than a shell of a large old house, he amused himself in building offices, in fitting out and furnishing apartments, and laying out gardens and other plantations. Study and retirement being his principal pleasures, he took care to supply the loss he had sustained from his father’s will, by furnishing his library anew with the best authors. In the summer of 1734, probably in his way to France, where he sometimes went, he visited the tomb of his ancestors, Roger Boyle, esq, and Joan his wife, in Preston church, near Feversham. This monument, when the title of earl of Cork devolved upon him, he intended to have repaired, if his life had been prolonged. In the middle of the year 1735, we find him again in Ireland. On the 31st of October, in the same year, an amiable relation, and a most promising youth, Edmund duke of Buckingham, died at Rome, upon which melancholy event, lord Orrery paid a just tribute to the memory of the young nobleman, in an elegiac poem. It was printed in 1736, and is one of the most pleasing specimens which our author has afforded of his poetical abilities. In the winter of 1735-6, the duke of Dorset being then lord lieutenant of Ireland, the eail of Orrery neglected no opportunity of endeavouring to render his administration easy. If Dr. Swift is to be credited, Ireland was about that time in a wretched condition. As a proof of it, the dean asserted in a letter to Mr. Pope, that lord Orrery had 3000l. a year in the neighbourhood of Cork, and that more than three years rent was unpaid. In April 1737, his lordship, who was then at Cork, earnestly pressed Dr. Swift to accompany him to England; but the doctor, who never saw Marston, did not accept the invitation. Lord Orrery took over with him to Mr. Pope all the letters of that great poet to Swift, which the dean had preserved or could find, which were not more in number than twenty-five. About this time, our noble author, that his sons might be educated under his own eye, and also have the benefit of attending Westminster-school, took a small house in Duke-street, Westminster. On the 30th of June, 1738, the earl of Orrery, after having been six years a widower, married, in Ireland, Mrs. Margaret Hamilton, only daughter and heiress of John Hamilton, esq. of Caledon, in the county of Tyrone, grand-daughter of Dr. Dopping, bishop of Meath, and niece of Dr. Dopping, bishop of Ossory. Swift, in a letter to Miss Hamilton, on her intended nuptials, after pretending a prior claim, as she had made so many advances to him, and confessed “herself to be nobody’s goddess but his,” archly waves it, and politely “permits lord Orrery to make himself the happiest man in the world; as I know not,” he adds, “any lady in this kingdom of so good sense or so many accomplishments.” He gives a great character of her, likewise, in his last printed letter to Mr. Pope. In this lady, the earl of Orrery, with gratitude to Heaven, acknowledged that the loss of his former countess was repaired. In 1739 he published a new edition, 2 vols. 8vo, of the dramatic works of his great-grandfather. Though these volumes cannot be particularly valuable, they are now become exceedingly scarce. In 1741 he published separately, in folio, “The first Ode of the first book of Horace imitated, and inscribed to the earl of Chesterfield;” and “Pyrrha, an imitation of the fifth Ode of the first book of Horace.” In the preface to the last, lord Orrery characterises Dacier’s and Sanadon’s translations, and makes some observations on Horace, which shew that he entered with taste and spirit into the peculiar excellencies of that poet. In 1742 he published in one volume, folio, the “State Letters” of his great-grandfather, the first earl; to which were prefixed Morrice’s memoirs of that eminent statesman. On the 25th of August, 1743, his lordship was presented by the university of Oxford to the honorary degree of D. C. L.; and he was, likewise, F.R. S. Lord Boyle, in 1746, being settled at Oxford, and Mr. Boyle in the college at Westminster, their father quitted London, and fixed his residence at Caledon, in Ireland. During one of his occasional visits to England, after the publication of the second volume of the Biographia Britannica, he thanked Dr. Campbell, “in the name of all the Boyles, for the honour he had done to them, and to his own judgment, by placing the family in such a light as to give a spirit of emulation to those who were hereafter to inherit the title.” Lord Orrery resided in Ireland, with very little intermission, from 1746 to 1750; happy in that domestic tranquillity, that studious retirement and inactivity, from which, as he himself expressed it, he was scarcely ever drawn, but with the utmost reluctance. “Whenever,” as he observed in a private letter, “we step out of domestic life in search of felicity, we come back again disappointed, tired, and chagrined. One day passed under our own roof, with our friends and our family, is worth a thousand in any other place. The noise and bustle, or, as they are foolishly called, the diversions of life, are despicable and tasteless, when once we have experienced the real delight of a fire-side.” These sentiments, which do so much honour to the rectitude of his lordship’s understanding, and the goodness of his heart, reflect, at the same time, a just reproach on the absurd and criminal dissipation that prevails for the most part among persons of rank and fortune. During the earl of Orrery’s residence in Ireland, he employed his leisure in laying out gardens and plantations at Caledon, and in improving and adorning its fine situation. On his return to Marston, he continued his alterations and improvements in the house and gardens at that place, many of the plans for which were designed by lord Boyle, who had a taste for architecture. In the mean while, the amusement of our noble author’s winter evenings was his translation of “The Letters of Pliny the Younger, with observations on each letter, and an Essay on Pliny’s life, addressed to Charles lord Boyle.” The essay is dated Leicester-fields, January 27, 1750-1; and, together with the translation, was published at London, in the following April, in 2 vols. 4to. This work met with so good a reception from the public, that three editions of it in octavo have since been printed. In the summer of the same year, lord Orrery addressed to his second son Hamilton a series of letters, containing “Remarks on the Life and Writings of Dr. Swift, dean of St. Patrick’s, Dublin.” This work gave rise to many strictures and censures on his lordship for having professed himself Swift’s friend while he was exposing his weaknesses. Subsequent inquiries into Swift’s character have proved that the portrait he drew was not unfaithful. To this, however, we shall have occasion to recur in our account of Swift.

