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

, lord of Someldyck and Spyck, one of the most celebrated negociators of the United Provinces, was the son of Cornelius Aarsens, (who was greffier, or secretary of state, from 1585 to 1623,) and was born at the Hague in 1572. His father put him under the care of Duplessis Mornay at the court of William I. prince of Orange. The celebrated John Barnevelt sent him afterwards as agent into France; and, after residing there some time, he was recognised as ambassador, the first whom the French Court had received in that capacity from the United States; and the king, Louis XIII. created him a knight and baron. After holding this office for fifteen years, he became obnoxious to the French Court, and was deputed to Venice, and to several German and Italian princes, on occasion of the troubles in Bohemia. But such was the dislike the French king now entertained against him, that he ordered his ambassadors in these courts not to receive his visits. One cause of this appears to have been a paper published by Aarsens in 1618, reflecting on the French king’s ministers. In 1620 he was sent as ambassador to England, and again in 1641: the object of this last embassy was to negociate a marriage between prince William, son to the prince of Orange, and a daughter of Charles I. Previous to this, however, we find him again In France, in 1624, as ambassador extraordinary, where it appears that he became intimate with and subservient to the cardinal Richelieu; who used to say that he never knew but three great politicians, Oxenstiern, chancellor of Sweden, Viscardi, chancellor of Montferrat, and Francis Aarsens. His character, however, has not escaped just censure, on account of the hand he had in the death of Barnevelt, and of some measures unfriendly to the liberties of his country. He died in 1641. The editors of the Diet. Historique attribute to him “A Journey into Spain, historical and political,” published by De Sercy at Paris, 1666, 4to, and often reprinted; but this was the work of a grandson, of both his names, who was drowned in his passage from England to Holland, 1659.

Soon after the war broke out on the Continent in 1792-3, he was employed there, and had the local rank of lieutenant-general conferred upon him. He commanded the advanced guard in the action on the heights at Gateau, and was wounded at Nimeguen. On every occasion his bravery and skill procured him the warmest praise of the commander in chief, and of the army. In the unfortunate retreat from Holland, in the winter of 1794, the guards as well as the sick were left under his care, whom he conducted with the utmost humanity, amidst many painful scenes, during the disastrous march from Deventer to Oldensall. In 1795, he was made knight of the Bath, and appointed commander in chief of the forces in the West Indies. On his arrival, he obtained possession of the island of Grenada, in the month of March, and soon after of the settlements of Demarara and Essequibo, in South America. His next conquests were the islands of St. Lucia and St. Vincent’s; and in February 1797 the Spanish island of Trinidad capitulated to him. This successful campaign being concluded, he returned to Europe, and had the command conferred upon him of the 2d, or North British dragoons, and had been before his arrival promoted to the rank of lieutenant-general, and was appointed lieutenant-governor of the Isle of Wight, from which he was in 1798 removed to the higher office of governor of Fort Augustus and Fort St. George. Previous to this he was appointed commander in chief in Ireland. In this situation he laboured to maintain the discipline of the army, to suppress the rising rebellion, which had been concerted between the French government and a number of traitors at home; and he protected the people from the inconveniencies of military government, with a care and skill worthy of the great general, and the enlightened and beneficent statesman. But circumstances rendering it necessary that the civil and military command of that country should be invested in the same person (the marquis Cornwallis), he was removed to the chief command in Scotland, where his conduct gave universal satisfaction.

, a very eminent Swedish surgeon and physician, was born near Stockholm in the beginning of the eighteenth century. He studied first at Upsal, and afterwards at Stockholm, under the ablest practitioners in physic and surgery. In 1741 he travelled to Germany and France, and served as surgeon in the French army for two years. In 1745 he took up his residence in Stockholm, where for half a century he was considered as the first man in his profession. He introduced many valuable improvements in the army-hospitals, and his general talents and usefulness procured him the most flattering marks of public esteem. He was appointed director general of all the hospitals in the kingdom, had titles of nobility conferred upon him, was created a knight of Vasa, and became commander of that order. In 1764, the university of Upsal made him doctor in medicine by diploma, and he was enrolled a member of various learned societies. He died in 1807, at an advanced age. He published various works in the Swedish language, the principal of which are: 1. “A treatise on Fresh Wounds,” Stockholm, 1745. 2, “Observations on Surgery,” 1750. 3. “Dissertation on the operation for the Cataract,” 1766; and 4. “A Discourse on reforms in Surgical Operations,” 1767.

, the Roman emperor, was born at Rome Jan. 24, in the year of Christ 76. His father left him an orphan, at ten years of age, tinder the guardianship of Trajan, and Caelius Tatianus, a Roman knight. He began to serve very early in the armies, having been tribune of a legion before the death of Domitian. He was the person chosen by the army of Lower Mcesia, to carry the news of Nerva’s death to Trajan, successor to the empire. The extravagances of his youth deprived him of this emperor’s favour; but having recovered it by reforming his behaviour, he was married to Sabina, a grand niece of Trajan, and the empress Plotina became his great friend and patroness. When he was quaestor, he delivered an oration in the senate; but his language was then so rough and unpolished, that he was hissed: this obliged him to apply to the study of the Latin tongue, in which he afterwards became a great proficient, and made a considerable figure for his eloquence. He accompanied Trajan in most of his expeditions, and particularly distinguished himself in the second war against the Daci; and having before been quaestor, as well as tribune of the people, he was now successively praetor, governor of Pannonia, and consul. After the siege of Atra in Arabia was raised, Trajan, who had already given him the government of Syria, left him the command of the army; and at length, when he found death approaching, it is said he adopted him. The reality of this adoption is by some disputed, and is thought to have been a contrivance of Plotina; however, Adrian, who was then in Antiochia, as soon as he received the news of that, and of Trajan’s death, declared himself emperor on the llth of August, 117. He then immediately made peace with the Persians, to whom he yielded up great part of the conquests of his predecessors; and from generosity, or policy, he remitted the debts of the Roman people, which, according to the calculation of those who have reduced them to modern money, amounted to 22,500,000 golden crowns; and he caused to be burnt all the bonds and obligations relating to those debts, that the people might be under no apprehension of being called to an account for them afterwards. He went to visit all the provinces, and did not return to Rome till the year 118, when the senate decreed him a triumph, and honoured him with the title of Father of his country; but he refused both, and desired that Trajan’s image might triumph. The following year he went to Mcesia to oppose the Sarmatce. In his absence several persons of great worth were put to death; and though he protested he had given no orders for that purpose, yet the odium fell chiefly upon him. No prince travelled more than Adrian; there being hardly one province in the empire which be did not visit. In 120 he went into Gaul, and thence to Britain, where he caused a wall or rampart to be built, as a defence against the Caledonians who would not submit to the Iloman government. In 121 he returned into France, and thence to Spain, to Mauritania, and at length into the East, where he quieted the commotions raised by the Parthians. After having visited all the provinces of Asia, he returned to Athens in 125, where he passed the winter, and was initiated in the mysteries of Eleusinian Ceres. He went from thence, to Sicily, and saw mount Ætna. He returned to Rome the beginning of the year 129; and, according to some, he went again the same year to Africa; and after his return from thence, to the east. He was in Egypt in the year 132, revisited Syria the year following, returned to Athens in 134, and to Rome in 135. The persecution against the Christians was very violent under his reign; but it was at length suspended, in consequence of the remonstrances of Quadratus bishop of Athens, and Aristides, two Christian philosophers, who presented the emperor with some books in favour of their religion. He was more severe against the Jews; and, by way of insult, erected a temple to Jupiter on mount Calvary, and placed a statue of Adonis in the manger of Bethlehem he caused also the images of swine to be engraved on the gates of Jerusalem.

Alamanni left two sons, who shared in the good fortune due to his talents and reputation. Baptist was almoner to queen Catherine de Medicis, afterwards king’s counsellor, abbot of Belle-ville, bishop of Bazas, and afterwards of Macon; he died in 1581. Nicholas, the other son, was a knight of St. Michael, captain of the royal guards, and master of the palace. Two other persons of the name of Louis Alamanni, likewise natives of Florence, were distinguished in the republic of letters. One was a colonel in the French service, and in 1591 consul of the academy of Florence. Salvino Salvini speaks of him in “Fastes Consulaires.” The other lived about the same time, and was a member of the same academy. He wrote three Latin eclogues in the “Carmina illustrium Poetarum Italorum,” and a funeral oration in the collection of “Florentine Prose,” vol. IV. He was the grandson of Ludovico Alemanni, one of the five brothers of the celebrated poet.

, a Spanish writer, born at Medina del Campo, in Castile, about the end of the sixteenth century. After having studied the law at Salamanca, he entered into the service of Anthony Perez, secretary of state under Philip II. He was in high esteem and confidence with his master, upon which account he was imprisoned after the disgrace of this minister, and kept in confinement eleven years, when Philip III. coming to the throne, set him at liberty, according to the orders given by his father in his will. Alamos continued in a private capacity, till the duke of Olivarez, the favourite of Philip IV. called him to public employments. He was appointed advocate-general in the court of criminal causes, and in the council of war. He was afterwards chosen member of the council of the Indies, and then of the council of the king’s patrimony, and a knight of the order of St. James. He was a man of wit as well as judgment, but his writings were superior to his conversation. He died in the 88th year of his age. His Spanish translation of Tacitus, and the aphorisms which he added in the margin, gained him great reputation: the aphorisms, however, have been censured by some authors, particularly by Mr. Amelot, who says, “that instead of being more concise and sententious than the text, the words of the text are always more so than the aphorism.” This work was published at Madrid in 1614, and was to have been followed, as mentioned in the king’s privilege, with a commentary, which, however, has never yet appeared. The author composed the whole during his imprisonment. He left several other works which have never yet been printed.