, earl of Cork and Orrery, the second son of John, earl of Orrery, the subject of the last article but one, was born in February 1730, and educated at Westminster-school, where the masterly manner in which he acted the part of Ignoramus, and spoke the epilogue, did great credit to his genius. In June 1748, he was matriculated at Oxford, and December following was admitted student of Christ-church, and proceeded regularly to the degree of LL. B. In 1762 he succeeded his father in the earldom, his elder brother having deceased three years before. In 1763, he was created LL. D. by diploma, and at the same time appointed high steward of the university of Oxford. He continued student of Christ church on a faculty till his death, which happened at Marston house, Jan. 17, 1764. He is recorded as an author from having contributed two papers to the “World,” drawn up with vivacity, elegance, and humour, and affording a proof that if his life had been continued, he would have added new literary honour to his celebrated name and family. These papers are No. 60 and 170.

, a dissenting divine of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, a wit himself, and “the cause of wit in other men,” particularly dean Swift and his contemporaries, was born in 1645 at Staines in Middlesex, where his father then was minister, but was afterwards, at the restoration, ejected for nonconformity from the living of Collingbourne Ducis, in Wiltshire. Daniel was educated at Westminster school, and in 1660 went to Magdalen-hall, Oxford, but having some scruples of the nonconformist stamp, he left the university without a degree. It would appear, however, that he had taken orders, as we are told that immediately after he was invited to be chaplain to a gentleman of Chute in Wiltshire, and afterwards to a Mr. Smith of Tedworth, where he was tutor to that gentleman’s son. In 1667, the earl of Orrery, lord president of Munster, took Mr. Burgess over to Ireland, and appointed him master of a school which he had established at Charleville for the purpose of strengthening the protestant interest in that kingdom, and Mr. Burgess, while here, superintended the education of the sons of some of the Irish nobility and gentry. After leaving this school, he was chaplain to lady Mervin, near Dublin; but about this time, we are told, he was ordained in Dublin as a presbyterian minister, and married a Mrs. Briscoe in that city, by whom he had a son and two daughters.

, earl Granville, one of the most distinguished orators and statesmen of the last century, was born on the 22d of April, 1690. His father was George lord Carteret, baron Carteret, of Hawnes in the county of Bedford, having been so created on the 19th of October 1681, when he was only fifteen years of age and his mother was lady Grace, youngest daughter of John earl of Bath. He succeeded his father when only in his fifth year. He was educated at Westminster school, from which he was removed to Christ-church Oxford in both which places he made such extraordinary improvements, that he became one of the most learned young noblemen of his time; and he retained to the last his knowledge and love of literature. Dr. Swift humorously asserts, that he carried away from Oxford, with a singularity scarcely to be justified, more Greek, Latin, and philosophy, than properly became a person of his rank; indeed, much more of each, than most of those who are forced to live by their learning will be at the unnecessary pains to load their heads with. Being thus accomplished, lord Carteret was qualified to make an early figure in life. As soon as he was introduced into the house of peers, which was on the 25th of May, 1711, he distinguished himself by his ardent zeal for the protestant succession, which procured him the eariy notice of king George 1. by whom he was appointed, in 1714, one of the lords of the bed-chamber in 1715, bailiff of the island of Jersey and in 1716, lord lieutenant and custis rotulorum of the county of Devon which last office he held till August 1721, when he resigned it in favour of Hugh lord Clinton. His mother also, lady Grace, was created viscountess Carteret and countess Grai>ville, by letters patent, bearing date on the first of January, 1714-15, with limitation of these honours to her son John lord Carteret. His lordship, though still young, became, from the ea.ly part of king George the First’s reign, an eminent speaker in the house of peers. The first instance of the display of his eloquence, was in the famous debate on the bill for lengthening the duration of Parliaments, in which he supported the duke of Devonshire’s motion for the repeal of the triennial act. On the 18th of February, 17 t 7- 18, he spoke in behalf of the bill for punishing mutiny and desertion; and in the session of parliament which met on the llth of November following, he moved, for the address of thanks to the king, to congratulate his majesty on the seasonable success of his naval forces; and to assume him, that the house would support him in the pursuit of those prudent and necessary measures he had taken to secure the trade and quiet of his dominions, and the tranquillity of Europe. In Jan. 1718-19 he was appointed ambassador extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to the queen of Sweden, with whom his first business was to, remove the difficulties which the British subjects had met with* Jo their commerce in the Baltic, and to procure satisfaction for the losses they had sustained; and in both he completely succeeded. On the 6th of November, 1719, lord Carteret first took upon him the character of ambassador extraordinary ana plenipotentiary; at which time, in a private audience, he offered his royal master’s mediation t<v make peace between Sweden and Denmark, and between Sweden and the Czar; both of which were readily accepted by the queen. A peace between Sweden, Prussia, and Hanover, having been concluded by lord Carteret, it was proclaimed at Stockholm on the 9th of March, 1719-L'O. This was the prelude to a reconciliation between Sweden and Denmark, which he also effected, and the treaty was signed July 3, 1720. In August his lordship was appointed, together with earl Stanhope and sir Robert Siutcm, ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary at the congress of Cambray but whether he acted in this capacity does not appear. From Denmark, however, he arrived in England Dec. 5, and a few weeks after took a share in the debates on the state of the national credit, occasioned by the unfortunate and iniquitous effects of the South-Sea scheme, maintaining that the estates of the criminals, whether directors or not directors, ought to be confiscated. Whilst this affair was in agitation, he was appointed ambassador extraordinary to the court of France, and was on the point of setting out, when the death of secretary Craggs induced his majesty to appoint lord Carteret his successor, May 4, 1721, and next day he was admitted into office, and sworn of his majesty’s most honourable privy council. Whilst lord Carteret was secretary of state, he not only discharged the general duties of his employment to the satisfaction of his royal master, but ably defended in parliament the measures of administration. This he did in the debate concerning Mr. Law, the famous projector of the Mississippi scheme, whose arrival in England, in 1721, by the connivance, as it was thought, and even under the sanction of the ministry, excited no small degree of disgust; and he also took a part on the side of government, in th debate on the navy debt, and with regard to the various other motions and bills of the session. In the new parliament, which met on the llth of October, 1722, his lordship, on occasion of Layer’s plot, spoke in favour of suspending the habeas corpus act for one year; acquainted the house with the bishop of Rochester’s, lord NortU and Grey’s, and the earl of Orrery’s commitment to the Tower; and defended the motion for the imprisonment of the duke of Norfolk. In all the debates concerning this conspiracy, and particularly with regard to Atterbury, lord Carteret vindicated the proceedings of the tectart; as he did, likewise, in the case of the act for laying an extraordinary tax upon papists. On the 26th of May, 1723, when the king’s affairs called him abroad, his lordship was appointed one of the lords justices of the kingdom; but notwithstanding this, he went to Hanover, in conjunction with lord Townshend, the other secretary; and both these noblemen, in their return to England, had several conferences at the Hague, with the principal persons of the Dutch administration, on subjects of importance. In the session of parliament, January, 1723-4, lord Carteret, in the debate on the mutiny bill, supported the necessity of eighteen thousand men being kept up, as the number of land- forces, in opposition to lord Trevor, who had moved that the four thousand additional men, who had been raised the year before, should be discontinued., Not many days after this debate, several alterations took place at court. Lord Carteret quitted the office of secretary of state, in which he was succeeded by the duke of Newcastle; and on the same day, being the third of April, 1724, he was constituted lord -lieutenant of Ireland, and in October arrived at Dublin, where he was received with the usual solemnity. The Irish were at that time in a great ferment about the patent for Wood’s halfpence, which makes so signal a figure in the life and writings of Dr. Swift. One of the first things done by the lord-lieutenant was to publish a proclamation, offering a reward of three hundred pounds for a discovery of the author of the Drapier’s Letters. When he was asked, by Dr. Swift, howhe could concur in the prosecution of a poor honest fellow, who had been guilty of no other crime than that of writing three or four letters for the good of his country, his excellency replied, in the words of Virgil,