The juridical writings of sir John Fortescue Aland are: 1. “The Difference between an absolute and limited Monarchy, as it more particularly regards the English constitution; being a treatise written by sir John Fortescue, knight, lord chief justice, and lord high chancellor of England, under king Henry VI. faithfully transcribed from the ms copy in the Bodleian library, and collated with three other Mss. published with some remarks by John Fortescue Aland, of the Inner Temple, esq. F. R. S.” Lond. 1714: reprinted, 1719. 2. “Reports of Select Cases in all the courts of Westminster hall, tempore William the Third and queen Anne; also the opinion of all the judges of England relating to the grandest prerogative of the royal family, and some observations relating to the prerogatives of a queen-consort,” London, 1748, fol. This is a posthumous publication.

Algarottihad also studied the fine arts, and produced many excellent specimens of painting and engraving. In particular he designed and engraved several plates of heads in groupes, one of which, containing thirteen in the antique style, is dated Feb. 15, 1744. He travelled likewise over Italy, with a painter and draftsman in his suite; and what he has published on the arts discovers extensive knowledge and taste. Frederick II. who had become acquainted with his talents when prince-royal, no sooner mounted the throne, than he invited him to Berlin. Algarotti was then in London, and, complying with his majesty’s wish, remained at Berlin many years. Frederick conferred on him the title of count of the kingdom of Prussia, with reversion to his brother and descendants. He made him also his chamberlain, and knight of the order of Merit, bestowing on him at the same time many valuable presents, and other marks of his esteem; and after Algarotti left Berlin, the king corresponded with him for twenty-five years. The king of Poland, Augustus III. also had him for some time at his court, and gave him the title of privy-­counselloir of war. Nor was he held in less esteem by the sovereigns of Italy, particularly pope Benedict XIV. the duke of Savoy, and the duke of Parma. The excellence of his character, the purity of his morals, his elegant manners, and the eclat which surrounds a rich amateur of the arts, contributed to his celebrity perhaps as much as the superiority of his talents, and his acknowledged taste. Wherever he travelled he was respected equally by the rich, and the learned, by men of letters, by artists, and by men of the world. The climate of Germany having sensibly injured his health, he returned first to Venice, and afterwards to Bologna, where he had determined to reside, but his disorder, a consumption of the lungs, gained ground rapidly, and put an end to his life, at Pisa, March 3, 1764. He is said to have met death with composure, or, as his biographer terms it, with philosophical resignation. In his latter days he passed his mornings with Maurino (the artist who used to accompany him in his travels), engaged in the study of painting, architecture, and the fine arts. After dinner he had his works read to him, then printing at Leghorn, and revised and corrected the sheets: in the evening he had a musical party. The epitaph he wrote for himself is taken from Horace’s non omnis moriar, and contains only the few words, “Hicjacet Fr. Algarottus non omnis” The king of Prussia was at the expense of a magnificent monument in the Campo Santo of Pisa; on which, in addition to the inscription which Algarotti wrote, he ordered the following, “Algarotto Ovidii emulo, Newtoni discipulo, Fredericus rex,” and Algarotti’s heirs added only “Fredericus Magnus.” The works of Algarotti were published at Leghorn, 1765, 4 vols. 8vo; at Berlin, 1772, 8 vols. 8vo; and at Venice, 17 vols. 8vo, 1791--1794. This last, the most complete and correct edition, is ornamented with vignettes, the greater part of which were taken from the author’s designs. These volumes contain 1. Memoirs of his life and writings, and his poetry. 2. An analysis of the Newtonian system. 3. Pieces on architecture, painting, the opera, essays on vario is languages, on history, philology, on Des Cartes, Horace, &c. 4 and 5. Essays on the military art, and on the writers on that subject. 6. His travels in Russia, preceded by an Essay on the metals of that empire: the congress of Cytherea, the life of Pallavicini, the Italian poet; and a humorous piece against the abuse of learning. 7. Thoughts on different subjects of philosophy and philology. 8. Letters on painting and architecture. 9 and 10. Letters on the sciences. 11 to 16. His correspondence, not before published, with the literati of Italy, England, and France. 17. An unfinished critical essay on the triumvirate of Crassus, Pompey, and Gassar. Among his correspondents we find the names of the Italians, Manfredi and Zanotti, his first masters, Fabri of Bologna, Metastasio, Frugoni, Bettinelli, Frisi the celebrated mathematician and physician, Mazzuchelli, Paradisi, &c.; the Prussians, Frederic II. several princes of the same family, and Form ey, &c.; the English, lords Chesterfield and Hervey, Mr. Hollis, lady Montague, &c.; jand the French, Voltaire, Maupercuis, du Chastellet, mad. du Boccage,; &c. His Essays on painting, on the opera, his Letters to lord Hervey and the marquis Maffei, and his Letters, military and political, have been translated and published in English. His biographers have generally handed down his character without a blemish; aiui Fabroni, on whom ive mostly rely, is equally lavish in his praises. Wiule we take his personal merits from these authorities, we have evident proof from his works that he was an universal scholar, and wrote with facility and originality on every subject he took in hand. They present a greater variety of reading and thought than almost any scholar of the eighteenth century; but they are not without redundancy, and sometimes affectation. His fame is said to be fixed on a more solid basis in his own country, than in those where he has been viewed only througn the medium of translations.

a Prussian statesman, knight of the orders of the red and black eagle, lord of Hundisburgh, &c. was born Dec. 12, 1745, at Hanover, where his father was counsellor of war. During the seven years war he was brought up at Magdebourg with the prince, afterwards Frederic-William II. He then studied law at the university of Halle, and was appointed referendary in the court of accounts at Berlin, and in 1775, was sent as envoy extraordinary to the elector of Saxony, with the title of king’s chamberlain. This proved the commencement of a diplomatic career, for which he was thought qualified by his extensive knowledge and accomplishments, and the address with which he retained the good opinion of Frederic II. During the war for the succession of Bavaria, he acted as intermediate agent between the king of Prussia and the old electorate court, and between the army of Frederic and that of Prince Henry. After having been engaged in this office for twelve years, he was sent as ambassador, in 1787, to the court of France. In 1788 he was sent, in the same capacity, to Holland and in 1789 to England. In 1790 he was recalled from the latter, and appointed minister for foreign affairs, and his zeal and activity rendered him highly acceptable in the court of Berlin. During his administration he founded several benevolent establishments. He died at Berlin in 1802. As a writer he is known by a historical work entitled “Essai d‘un tableau chronologique des evenements cle la guerre, depuis la pair de Munster, jusqu’a celle de. Hubertsbourg,” Berlin, 1792, 8vo.

General Amherst now seeing that the whole continent qf North America was reduced in subjection to Great Britain, returned to New tfork, the capital of the British empire, and was received with all the respect due to his public services. The thanks of the House of Commons had already been transmitted to him; and, among other honourable testimonies of approbation, in 1761, he was created a knight of the Bath. He had also some time before been appointed commander in chief of all the forces in America, and governor-general of the British provinces there. But shortly after the peace was concluded, he resigned his command, and returned to England, arriving in London December 1763. His Majesty received him with most gracious respect and approbation, and the government of the province of Virginia was conferred upon him, as the first mark of royal favour. In 1768, there appears to have been a temporary misunderstanding between him and his royal master, which, however, soon terminated, as in the end of that year he was appointed colonel of the third regiment of foot, with permission to continue his command of the sixtieth, or royal American regiment, of four battalions; and in Oct. 1770, he was appointed governor of the island of Guernsey, and the castle of Cornet, with all its dependencies. To these promotions was added the office of lieutenant-general of the ordnance, in Oct. 1772, at which time he was sworn of the privy council. From this period, also, to the beginning of 1782, he officiated as commander in chief of the English forces, though he was not promoted to the rank of general in the army till March 1778, from which period to the time of his resignation, in March 1782, he acted as eldest general on the staff of England. Until his military promotion in 1778, he had no higher appointment in the army than that of eldest lieutenant-general on the English staff. In 1780, he resigned the command of the third regiment of foot, and was promoted to the second troop of horse grenadiers. Besides these military honours, he received the dignity of the British peerage on the 20th May, 1776, by the title of baron Amherst, of Holmesdale, in the county of Kent. His last public services were the means he adopted in quelling the dreadful riots in London in the month of June, 1780. The regulations and instructions of his lordship on this occasion were not less distinguished by wisdom and promptitude than by humanity.