Dr. Delany, on the 9tti of June 1743, married a second time. The lady with whom he formed this connexion was Mrs. Pendarves, the relict of Alexander Pen Janes, esq a very ingenious and excellent woman; of whom some account will be given in the next article. The doctor had lost his first wife December 6, 1741. March 13, 1744, our author preached a sermon before the society for promoting protestant working schools in Ireland. In May 1744, he was raised to the highest preferment which he ever attained, the deanry of Down, in the room of Dr. Thomas Fletcher, appointed to be bishop of Dro no re. In the same year, previously to this promotion, our author published a volume of sermons upon social duties, fifteen in number, to which in a second edition, 1747, were added five more, on the opposite vices. This is the most useful of Dr. Delany’s performances; the objects to which rt relates being of very important and general concern. Dr. Delany’s next publication was not till 174-8, and that was only a sixpenny pamphlet. It was entitled “An Essay towards evidencing the divine original of Tythes,” and had at first been drawn up, and probably preached as a sermon. The text, rather a singular one, was the tenth commandment, which forbids us to covet any thing that is our neighbour’s; and it required some ingenuity to deduce the divine original of tithes from that particular prohibition. After an interval of six years, Dr. Delany again appeared in the world as an author, in answer to the earl of Orrery’s “Remarks on the Life and Writings of Dr. Swift.” Many of Su ill’s zealous admirers were not a little displeased with the representations which the noble lord had given of him in various respects. Of this number was Dr. Delany, who determined therefore to do justice to the memory of his old friend; for which few were better qualified, having been in the habits of intimacy with the dean of St. Patrick’s, from his first coming over to Ireland, and long before lord Orrery could have known any thing concerning him. On the whole, it was thought that this production of the doctor’s enabled the public to form a far more clear estimation of the real character of the dean of St. Patrick’s, than any account of him which had hitherto been given to the world; yet perhaps the fairest estimate must be made by a comparison of both. However zealous Dr. Delany might be for the honour of his friend, he did not satisfy Deane Swift, esq. who, in his Essay upon the life, writings, and character of his relation, treated our author with extreme ill manners and gross abuse; to which he thought proper to give an answer, in a letter to Mr. Swift, published in 1755. In this letter the doctor justified himself; and he did it with so much temper and ingenuity, so much candour, and yet with so much spirit, that the polite gentleman, and the worthy divine, were apparent in every page of his little pamphlet. The year 1754 also produced another volume of sermons; the larger part of them are practical, and these are entitled to great commendation, particularly two discourses on the folly, iniquity, ad absurdity of duelling. During this part of Dr. Delany’s life, he was involved in a law-suit of great consequence, and which, from its commencement to its final termination, lasted more than nine years. It related to the personal estate of his first lady; and although a shade was cast on his character by the decision of the Irish court of chancery, his conduct was completely vindicated by that decree being reversed in the house of lords in England. But he was not so deeply engaged in the prosecution of his law-suit as entirely to forget his disposition to be often appearing in. the world as an author. In 1757 he began a periodical paper called “The Humanist,” whicli was carried on through 15 numbers, and then dropped. In 1761 Dr. Delany published a tract, entitled “An humble apology for Christian Orthodoxy,” and several sermons. It was in 1763, after an interval of nearly thirty years from the publication of his former volumes, that he gave to the world the third and last volume of his “Revelation examined with candour.” In the preface the doctor has indulged himself in some peevish remarks upon Reviewers of works of literature; but from complaints of this kind few writers have ever derived any material advantage. With regard to the volume itself, it has been thought to exhibit more numerous instances of the prevalence of imagination, over judgment than had occurred in the former part of the undertaking. In 1766 Dr. Delany published a sermon against transubstantiation; which was succeeded in the same year by his last publication, which was a volume containing 18 discourses. Dr. Delany departed this life at Bath, in May 1763, in the 83d year of his age. Though in general he was an inhabitant of Ireland, it appears from several circumstances, and especially from his writings, almost all of which were published in London, that he frequently came over to England, and occasionally resided there for a considerable time. Of his literary character an estimate may be formed from what has been already said. With regard to two of his principal works, the “Revelation examined with candour,” and the “Life of David,” they contain so many fanciful ^ul doubtful positions, that all the ability and learning i.,i., played in them will scarcely suffice to hand them down, with any eminent degree of reputation, to future ages. It is on his sermons, and particularly on those which relate to social duties, that will principally depend the perpetuity of his fame. With respect to his personal character, he appears to have been a gentleman of unquestionable piety and goodness, and of an uncommon warmth of heart. This warmth of heart was, however, accompanied with some inequality, impetuosity, and irritability of temper. Few excelled him in charity, generosity, and hospitality. His income, which for the last twenty years of his life was 3006J. per annum, sunk under the exercise of these virtues, and he left little behind him besides books, plate, and furniture. Of a literary diligence, protracted to above fourscore years, Dr. Delany has afforded a striking example; though it may possibly be thought, that if, wben his body and mind grew enfeebled, he had remembered the solve senescentem equum, it would hate been of no disadvantage to his reputation.

, a very eminent divine, descended of a noble family of Lucca, was born June 6, 1576; but of his early years we have no information. When, however, he was only nineteen years of age, we find him appointed professor of Hebrew at Geneva. In 1619 the church of Geneva sent him to the synod of Dort, with his colleague Theodore Tronchin. Diodati gained so much reputation in this synod, that he was chosen, with five other divines, to prepare the Belgic confession of faith. He was esteemed an excellent divine, and a good preacher. His death happened at Geneva, Oct. 3, 1649, in his seventy-third year, and was considered as a public loss. He has rendered himself noticed by some works which he published, but particularly by his translation of the whole Bible into Italian, the first edition of which he published, with notes, in 1607, at Geneva, and reprinted in 16 n. The New Testament was printed separately at Geneva in 1608, and at Amsterdam and Haerlem in 1665. M. Simon observes, that his method is rather that of a divine and a preacher, than of a critic, by which he means only, that his work is more of a practical than a critical kind. He translated the Bible also into French, but not being so intimate with that language, he is not thought to have succeeded so well as in the Italian. This translation was printed in folio, at Geneva, in 1664. He was also the first who translated into French father Paul’s “History of the Council of Trent,” and many have esteemed this a more faithful translation than de la Houssaye’s, although less elegant in language. He also is said to have translated sir Edwin Sandys’ book on the “State of Religion in the West.” But the work by which he is best known in this country is his Annotations on the Bible, translated into English, of which the third and best edition was published in 1651, fol. He is said to have begun writing these annotations in 1606, at which time it was expected that Venice would have shaken off the popish yoke, a measure to which he was favourable; and he went on improving them in his editions of the Italian and French translations. This work was at one time time very popular in England, and many of the notes of the Bible, called the “Assembly of Divines’ Annotations,” were taken from Diodati literally. Diodati was at onetime in England, as we learn from the life of bishop Bedell, whom he was desirous to become acquainted with, and introduced him to Dr. Morton, bishop of Durham. From Morrice’s “State Letters of the right hon. the earl of Orrery,” we learn that when invited to preach at Venice, he was obliged to equip himself in a trooper’s habit, a scarlet cloak with a sword, and in that garb he mounted the pulpit; but was obliged to escape again to Geneva, from the wrath of a Venetian nobleman, whose mistress, affected by one of Diqdati'a sermons, had refused to continue her connection with her keeper. The celebrated Milton, also, contracted a friendship for Diodati, when on his travels; and some of his Latin elegies are addressed to Charles Diodati, the nepheiv of the divine. This diaries was one of Milton’s most intimate friends, and was the son of Theodore Diodati, who, although originally of Lucca, as well as his brother, married an English lady, and his son in every respect became an Englishman. He was also an excellent scholar, and being educated to his father’s profession, practised physic in Cheshire. He was at St. Paul’s school, with Milton, and afterwards, in 1621, entered of Trinity-college, Oxford. He died in 1638.