, the natural son of Charles IX. and Maria Touchet, was born April 28, 1575, and distinguished himself by his bravery during the reign of five kings. Being intended from his infancy for the order of Malta, he was, in 1587, presented to the abbey of Chaise-Dieu, and, in 1589, was made grand prior of France. Catherine de Medicis having bequeathed him the estates of Auvergne and Lauraguais, he quitted the order of Malta, with a dispensation to marry; and accordingly in 1591, married Charlotte, daughter of the constable Henry of Montmorenci. In 1606, Margaret de Valois applied to parliament, and set aside the will of Catherine of Medicis, and the estates were given to the dauphin, afterwards Louis XIII. Charles, however, continued to take the title of count d' Auvergne, until 1619, when the king bestowed on him the duchy of Angouleme. He was one of the first to acknowledge Henry IV. at St. Cloud, and obtained great reputation for his services in the battles of Arques, Ivry, &c. In 1602, being implicated in Biron’s conspiracy, he was sent to the Bastille, but obtained his pardon. Being, however, afterwards convicted of a treasonable attempt in concert with the marchioness de Verneuil, his uterine sister, he was arrested a second time in 1604, and next year condemned to lose his head, which Henry IV. commuted for perpetual imprisonment; but in 1616, we find him again at large, and, in 1617, at the siege of Soissons. Being appointed colonel of the light cavalry of France, and created a knight by order of the king, he was, in 1620, sent as the principal of an embassy to the emperor Ferdinand II. the result of which was printed in 1667, under the title of “Ambassade de M. le due d‘Angouleme, &c.” fol. The narrative is somewhat dry, but it contains many particulars of considerable interest in the history of that time. In 1628, the duke opened the famous and cruel siege of Rochelle, where he had the chief command until the arrival of the king. He also bore a part in the war of Languedoc, Germany, and Flanders. He died at Paris, Sept 24, 1650. Francoise de Nargonne, whom he married for his second wife, in 1644, died one hundred and forty-one years after her father-in-law Charles IX. on the 10th of August 1715, aged ninety-two. The duke d’Angouleme wrote, 1. “Memoires tres-particuliers du duc d‘Angouleme, pour servir à l’histoire des regnes de Henri III. et Henri IV.” 1662, 12mo. Bineau, the editor of this work, has added to it a journal of the negoeiations for the peace of Vervins, in 1598. The duke’s memoirs also form the first volume of the “Memoires particuliers pour servir a. l'Histoire de France,” 1756, 4 vols. 12mo, and the third volume of “Pieces fugitives pour servir, &c.” published by the marquis d'Aubais et Menard, 1759, 3 vols. 4to. 2. “Les harangues prononcees en l‘assemblie da M. M. les princes Protestants d’Allemagne,” 1620, 8vo. 3. “Le generale et fidele relation de tout ce qui s’est passé en l'Isle de Re, &c.” 1627, 8vo. 4. A translation of Diego de Torres’ history of the kingdoms of Morocco, Fee, &c. Besides these, Bouthillier, bishop of Troyes in the beginning of the eighteenth century, had a folio volume of manuscript letters, written by the duke d‘Angouleme, from 1633 to 1643, and another collection by his son, Louis Emmanuel de Valois, count d’Alais, and, after his father’s death, duke d'Angouleme, who died in 1653.

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

, the son of the senator Philip Archinto, was born at Milan, July 30, 1669, and after studying at Brera and Ingoldstadt, travelled in. France, Germany, Holland; and then resided so long at Home, that he did not return to Milan until the year 1700. Two years after he instituted an academy for the sciences and mechanics. This he enriched with an extensive and curious library, and a collection of the finest mathematical instruments that could be procured in Italy, France, and England. It is to him the public owe the Palatine society (see Argellati), whose valuable editions began with Muratori' s vast collection of the Italian historians. He received very high honours in his country, being appointed by the emperor Leopold, a gentleman of the bed-chamber; and by Charles II. and Philip V. of Spain, a knight of the golden fleece, and a grandee of Spain. There is nothing of his in print, except some notes on Arnulphus’ history in the “Scrip. Rer. Ital.” and a work published at Venice after his death, entitled “Tabulae, pracipua scientiarum et artium capita digesta per ordinem, &c.” But he left a great many manuscripts on scientific subjects, written some in Latin and some in Italian, and a collection of Latin poems.

Of his works, it has been justly said by Mr, Roscoe, that whether in prose or verse, sacred or profane, epic or dramatic, panegyrical or satirical, and notwithstanding their great number and variety, not one piece exists which in point of literary merit is entitled to approbation; yet the jcommendations which Aretino received from his contemporaries are beyond example. These would not be worth recording as praise bestowed on such a character, but they are striking and useful features in the character of an age on which some writers have bestowed great commendations on account of its learning and patronage of learned men. Aretino seems to have been born to sport with the passions of the great, and to exalt and perpetuate the vices of the vulgar. As a proof how well he knew how to manage the former, we may state from his latest biographer the following examples of misapplied patronage. Francis I. not only presented him with a chain of gold, and afforded him other marks of his liberality, but requested that the pope would allow him the gratification of his society. Henry VIII. of England sent him at one time three hundred gold crowns, and Charles V. not only allowed him a considerable pension, but on one occasion placed him on his right hand, and rode with him in intimate conversation. Julius III. gave him a thousand crowns, accompanied with a papal bull, nominating him a knight of St. Peter, to which dignity was also annexed an annual income. These favours and distinctions, which were imitated by the inferior sovereigns and chief nobility of Europe, excited the vanity of Aretino to such a degree, that he expected to be created a cardinal, and actually boasted that he had refused that honour. He assumed, however, the titles of “II Divino,” the “Divine,” and “the Scourge of princes.” Medals were struck in honour of him, representing him decorated with a chain of gold, and on the reverse the princes of Europe bringing to him their tribute. On the other hand, however, he was frequently in danger of his life from the persons he had lampooned, and his literary adversaries frequently employed their pens in exposing his vanity and infamous character.

After the death of Arius, his party found a protector in Constantius, who succeeded his father in the empire of the east. They underwent various revolutions and persecutions under succeeding emperors; till, at length, Theojdosius the Great exerted every effort to suppress them. Their doctrine was carried, in the fifth century, into Africa, under the Vandals; and into Asia, under the Goths: Italy, France, and Spain were deeply infected with it; and towards the commencement of the sixth century, it was triumphant in many parts of Asia, Africa, and Europe: but it sunk, almost at once, when the Vandals were driven out of Africa, and the Goths out of Italy, by the arms of Justinian. It revived again in Italy, under the protection of the Lombards, in the seventh century, and was not extinguished till about the end of the eighth. Arianism was again revived in the west, by Servetus, in 1531, for which he suffered death. After which the doctrine became established in some degree in Geneva and Poland, but at length degenerated into Socinianism. Erasmus, it is thought, aimed at reviving it, in his commentaries on the New Testament; and Grotius seems to incline the same way. Mr. Whiston was one of the first divines who revived this controversy in the eighteenth century, and he was followed by Dr. Clarke, who was opposed by Dr. Waterland, his principal adversary, and by Gastrell, Wells, Nelson, Mayo, Knight, and others. Dr. Sykes afterwards seems to have coincided with Dr. Clarke; and of later days, Mr. Taylor, author of the “Apology of Ben Mordecai to his friend for embracing Christianity,” Dr. Harwood, in his “Five Dissertations,” and Dr. Price in his “Sermons on the Christian doctrine,” are the principal writers in favour of the Arian doctrine. In some other hands it seems to have passed, by a very easy transition, into the extreme of Socinianism.

, the son of a painter named Cesari at Arpino, was born at Rome in 1560. While yet in his 13th year his father placed him with the artists employed by Gregory XIII. in painting the lodges of the Vatican, whom he served in the humble employment of preparing their pallets and colours. But, in this situation he discovered such talents, that the pope gave orders to pay him a golden crown per day so long as he continued to work in the Vatican. Pope Clement VIII. distinguished him by adding new and higher favours to those of Gregory XIII. He made him chevalier of the order of Christ, and appointed him director of St. John de Lateran. In 1600 he followed the cardinal Aldobrandini, who was sent legate on occasion of the marriage of Henry IV. with Mary de Medicis. Caravagio, his enemy and his rival, having attacked him, Arpino refused to fight him because he was not a knight, and in order to remove this obstacle, Caravagio was obliged to go to Malta to be admitted chevalierservant. Arpino wanted likewise to measure swords with Annibal Carachio, but the latter, with becoming contempt, took a pencil in his hand, and, shewing it to him, said, “With this weapon I defy you.” Arpino died at Rome in 1640, at the age of four-score. He was among painters what Marino was among poets, born to dazzle and to seduce, and both met with a public prepared to prefer glitter to reality. He is said to have conducted some of his first pictures from designs of Michel Angelo, but it was less their solidity that made him a favourite, than the facility, the fire, the crash, and the crowds, that filled his compositions. The horses which he drew with great felicity, the decisive touch that marked his faces, pleased all; few but artists could distinguish manner from style, and them his popularity defied. The long course of his practice was distinguished by two methods, in fresco and in oil. The first, rich, vigorous, amene, and animated, has sufficient beauties to balance its faults; it distinguishes, with several altar-pieces, his two first frescos in the Campidoglio, the Birth of Romulus, and the Battle of the Sabines; and with this class might be numbered some of his smaller works, with lights in gold, and exquisitely finished; this method, however, soon gave way to the second, whose real principle was dispatch, free but loose and negligent; in this he less finished than sketched, with numberless other works, the remainder of the frescos in the Campidoglio, forty years after the two first. He reared a numerous school, distinguished by little more than the barefaced imitation of his faults, and a brother Bernardino Cesari, who was an excellent copyist of the designs of Michel Angelo, but died young. Among painters he is sometimes known by the name of II Cavalier d'Arpino, and sometimes by that of Josephin. Mr. Fuseli has given the above character of him under that of Cesari.