1753, he commenced an acquaintance, which soon ripened into a friendship, with John earl of Orrery (soon after earl of Corke): this connexion was productive of much pleasure and emolument to them both, and in some degree also to the public, his lordship’s “Letters to Mr. Duncombe from Italy” having since appeared in print. In

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

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

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

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

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

On the death of the rev. Joseph Caryl, in 1673, Dr. Owen was invited to succeed him in the charge of a very numerous congregation in Leadenhall- street, and as he had already a charge of the sme kind, the congregations agreed to unite. In the following year he published “A Discourse concerning the Holy Spirit;” in 1677, his “Doctrine of Justification by Faith;” and in 1679, his “Glorious Mystery of the Person of Christ;” all which, at least the genuine editions of them, are still in considerable request. Dr. Owen was in most of his works rather prolix, which has given rise to abridgments of some of them, but as these are executed sometimes by men not exactly according in his principles, little reliance can be placed on their accuracy. In his own days, we are told that his works procured him. the admiration and friendship of many persons of rank, who took great delight in his conversation. Among these are enumerated the earl of Orrery, the earl ofAnglesea, lord Willoughby of Parham, lord Wharton, lord Berkley, sir John Trevor, one of the principal secretaries of state, &c. Even Charles II. and the duke of York paid particular respect to him. It is said that when he was at Tunbridge, drinking the waters, the duke sent for him to his tent, and entered into a long conversation on the subject of nonconformity. The king went yet farther; for, after his return to London, his majesty conversed with him for the space of two hours together, and after assuring him of his favour and respect, told him he might have access to his person as often as he pleased; said that he was sensible of the wrong he had done to the dissenters; declared himself a friend to liberty of conscience, and concluded all by giving Dr. Owen a thousand guineas to distribute among those who had suffered most by the late severities. Whether the professions of the king and the duke were sincere or not, or whether this was an act of policy, or an involuntary respect paid to the talents and amiable private character of Dr. Owen, it appears that he was not afterwards molested in the exercise of his ministry.