, a French eastern scholar and traveller, was born at Marseilles in 1635, of a family originally from Tuscany, and from his infancy discovered an uncommon aptitude for learning languages, and a strong passion for travelling.In 1653 he accompanied his father, who was appointed consul at Saida, and resided for twelve years in the different ports of the Levant, where he learned the Persian, Hebrew, Arabic, and Syriac languages. After his return to France, he was, in 1668, sent to Tunis, to negociate a treaty with the Dey, and was the means of delivering three hundred and eighty French slaves, who wished to show their gratitude by making up a purse of 600 pistoles, which he refused to accept. In 1672, he was sent to Constantinople, where he had a principal hand in concluding a treaty with Mahomet IV. and succeeded chiefly by the facility with which he spoke the Turkish language, and which strongly recommended him to the confidence of the grand visier. M. Turenne had also requested him to obtain information respecting the opinions of the Greeks on the eucharist, which he found to be the same with that of the Latins. On his return, 1 he was made a knight of St. Lazarus, and received a pension of 1000 Hvres. The knowledge he had now so often displayed in the affairs of the Levant, induced the court to send him as consul to Algiers, and afterwards to Aleppo. Pope Innocent XI. in consideration of the services he had rendered to religion, made him an offer of the bishopric of Babylon, which he refused, but agreeably to the pope’s permission, named father Pidou for that office, which the Pope confirmed. During the latter part of his life, the chevalier d'Arvieux lived in retirement at Marseilles, devoting his time to the study of the sacred scriptures, which he read in the originals. He died in that city, Oct. 3, 1702. he had written the history of a voyage made by order of Louis XIV. to the grand Emir, the chief of the Arabian princes, and a treatise on the manners and customs of the Arabiaris, both published by M. de laRoque, Paris, 1717, 12mo. His “Memoires” were published by father Labat, Paris, 1735, 6 vols. 12mo. This work was attacked in “Lettres critiques de Hadji-Mehemet-Effendi,” Paris, 1735, 12mo, supposed to have been written under this name by M. Petis de la Croix.

, daughter of sir William Askew, of Kelsay, in Lincolnshire, knight, was born in 1529. She received a liberal and learned education, and manifested in early life a predilection for theological studies. Her eldest sister, after having been contracted in marriage to the son of Mr. Kyme, of Lincolnshire, died before the nuptials were completed. Her father, on this event, unwilling to lose a connection which promised pecuniary advantages, compelled his second daughter Anne, notwithstanding her reluctance, to become the wife of Mr. Kyme, a marriage which probably laid the foundation of her future misfortunes. Her husband was a bigoted Roman Catholic, while she, by studying the scriptures and the opinions of the reformers, became a convert, which so disgusted him that he turned her out of doors. Conceiving herself, by this treatment, at liberty to sue for a separation, she came to London, where she was favourably received by some of the ladies of the court, and by the queen, who secretly favoured the reformed religion. But at length she was accused, by her husband and the priests, of holding heretical opinions respecting the sacrament and, in 1545, was apprehended, and repeatedly examined by Christopher Dare, the lord mayor, the bishops, chancellor, and others, to whose questions she replied in a firm, easy, and unconstrained manner, and even with some degree of wit and ridicule. She was then committed to prison for eleven days, and prohibited from any communication with her friends. During this confinement, she employed herself in composing prayers and meditations, and in fortifying her resolution to endure the trial of her principles.

, lord chief baron of the exchequer, was descended of a very ancient family in Glocestcrshire, and son of sir Edward Atkyns, one of the barons of the exchequer, by Ursula, daughter of sir Thomas Dacres of Cheshunt in Hertfordshire. He was born in 1621, and, after being instructed in grammar-learning in his father’s house, was sent to Baliol college, Oxford. Removing thence to one of the inns of court, he applied himself very closely to the study of the law. In April 1661, at the coronation of king Charles II. he was made a knight of the bath and in September the same year created M. A. in full convocation at Oxford. In 1671 he was appointed a king’s serjeant at law; and in 1672, a judge of the court of common pleas. In 1679, from an apprehension of very troublesome times, he resigned his office, and retired into the country. In July 1683, when lord Russel was first imprisoned, on account of that conspiracy for which he afterwards suffered, sir Robert Atkyns, being applied to for his advice, gave it in the following letter, probably addressed to some of the friends of that nobleman, which manifests his courage and integrity, as well as his prudence and learning

, was a celebrated Roman knight, to whom Cicero wrote a great number of letters, which contain the general history of the times. These are still extant, divided into seventeen books but it is the excellence of Atticus’s private character which has procured him a place in most collections of this description. He was a man of such prudence, that, without departing from his neutrality, he preserved the esteem and affection of all parties. He sent money to the younger Marius, who had been declared an enemy to the commonwealth yet was so much in favour with Sylla, that this Roman general would always have had him with him. He kept himself quiet at Rome during the war between Caesar and Pompey, without giving offence to the one or the other, and he sent money to Brutus, while he was doing kind offices to An­%ony. Afterwards, in the cruel divisions which arose between Antony and Augustus, he contrived to preserve the friendship of both, difficult as it must have been in the case of two such antagonists. The strict friendship he had with Cicero., did not hinder him from being intimate with Hortensius and he was the cause (as Nepos, his biographer, tells us) that these two rivals not only ceased from mutual reproaches, but even lived together upon very good terms. The contests between the parties of Cinna and Marius induced him to go to Athens young, where he continued a long time, and became such a favourite with the Athenians, that the day he left them was a day of mourning. He never attempted to raise himself above the rank of life in which he was born, which was that of knight, although he might have obtained the highest posts in the republic but he chose to renounce all pretensions to them, because, in the then prevailing corruption, he could neither gain nor discharge them according to the laws, and as a man of integrity; no inconsiderable proof of his virtue, notwithstanding he has been charged with avarice and political duplicity. He did not marry till he was fifty-three, and had only a daughter, who was married to Agrippa from which marriage came a daughter, whom Augustus betrothed to Tiberius almost as soon as she was born. He reached the age of seventy-seven years, almost without knowing bodily illness but when his last sickness, which was slight for three months, at length became painful, he sent for Agrippa, his son-in-law, and two other persons, and declared to them a resolution to put an end to his life, by abstinence from food. Agrippa remonstrated with tears, but all in vain. After two days abstinence, the fever left him, and the disease abated but Atticus persisted, and died three days after. This happened in the year of Rome 721.

, descended of an ancient and honourable family, of the county of Essex, was born in 1488. He was by nature endowed with great abilities, from his ancestors inherited an ample fortune, and was happy in a regular education, but whether at Oxford or Cambridge is not certain. At what time he was entered of the Inner-Temple, does not appear, but in 1526 he was autumn reader of that house, and is thought to have read on the statute of privileges, which he handled with so much learniag and eloquence, as to acquire great reputation. This, with the duke of Suffolk’s recommendation, to whom he was chancellor, brought him to the' knowledge of his sovereign, who at that time wanted men of learning and some pliability he was, accordingly, by the king’s influence, chosen speaker of that parliament, which sat first on the third of November, 1529, and is by some styled the Black Parliament, and by others, on account of its duration, the Long Parliament. Great complaints were made in the house of commons against the clergy, and the proceedings in ecclesiastical courts, and several bills were ordered to be brought in, which alarmed some of the prelates. Fisher, bishop of Rochester, inveighed boldly against these transactions, in the house of lords, with which the house of commons were so much offended, that they thought proper to complain of it, by their speaker, to the king, and Fisher had some difficulty in excusing himself. The best historians agree, that great care was taken by the king, or at least by his ministry, to have such persons chosen into this house of commons as would proceed therein readily and effectually, and with this view Audley was chosen to supply the place of sir Thomas More, now speaker of the lords’ house, and chancellor of England. The new house and its speaker justified his majesty’s expectations, by the whole tenor of their behaviour, but especially by the passing of a law, not nowfound among our statutes. The king, having borrowed very large sums of money of particular subjects, and entered into obligations for the repayment of the said sums, the house brought in, and passed a bill, in the preamble of which they declared, that inasmuch as those sums had been applied by his majesty to public uses, therefore they cancelled and discharged the said obligations, &c. and the king, finding the convenience of such a parliament, it sat again in the month of January, 1530-1. In this session also many extraordinary things were done amongst the rest, there was a law introduced in the house of lords, by which the clergy were exempted from the penalties they had incurred, by submitting to the legatine power of Wolsey. On this occasion the commons moved a clause in favour of the laity, many of themselves having also incurred the penalties of the statute. But the king insisted that acts of grace ought to flow spontaneously, and that this was not the method of obtaining what they wanted; and the house, notwithstanding the intercession of its speaker, and several of its members, who were the king’s servants, was obliged to pass the bill without the clause, and immediately the king granted them likewise a pardon, which reconciled all parties. In the recess, the king thought it necessary to have a letter written to the pope by the lords and commons, or rather by the three estates in parliament, which letter was drawn up and signed by cardinal Wolsey, the archbishop of Canterbury, four bishops, two dukes, two marquisses, thirteen earls, two viscounts, twenty-three barons, twenty-two abbots, and eleven members of the house of commons. Thepurport of this letter, dated July 13, above three weeks after the parliament rose, was to iMigage the pope to grant the king’s desire in the divorce business, for the sake of preventing a civil war, on account of the succession, and to threaten him if he did not, to take some other way. To gratify the speaker for the great pains he had already taken, and to encourage him to proceed in the same way, the king made him this year attorney for the duchy of Lancaster, advanced him in Michaelmas term to the state and degree of a serjeant at law, and on the 14th of November following, to that of his own serjeant. In January, 1531-2, the parliament had its third session, wherein the grievances occasioned by the excessive power of the ecclesiastics and their courts, were regularly digested into a book, which was presented by the speaker, Audley, to the king. The king’s answer was, He would take advice, hear the parties accused speak, and then proceed to reformation. Jn this session, a bill was brought into the house of lords, for the better securing the rights of his majesty, and other persons interested in the eare of wards, which rights, it was alleged, were injured by fraudulent wills and contracts. This bill, when it came into the house of commons, was violently opposed, and the members expressed a desire of being dissolved, which the king would not permit but after they had done some business, they had a recess to the month of April. When they next met, the king sent for the speaker, and delivered to him the answer which had been made to the roll of grievances, presented at their last sitting, which afforded very little satisfaction, and they seemed now less subset viciit. Towards the close of the month, one Mr. Themse moved, That the house would intercede with the king, to take back his queen again. The king, extremely alarmed at this, on the 30th of April, 1532, sent for the speaker, to whom he repeated the plea of conscience, which had induced him to repudiate the queen, and urged that the opinion of the learned doctors, &c. was on his side. On the 11th of May the king sent for the speaker again, and told him, that he had found that the clergy of his realm were but half his subjects, or scarcely so much, every bishop and abbot at the entering into his dignity, taking an oath to the pope, derogatory to that of their fidelity to the king, which contradiction he desired his parliament to take away. Upon this motion of the king’s, the two oaths he mentioned were read in the house of commons and they would probably have complied, if the plague bad not put an end to the session abruptly, on the 14th of May; and two days after, sir Thomas More, knt. then lord chancellor of England, went suddenly, without acquainting any body with his intention, to court, his majesty being then at York Place, and surrendered up the seals to the king. The king going out of town to EastGreenwich, carried the seals with him, and on Monday, May 20, delivered them to Thomas Audley, esq, with the title of lord keeper, and at the same time conferred on him the honour of knighthood. September 6, sir Thomas delivered the old seal, which was much worn, and received a new one in its stead, yet with no -higher title: but on January 26, 1533, he again delivered the seal to the king, who kept it a quarter of an hour, and then returned it with the title of lord chancellor. A little after, the king granted to him the site of the priory of Christ Church, Aldgate, together with all the church plate, and lands belonging to that house. When chancellor he complied with the king’s pleasure as effectually as when speaker of the house of commons. For in July 1535, he sat in judgment on sir Thomas More, his predecessor, (as he had before on bishop Fisher,) who was now indicted of high-treason upon which indictment the jury found him gnilty, and the lord chancellor, Audley, pronounced judgment of death upon him. This done, we are told, that sir Thomas More said, that he had for seven years bent his mind and study upon this cause, but as yet he found it no where writ by any approved doctor of the church, that a layman could be head of the ecclesiastical state. To this Audley returned, “Sir, will you be reckoned wiser, or of a better conscience, than all the bishops, the nobility, and the whole kingdom” Sir Thomas rejoined, “My lord chancellor, for one bishop that you have of your opinion, I have a hundred of mine, and that among those that have been saints and for your one council, which, what it is, God knows, I have on my side all the general councils for a thousand years past; and for one kingdom, I have France and all the ether kingdoms of the Christian world.” As our chancellor was very active in the business of the divorce, he was no less so in the business of abbies, and had particularly a large hand in the dissolution of such religions houses as had not two hundred pounds by the year. This was in the twenty-seventh of Henry VIII, and the bill being delayed long in the house of commons, his majesty sent for the members of that house to attend him in his gallery, where he passed through them with a stern countenance, without speaking a word the members not having received the king’s command to depart to their house, durst not return till they knew the king’s pleasure so they stood waiting in the gallery. In the mean time the king went a hunting, and his ministers, who seem to have had better manners than their master, went to confer with the members to some they spoke of the king’s steadiness and severity to others, of his magnificence and generosity. At last the king came back, and passing through them again, said, with an air of fierceness peculiar to himself, That if his bill did not pass, it should cost many of them their heads. Between the ministers’ persuasions and the king’s threats, the matter was brought to an issue the king’s bill, as he called it, passed and by it, he had not only the lands of the small monasteries given him, but also their jewels, plate, and rich moveables. This being accomplished, methods were used to prevail with the abbots of larger foundations to surrender. To this end, the chancellor sent a special agent to treat with the abbot of Athelny, to offer him an hundred marks per annum pension which he refused, insisting on a greater sum. The chancellor was more successful with the abbot of St. Osithes in Essex, with whom he dealt personally and, as he expresses it in a letter to Cromwell, the visitor-general, by great solicitation prevailed with him but then he insinuates, that his place of lord chancellor being very chargeable, he desired the king might be moved for addition of some more profitable offices unto him. In suing for the great abbey of Walden, in the same county, which he obtained, besides extenuating its worth, he alleged under his hand, that he had in this world sustained great damage and infamy in serving the king, which the grant of that should recompense. But if the year 1536 was agreeable to him in one respect, it was far from being so in another; since, notwithstanding the obligations he was under to queen Anne Bullen, he was obliged, by the king’s command, to be present at her apprehension and commitment to the Tower. He sat afterwards with Cranmer archbishop of Canterbury, when he gave sentence of divorce on the pre-contract between the queen and the lordPiercy and on the 15th of May, in the same year, he sat in judgment on the said queen, notwithstanding we are told by Lloyd, that with great address he avoided it. The lengths he had gone in serving the king, and his known dislike to popery, induced the northern, rebels in the same year, to name him as one of the evil counsellors, whom they desired to see removed from about the king’s person which charge, however, his majesty, as far as in him lay, wiped off, by his well- penned answer to the complaints of those rebels, wherein an excellent character is given of the chancellor. When the authors of this rebellion came to be tried, the chancellor declined sitting as lord high steward, which high office was executed by the marquis of Exeter, on whom shortly after, viz. in 1538, Audley sat as high-steward, and condemned him, his brother, and several t other persons, to suffer death as traitors. In the latter end of the same year, viz. on the 29th of November, 30 Hen. VIII. the chancellor was created a baron, by the style of lord Audley of Walden in the county of Essex, and was likewise installed knight of the garter. In the session of parliament in 1539, there were many severe acts made, and the prerogative carried to an excessive height, particularly by the six bloody articles, and the giving the king’s proclamation the force of a law. It does not very clearly appear who were the king’s principal counsellors in these matters but it is admitted by the best historians, that the rigorous execution of these laws, which the king first designed, was prevented by the interposition of the lord Audley, in conjunction with Cromwell, who was then prime minister, and the duke of Suffolk, the king’s favourite throughout his whole reign. In the beginning of 1540, the court was excessively embarrassed. What share Audley had in the fall of Cromwell afterwards is not clear, but immediately after a new question was stirred in parliament, viz. How far the king’s marriage with Anne of Cleves, was lawful This was referred to the judgment of a spiritual court and there are yet extant the depositions of Thomas lord Audley, lord chancellor, Thomas, archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas, duke of Norfolk, Charles, duke of Suffolk, and Cuthbert, lord bishop of Durham, wherein they jointly swear, that the papers produced to prove the retraction of the lady Anne’s contract with the duke of Lorrain, were inconclusive and unsatisfactory. Other lords and ladies deposed to other points, and the issue of the business was, that the marriage was declared void by this court, which sentence was supported by an act of parliament, affirming the same thing, and enacting, That it should be high-treason to judge or believe otherwise. This obstacle removed, the king married the lady Catherine Howard, niece to the duke of Norfolk, and cousin -german to Anne Bullen. Nothing is clearer from history, than that the chancellor was closely attached to the house of Norfolk and yet in the latter end of the year 1541, he was constrained to be an instrument in the ruin of the unfortunate queen information of her bad life before her marriage, being laid first before the archbishop of Canterbury, and by him communicated to the chancellor. The king then appointed lord Audley one of the commissioners to examine her, which they did, and there is yet extant a letter subscribed by him and the other lords, containing an exact detail of this affair, and of the evidence on which, in the next session of parliament, the queen and others were attainted. The whole of this business was managed in parliament by the chancellor, and there is reason to believe, that he had some hand in another business transacted in that session which was the opening a door for the dissolution of hospitals, the king having now wasted all that had accrued to him by the suppression of abbies. Some other things of the like nature were the last testimonies of the chancellor’s concern for his master’s interest but next year a more remarkable case occurred. Jn the 34th of Henry VIII. George Ferrers, esq. burgess for Plymouth, was arrested, and carried to the compter, by virtue of a writ from the court of king’s bench. The house, on notice thereof, sent their serjeant to demand their member in doing which, a fray ensued at the compter, his mace was broke, his servant knocked down, and himself obliged to make his escape as well as he could. The house, upon notice of this, resolved they would sit no longer without their member, and desired a conference with the lords where, after hearing the mutter, the lord chancellor Audley declared the contempt was most flagrant, and referred “the punishment thereof to the house of commons whereupon Thomas Moyle, esq. who was then speaker, issued his warrant, and the sheriff of London, and several other persons, were brought to the bar of the house, and committed, some to the Tower, and some to Newgate. This precedent was gained by the king’s want of an aid, who at that time expected the commons would offer him a subsidy the ministry, and the house of lords, knowing the king’s will gave the commons the complimerit of punishing those who had imprisoned one of their members. Dyer, mentioning this case, sap,” The sages of the law held the commitment of Ferrers legal, and though the privilege was allowed him, yet was it held unjust.“As the chancellor had led a very active life, he grew now infirm, though he was not much above fifty years old, and therefore began to think of settling his family and affairs. But, previous to this, he obtained from the king a licence to change the name of Buckingham college in Cambridge, into that of Magdalen, or Maudlin some will have it, because in the latter word his own name is included. To this college he was a great benefactor, bestowed on it his own arms, and is generally 'reputed its founder, or restorer. His capital seat was at Christ-Christ in town, and at Walden in Essex and to preserve some remembrance of himself and fortunes, he caused a magnificent tomb to be erected in his new chapel at Walden. About the beginning of April, 1544, he was attacked by his last illness, which induced him to resign the seals but he was too weak to do it in person, and therefore sent them to the king, who delivered them to sir Thomas Wriothesley, with the title of keeper, during the indisposition of the chancellor a circumstance not remarked by any of our historians. On the 19th of April, lord Audi ey made hU will, and, amongst other things, directed that his executors should, upon the next New-year’s day after his decease, deliver to the king a legacy of one hundred pounds, from whom, as he expresses it,” he had received all his reputations and benefits." He died on the last of April, 1544, when he had held the seals upwards of twelve years, and in the fifty-sixth of his life, as appears by the inscription on his tomb. He married Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas iGrey, marquis of Dorset, by whom he had two daughters, Margaret and Mary; Mary died unmarried, and Margaret became his sole heir. She married first lord Henry Dudley, a younger son of John duke of Northumberland, and he being slain at the battle of St. Quintin’s, in Picardy, in 1557, she married a second time, Thomas duke of Norfolk, to whom she was also a second wife, and had by him a son Thomas, who, by act of parliament, in the 27th of Elizabeth, was restored in blood; and in the 39th of the same reign, summoned to parliament by his grandfather’s title, as baron of Walden, In the 1st of James I. he was created earl of Suffolk, and being afterwards lord hightreasurer of England, he built on the ruins of the abbey of Walden, that nee noble palace, which, in honour of our chancellor, he called Audley-End.