After his return from France, he was admitted of Lincoln’s Inn, with the view of studying the law, and continued there till the memorable year 1665, when the plague raged in London. In 1666, his father committed to him the care of a considerable estate in Ireland, which occasioned him, for a time, to reside in that kingdom. At Cork he was informed, by one of the people called Quakers, that Thomas Loe, whose preaching had affected him so early in life, was shortly to be at a meeting in that city. To this meeting he went. It is said that Loe, who preached in the meeting, began his declaration with these words: “There is a faith that overcomes the world, and there is a faith that is overcome by the world.” The manner in which Loe enlarged upon this exordium is not known; but the effect was the conviction of young Penn, who afterwards constantly attended the meetings of the Quakers, notwithstanding all obstacles. The year after his arrival in Ireland he was, with many others, taken from a meeting at Cork, and carried before the mayor, by whom he was committed to prison; but was soon released, on application to the earl of Orrery. This was his first imprisonment, at which time he was about twenty-three years of age; and it tended to strengthen the ties of his union with a people whom he believed to suffer innocently. His father, understanding his attachment to the Quakers, remanded him home; and though there was yet no great alteration in his dress, yet his serious deportment evincing the religious state of his mind, confirmed the fears of his father, and gave occasion to a species of conflict between them not easily described. The father felt great affection for an accomplished and dutiful son, and ardently desired the promotion of his temporal interests, which he feared would be obstructed by the way of life he had embraced. The son was sensible of the duty he owed to his parent, and afflicted in believing that he could not obey him but at the risk of his eternal welfare. At length the father would have compounded with the son, and suffered him to retain the simplicity of his manners to all others, if he would consent to be uncovered before the king, the duke (afterwards James II.), and himself. Penn desired time to consider of this requisition; and having employed it in fasting and supplication, in order, as he conceived, to know the divine will, he humbly signified to his father that he could not comply with it. After this, the father being utterly disappointed in his expectations, could no longer endure the sight of his son, and a second time drove him from his family. In this seclusion he comforted himself with the promise of Christ, to those who leave house or parents for his sake. His support, outwardly, was the charity of his friends, and some supplies privately sent him by his mother; but, by degrees, his father, becoming convinced of his integrity by his perseverance, permitted him to return to the family; and, though he did not give him open countenance, he privately used his interest to get him released, when imprisoned for his attendance at the Quakers’ meetings.

, an English lady once highly praised for her wit and accomplishments, was the daughter of Mr. Fowler, a merchant of London, and born there Jan. 1, 1631. She was educated at a boarding-school at Hackney; where she distinguished herself early for her skill in poetry. When very young, she became the wife of James Philips, of the priory of Cardigan, esq. and afterwards went with the viscountess of Dungannon into Ireland. At the request of the earl of Orrery, she translated from the French, and dedicated to the countess of Cork, “Corneille’s tragedy of Pompey” which was several times acted at the new theatre there in 1663 and 1664, in which last year it was published. She translated also the four first acts of “Horace,” another tragedy of Corneille; the fifth being done by sir John Denham. She died of the small pox in London, the 22d of June, 1664, to the regret of all the beau-monde, in the thirty-third year of her age “having not left,” says Langbaine, “any of her sex her equal in poetry.” “She not only equalled,” adds he, “alt that is reported of the poetesses of antiquity, the Lesbian Sappho and the Roman Sulpitia, but justly found her admirers among the greatest poets of our age:” and then he mentions the earls of Orrery and Roscommon, Cowley, and others. Cowley wrote an ode upon her death. Dr. Jeremy Taylor had addressed to her his “Measures and Offices of Friendship:” the second edition of which was printed in 1,657, 12mo. She assumed the name of Orinda, and gave that of Anten'or to her husband; she had likewise a female friend Anne Owen, who was Lucasia. In 1667, were printed, in folio, “Poems by the most deservedly admired Mrs. Catherine Philips, the matchless Orinda. To which is added, Monsieur Corneille’s Pompey and Horace, tragedies. With several other translations from the French;” and her portrait before them, engraven by Fait born. There was likewise another edition in 1678, folio; in the preface of which we are told, that “she wrote her familiar letters with great facility, in a very fair hand, and perfect orthography; and if they were collected with those excellent discourses she wrote on several subjects, they would make a volume much larger than that of her poems.” In 1705, a small volume of her letters to sir Charles Cotterell was printed under the title of “Letters from Orinda to Poliarchus:” the editor of which tells us, that “they were the effect of an happy intimacy between herself and the late-famous Poliarchus, and are an admirable pattern for the pleasing correspondence of a virtuous friendship. They will sufficiently instruct us, how an intercourse of writing between persons of different sexes ought to be managed with delight and innocence; and teach the world not to load such a commerce with censure and detraction, when it is removed at such a distance from even the appearance of guilt.” All the praise of her contemporaries, however, has not been sufficient to preserve her works from oblivion.