At this time his favour with the king, and his general popularity were very high, yet we do not find that he availed himself much of either, in the advancement of his personal fortune, excepting that in 1611 he procured the office of judge of the marshal’s court, jointly with sir Thomas Vavasor, then knight- marshal. In this character he presided, though for a very short time, in the court newly erected, under the title of the Palace-court for the verge of the king’s house, in which station he has left us a very learned and methodical charge to the jury there upon a commission of oyer and terminer, printed in his works. If his biographers may be credited, he enjoyed at this time an income of nearly five thousand pounds a-year, arising partly from his personal estates, and partly from his official emoluments; and although he was liberal and even profuse in his mode of living, yet as his public stations required no great display of magnificence, his circumstances must have been such as to remove him from the ambition of availing himself of the many opportunities of aggrandizement which his favour with the king afforded. It was not till 1613, that he succeeded to the office of attorneygeneral, of which he had had a promise, when sir Henry Hobart was made chief justice of the common-pleas. In this office he was, contrary to the usual practice, and in consideration of his eminent services, allowed to take his seat in the house of commons. He appears indeed to have received favours of distinction on all occasions, that were before unknown. Even in the court of star-chamber, when a solemn decree was made against duelling, his speech, which gave occasion to the decree, was, contrary to custom, printed with it.

, knight of the bath, and an excellent painter, was one of the sons of the lord-keeper sir Nicholas Bacon, and half-brother to the viscount St. Alban’s. He travelled into Italy, and studied painting there; but his manner and colouring approach nearer to the style of the Flemish school. Mr. Walpole observes, that at Culford, where he lived, are preserved some of his works and at Gorhambury, his father’s seat, is a large picture in oil by him, of a cook maid with dead fowls, admirably painted, with great nature, neatness, and lustre of colouring. In the same house is a whole length of him by himself, drawing on a paper his sword and pallet hung up, and a half length of his mother by him. At Redgrave-hall, in Suffolk, were two more pieces by the same hand, which afterwards passed into the possession of Mr. Rowland Holt the one, Ceres with fruit and flowers; the other, Hercules and the Hydra. In Tradescant’s museum was a small landscape, painted and given to him by sir Nathaniel Bacon. In the chancel of Culford, in Suffolk, are a monument and bust of him, with his pallet and pencils. Another monument was erected to his memory at Stiffkey in Norfolk, the inscription upon which is published by Mr. Masters. The same writer informs us, that sir Nathaniel was famed for painting plants, and well skilled in their virtues. He married first, Anne, the daughter of sir Thomas Greshant, and secondly, Dorothy, daughter of sir Arthur Hopton. By the former he had three daughters, the eldest of whom married John Townsend of llainham, ancestor of the present marquis Townsend. The monument above-mentioned was erected by himself in 1615, the 69th year of his age, but has not the date of his death.

, lord keeper of the great seal in the reign of queen Elizabeth, descended from an ancient and honourable family in Suffolk. His rather was Robert Bacon of Drinkstxm in that county, esq. and his mother was Isabel, the daughter of John Gage of Pakenhain in the said county, esq. Nicholas, their second son, was born in 1510, at Chislehurst in Kent. After having received the first rudiments of learning, probably at home, or in the neighbourhood, he was sent when very young to Corpus Christi college in Cambridge, where having improved in all branches of useful knowledge, he went to France, in order to give the last polish to his education. On his return he settled in Gray VInn, and applied himself with such assiduity to the study of the law, that on the dissolution of the monastery of St. Edmund’s-Bury in Suffolk, he had a grant from king Henry VIII. in the thirty-­sixth year of his reign, of the manors of Redgrave, Botesdale, and Gillingham, with the park of Redgrave, and six acres of land in Worthanf, as also the tithes of Redgrave to hold in capite by knight’s service, a proof of the estimation in which he was held by his majesty. In the thirtyeighth of the same king, he was promoted to the office of attorney in the court of wards, a place both of honour and profit, and his patent was renewed in the first year of Edward VI. and in 1552, which was the last year of his reign, Mr. Bacon was elected treasurer of Gray’s-Inn. His great moderation and consummate prudence, preserved him through the dangerous reign of queen Mary. In the very dawn of that of Elizabeth he was knighted, and the great seal of England being taken from Nicholas Heath, archbishop of York, was delivered to sir Nicholas Bacon, on the 22d of December 1558, with the title of lord keeper. He was also of the privy council to her majesty, who had much regard to his advice. The parliament met Jan. 23, but was prorogued on account of the queen’s indisposition to the 25th, when the lord keeper opened the session with a most eloquent and solid speech. Some of the queen’s counsellors thought it necessary that the attainder of the queen’s mother should be taken off; but the lord keeper thought the crown purged all defects, and in compliance with his advice, two laws were made, one for recognizing the queen’s title, the other for restoring her in blood as heir to her mother. The principal business of this session was the settlement of religion, in which no man had a greater share than the keeper, and he acted with such prudence as never to incur the hatred of any party. On this account he was, together with the archbishop of York, appointed moderator in a dispute between eight Protestant divines, and eight Popish bishops and the latter behaving very unfairly in the opinion of both the moderators, and desiring, to avoid a fair disputation, to go away, the lord keeper put that question to each of them, and when all except one insisted on going, his lordship dismissed them with this memorandum, “For that ye would not that we should hear you, perhaps you may shortly hear of us” and accordingly for this contempt, the bishops of Winchester and Lincoln were committed to the tower, and the rest were bound to appear before the council, and not to quit the cities of London and Westminster without leave. The whole business of the session, than which there was none of greater importance during that reign, was chiefly managed by his lordship, according to his wise maxim, “Let us stay a little, that we may have done the sooner.” From this time he stood as high in the favour of the queen as any of her ministers, and maintained a cordial interest with other great men, particularly with those eminent persons, who had married into the same family with himself, viz. Cecil, Hobby, Rowlet, and Killigrew. By their assistance he preserved his credit at court, though he sometimes differed in opinion from the mighty favourite Leicester, who yet once bad fair his ruin, when certain intrigues were carried on respecting the succession. Some statesmen, and particularly the earl of Leicester, pretended to favour the title of the queen of Scots, but others were more inclined to the house of Suffolk. The queen sometimes affected a neutrality, and sometimes shewed a tenderness for the title of the Scottish queen. In 1564, when these disputes were at the height, Mr. John Hales, clerk of the Hanaper, published a treatise which seems to have been written a considerable time before, in favour of the Suffolk line, and against the title of the queen of Scots. This book was complained of by the bishop of Ross, ambassador from the queen of Scots, and Ross being warmly supported by the earl of Leicester, Hales was committed to prison, and so strict an inquiry made after all who had expressed any favour for this piece, that at last the lord-keeper came to be suspected, which drew upon him the queen’s displeasure, and he was forbidden the court, removed from his seat at council, and prohibited from meddling with any affairs but those of the chancery nay, Camden says he was confined . At last, however, Cecil, who is suspected to have had some share in the above treatise, with much difficulty restored him to the queen’s good opinion, as appears by her setting him at the head of that commission, granted in the year 1568, for hearing the difference between the queen of Scots, and her rebellious subjects; and in 1571, we find him again acting in the like capacity, though very little was done before the commissioners at either time, which was what queen Elizabeth chiefly desired, and the covering her inclination with a decent appearance of justice, was perhaps not a little owing to the address of the lord-keeper. Afterwards he continued at the head of her majesty’s councils, and had a great hand in preventing, by his moderation, some violent measures afterwards proposed. The share, however, that he had in the business of the duke of Norfolk, and his great care for promoting the Protestant religion, created him many bitter enemies among the Papists both at home and abroad, who though they were able to do him no great hurt, yet published some libels, particularly “A Detection of certain practices, &c.” printed in Scotland, about 1570, and “A treatise of Treason,” both which gave him considerable uneasiness, although the queen expressed her opinion, by a proclamation, ordering them to be burnt. As a statesman, he was remarkable for a clear head, and acute understanding; and while it was thought of some other great men that they seemed wiser than they were, yet the common voice of the nation pronounced, that sir Nicholas Bacon was wiser than he seemed. His great skill lay in balancing factions, and it is thought he taught the queen that secret, the more necessary to her because the last of her family, and consequently without many of the usual supports of princes. In the chancery he distinguished himself by a very moderate use of power, and the respect he shewed to the common law. At his own request, an act of parliament was made, to settle and establish the power of a lord -keeper, though he might probably have taken away all need of this, by procuring the title of lord chancellor: but according to his motto, which was Mediocra firma, he he was content to be safe, and did not desire to be great*. In that court, and in the star-chamber, he made use, on proper occasions, of set speeches, in which he was peculiarly happy, and gained the reputation of a witty and a weighty speaker. His great parts and great preferment were far from raising him in his own opinion, as appears from the modest answer he gave* queen Elizabeth, when she told him his house at Redgrave was too little for him, “Not so, madam,” returned he, “but your majesty has made me too great for my house.” Yet to shew his respect for her majesty’s judgment, he afterwards added wings to this house. His modesty in this respect was so much the greater, since he had a great passion for building, and a very fine taste, as appeared by his house and gardens at Gorhambury near St. Alban’s, now the seat of lord viscount Grimston. Towards the latter end of his life, he became very corpulent, which made queen Elizabeth say merrily, that “sir Nicholas’s soul lodged well. To himself, however, his bulk was very inconvenient after walking from Westminster-hall to the star-chamber, which was but a very little way, he was usually so much out of breath, that the lawyers forbore speaking at the bar till he recocovered himself, and gave them notice by knocking” with his staff. After having held the great seal more than twenty years, this able statesman and faithful counsellor was suddenly removed from this life, as Mallett informs us, by the following accident “He was under the hands of his barber, and the weather being sultry, had ordered a window before him to be thrown open. As he was become very corpulent, he presently fell asleep, in the cur­* After he had been some monthsact of parliament, which declares, in office, as keeper of the great seal,” That the common law always was, he began to doubt to what degree his that the keeper of the great seal always authority extended, which seems to had, as of right belonging to his office, have been owing to the general terms the same authority, jurisdiction, excused upon the delivery of the great cution of laws, and all other customs, Heal, of which we have various in- as the lord chancellor of England lawstances in Rymer’s Foedera. Upon fully used.“What the true reason this, he first applied himself to the was that made his lordship so uneasy, queen, from whom he procured a pa- is not perhaps known to posterity. tent, bearing date at Westminster, the But sir Henry Spelman has observed, 14th of April, in the first year of her that for the benefit of that wise counreign, whereby she declares him te seller sir Nicholas Bacon, the authobare as full powers as if he were rity of the keeper of the great seal hancellor of England, and ratifies all was by this law declared to be in all that he had already done. This, how- respects the same with that of th ever, did not fully satisfy him but chancellor, four years afterwards he procured an rent of fresh air that was blowing in upon him, and awaked after some time distempered all over. c Why,‘ said he to the servant, < did you suffer me to sleep thus exposed’ The fellow replied, ‘ That he durst not presume to disturb him.’ * Then,‘ said the lord keeper, * by your civility I lose my life,’ and so removed into his bed-chamber, where he died a few days after.” But this story seems doubtful, for all writers agree, that sir Nicholas Bacon died Feb. 20, 1579, when the weather could not be very sultry. On the 9th of March following he was buried with great solemnity, under a sumptuous monument erected by himself in St. Paul’s church, with an inscription written by the celebrated Buchanan. Camden’s character of him is just and plain “Vir praepinguis, ingenio acerrimo, singulari prudentia, summa eloquentia, tenaci memoria, et sacris conciliis alterum columen” i. e. A man of a gross body, but most quick wit, singular prudence, supreme eloquence, happy memory, and for judgment the other pillar of the state. His son’s pharacter of him is more striking. He was “a plain man, direct and constant, without all finesse and doubleness and one that was of a mind that a man, in his private proceedings and estate, and in the proceedings of state, should rest upon the soundness and strength of his own courses, and not upon practice to circumvent others, according to the sentence of Solomon, * Vir prudens advertit ad gressus suos stultus autem divertit ad dolos’ insomuch that the bishop of Ross, a subtle and observing man, said of him, that he could fasten no words upon him, and that it was impossible to come within him, because he offered no play; and the queen mother of France, a very politic princess, said of him, that he should have been of the council of Spain, because he despised the occurrents, and rested upon the first plot.” Nor is Puttenham’s short account to be overlooked “I have come to the lord keeper, and found him sitting in his gallery alone, with the works of Quintilian before him. Indeed he was a most eloquent man, of rare wisdom and learning, as ever I knew England to breed, and one that joyed as much in learned men and 0'.;d wits, from whose lippes Ihave seen to proceed more i;rave and natural eloquence than from all the orators of Oxford and Cambridge.”

, grandson of the preceding, and son of John, the youngest son of sir John Baker by Catherine daughter of sir Reynold Scot of Scot’s hall in Kent, was born at Sissingherst in Kent, about the year 1568. In 1584, he was entered a commoner at Hart-hall in Oxford, where he remained three years, which he spent chiefly in the study of logic and philosophy. From thence he removed to one of the inns of court in London, and afterwards travelled abroad, in order to complete his education. In 1594, he was created master of arts at Oxford and in May 1603, received the honour of knighthood from James I. at Theobalds. In 1620, he was high-sheriff of Oxfordshire, having the manor of Middle-Aston and other estates in that county, and was also in the commission of the peace. He married Margaret, daughter of sir George Manwaring, of Ightfield in Shropshire, knight and having become surety for some of that family’s debts, was thereby reduced to poverty, and thrown into the Fleet prison, where he died Feb. 18, 1645, and was buried in St. Bride’s church, Fleet-street. He was a person tall and comely (says Mr. Wood), of a good disposition and admirable discourse, religious, and well-read in various faculties, especially in divinity and history, as appears from the books he composed.

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

, knight, of the ancient family of the Baskervilles in Herefordshire, an excellent scholar and eminent physician, famous for his skill in anatomy, and successful practice in the time of king James I. and king Charles I. was born at Exeter 1573. His lather Thomas Baskerville, an apothecary of that city, observing an early love of knowledge and thirst after learning in him, gave him a proper education for the university, to which he was sent when about eighteen years old, entering him of Exeter college, in Oxford, on the 10th of March 1591, putting him under the care of Mr. William Helm, a man no less famous for his piety than learning; under whose tuition he gave such early proofs of his love of virtue and knowledge, that he was on the first vacancy elected fellow of that house, before he had taken his bachelor’s degree in arts, which delayed his taking it till July 8, 1596, to which he soon after added that of M. A. and when he was admitted, had particular notice taken of him for his admirable knowledge in the languages and philosophy. After this, viz. 1606, he was chosen senior proctor of the university, when he bent his study wholly to physic, became a most eminent proficient, and was then in as great esteem at the university for his admirable knowledge in medicine, as he had been before for other parts of learning, taking at once, by accumulation (June 20, 1611), both his degrees therein, viz. that of bachelor and doctor. After many years study and industry, he came to London, where he acquired great eminence in his profession; being a member of the college of physicians, and for some time also president. His high reputation for learning and skill soon brought him into vogue at court, where he was sworn physician to James I. and afterwards to Charles I. with whom, Mr. Wood tells us, he was in such esteem for his learning and accomplishments, that he conferred the honour of knighthood upon him. By his practice he obtained a very plentiful estate, and shewed in his life a noble spirit suitable to the largeness of his fortune. What family he left besides his wife, or who became heir to all his great wealth, we cannot find. He died July 5, 1641, aged sixty-eight, and was buried in the cathedral church of St. Paul. No physician of that age could, we imagine, bave better practice than he, if what is reported of him be true, viz. that he had no less than one hundred patients a, week; nor is it strange he should amass so great wealth as to acquire the title of sir Simon Baskerville the rich.

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

Soon after Charles VIII. was succeeded by Louis XIL Bayard followed the new king to the war, which broke out in Italy, and was always at the head of the most dangerous enterprizes. He undertook singly, and alone, as his biographer expresses it, to defend a bridge over the Carillon against two hundred Spanish cavaliers; and actually sustained their whole force until the French troops came to his assistance. Another time, with only thirty-six men, he stopped the whole Swiss army near Pavia. Most of the advantages gained by the French, in the course of this war, were owing to his valour: and it was by one of these achievements that he obtained the name of the “Chevalier sans peur et sans reproche,” the knight without fear and without reproach; a distinction, which did him the more honour as it was never possessed by any other, and as he acquired it at a time when the military honour of France was at its height, in the time of the Nemours, the Foixes, the Lautrecs, Trimouilles,and Chabunnes; but he seemed to surpass himself in the battle of Kavennes, which was planned and conducted by him alone.

Bayard, in his progress to military command, passed through all the subordinate stations; and if he^did not arrive at the first military dignity in France, he was universally thought to deserve it. And after all, the title of marshal of France was an honour which he would have possessed in common with many others; bnt to arm his king as a knight was a personal and peculiar honour, which no other could ever boast. The occasion was this: Francis I. who was himself one of the bravest men of his time, determined, after his victory of Marignan, to receive the order of knighthood from the hands of Bayard. Bayard modestly represented to his majesty, that so high an“honour belonged only to princes of the blood; but the kinoreplied in a positive tone,” My friend Bayard, I will this day be made a knight by your hands.“” It is then my duty,“said Bayard,” to obey,“and taking his sword, said,” Siro autant vaiile que si c'etoit Roland ou Olivier,“”May it avail as much as if it was Roland or Olivier," two heroes in the annals of chivalry, of whom many romantic tales are told. When the ceremony was over, Bayard addressed his sword with an ardour which the occasion inspired, and declared it was a weapon hereafter to be laid up as a sacred relic, and never to be drawn, except against Turks, Saracens, and Moors. This sword has been lost; Charles Emmanuel, duke of Savoy, having applied for it to the heirs of Bayard, without being able to procure it.

Bayard also made an expedition into Piedmont, where he took Prosper Colonnes, the pope’s lieutenant-general, prisoner. Chabannes, who was marshal of France, and Humbercourt and d‘Aubigny, two general officers, all much superior in rank to Bayard, gave up the honour of conducting the expedition to him, and served in it under his orders. But the defence of Mezieres completed the military reputation of this extraordinary man. This place was far from being in a condition to sustain a siege, and it had been resolved in a council of war to burn it, and ruin the adjacent country, that the enemy might find neither shelter nor subsistence. But Bayard opposed this resolution,­and told the king that no place was weak which had honest men to defend it. He then offered to undertake its defence, and engaged to give a good account of it. His proposal was accepted; and he went immediately and locked liimself up in the town. Two days after he had entered it, the count de Nassau, and capt.’ de Sickengen invested the place with 40,000 men. Bayard so animated his soldiers, sowed such dissention between the two generals who besieged him, and so effectually defeated all the attempts of the Imperialists, that in three weeks he obliged them to raise the siege, with the loss of many men, and without once making the assault. All France now resounded with the praises of Bayard: the king received him at Fervagues with caresses and encomiums of the most extraordinary kind: he created him a knight of his own order, and gave him, by way of distinction, a company of an hundred men armed in chief, which was scarce ever given but to princes of the blood.

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

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

That Behem rendered some very important services to the crown of Portugal, is put beyond all controversy by the recompense bestowed on him by king John, who in. 1485 made him a knight^ and governor of Fayal; he is said also to have espoused the daughter of a great lord, “in consideration of the important services he had performed.” These marks of distinction conferred on a stranger, could not be meant as a recompense for the discovery of the Azores, which was made twenty years before, but as a reward for the discovery of Congo, from whence the chevalier Behem had brought gold and different kinds of precious wares. In 1492, crowned with honours and riches, he undertook a journey to Nuremberg, to visit his native country and family. He there made a terrestrial globe, which is looked on as a master-piece for that time, and which is still preserved in the library of that city. The outline of his discoveries may there be seen, under the name of western lands; and from their situation it cannot be doubted that they are the present coasts of Brazil, and the environs of the straits of Magellan. This globe was made in the same year that Columbus set out on his expedition; therefore it is impossible that Behem could have profited by the works of that navigator, who, besides, went a much more northerly course.

, was born in 1613, atBelingstown, in the barony of Balrothery in the county of Dublin, the son of sir Henry Beling, knight, and was educated in his younger years at a grammar-school in the city of Dublin, but afterwards put under the tuition of some priests of his own religion, which was Popish, who so well cultivated his good genius, that they taught him to write in a fluent and elegant Latin style. Thus grounded in the polite parts of literature, his father removed him to Lincoln’s Inn, to study the municipal laws of his country, where he abode some years, and returned home a very accomplished gentleman, but it does not appear that he ever made the law a profession. His natural inclination inclining him to arms, he early engaged in the rebellion of 1641, and though but about twenty-eight years old, was then an officer of considerable rank. He afterwards became a leading member in the supreme council of the confederated Roman catholics at Kilkenny, to which he was principal secretary, and was sent ambassador to the pope and other Italian princes in 1645, tocraveaid for the support of their cause. He brought back with him a fatal present in the person of the nuncio, John Baptist Rinuccini, archbishop and prince of Fermo; who was the occasion of reviving the distinctions between the old Irish of blood, and the old English of Irish birth, which split that party into factions, prevented all peace with the marquis of Ormond, and ruined the country he was sent to save. When Mr. Beling had fathomed the mischievous schemes of the nuncio and his party, nobody was more zealous than he in opposing their measures, and in promoting the peace then in agitation, and submitting to the king’s authority, which he did with such cordiality, that he became very acceptable to the marquis of Ormond, who intrusted him with many negociations. When the parliament army had subdued the royal army, Mr. Beling retired to France, where he continued several years. His account of the transactions of Ireland during the period of the rebellion, is esteemed by judicious readers more worthy of credit than any written by the Romish party, yet he is not free from a partiality to the cause he at first embarked in. He returned home upon the restoration, and was repossessed of his estate by the favour and interest of the duke of Ormond. He died in Dublin in September 1677, and was buried in the church-yard of Malahidert, about five miles from that city. During his retirement in France, he wrote in Latin, in two books, “Vindiciarum Catholicorum Hiberniae,” under the name of Philopater Irenacus, the first of which gives a pretty accurate history of Irish affairs, from 1641 to 1649, and the second is a confutation of an epistle written by Paul King, a Franciscan friar and a nunciotist, in defence of the Irish rebellion. This book of Mr. Beling’s being answered by John Ponce, a Franciscan friar also, and a most implacable enemy to the Protestants of Ireland, in a tract entitled “Belingi Vindiciae eversae,” our author made a reply, which he published under the title of “Annotationes in Johannis Poncii librum, cui titulus, Vindiciae Eversae: accesserunt Belingi Vindiciae,” Parisiis, 1654, 8vo. He wrote also a vindication of himself against Nicholas French, titular bishop of Ferns, under the title of “Innocentiae suae impetitae per Reverendissimum Fernensem vindiciae,” Paris, 1652, 12mo, dedicated to the clergy of Ireland; and is reported to have written a poem called “The Eighth Day,” which has escaped our searches. When a student, however, at Lincoln’s Inn, he wrote and added a sixth book to sir Philip Sidney’s Arcadia, which was printed with that romance, London, 1633, folio, with only the initials of his name.

, another brother of the preceding, lord of Langey, a French general, who signalized himself in the service of Francis I. was also an able negociator, so that the emperor Charles V. used to say, “that Langey’s pen had fought more against him than all the lances of France.” He was sent to Piedmont in quality of viceroy, where he took several towns from the Imperialists. His address in penetrating into an enemy’s designs was one of those talents in the exercise of which he spared no expence, and thereby had intelligence of the most secret councils of the emperor and his generals. He was extremely active in influencing some of the universities of France, to give their judgment agreeably to the desires of Henry VIII. king of England, when this prince wanted to divorce his queen, in order to marry Anne Boleyn. It was then the interest of France to favour the king of England in this particular, it being an affront to the emperor, and a gratification to Henry, which might serve for the basis of an alliance between him and Francis I. He was sent several times into Germany to the princes of the proiestant league, and was made a knight of the order of St. Michael.

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

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

His success in the mean time was great, and Gregory XV. who succeeded Paul V. being equally struck with his merit, created him a knight; but it was left for cardinal Barberini, when he came to the pontificate, to complete Bernini’s good fortune. Immediately after that event he said to Bernini, “If you are happy to see me pope, I am more proud yet that you live under my pontificate,” and from that time began to employ him in designs for embellishing Rome, and gave him a pension of three hundred crowns per month. Without altogether quitting statuary, therefore, Bernini now employed his talents on architecture, and recollecting Carrache’s wish, he designed the canopy for the principal altar, called the confessional of St. Peter, supported by four wreathed columns, enriched with figures and ornaments of exquisite taste. When this magnificent work was completed, in about nine years, the pope rewarded him with six thousand crowns, besides increasing his pensions, and extending his liberality to Bernini’s brothers. Another work of his was the fountain of Barcaccia, which has been praised more than it merits, at least it is inferior to that of the Barberini palace.

Da Cortona, an eminent artist, was born at Cortona, in 1596, and according to some writers, was a disciple of Andrea Commodi, though others affirm that he was the disciple of JBaccio C'iarpi and Argenville says, he was successively the disciple of both. He went young to Rome, and applied himself diligently to study the antiques, the works of Raphael, Buonaroti, and Polidoro by which he so improved his taste and his hand, that he distinguished himself in a degree superior to any of the artists of his time. And it seemed astonishing that two such noble designs as were the Rape of the Sabines, and the Battle of Alexander, which he painted in the Palazzo Sacchetti, conld be the product of so young an artist, when it was observed, that for invention, disposition, elevation of thought, and an excellent tone of colour, they were equal to the performances of the best masters. He worked with remarkable ease and freedom; his figures are admirably grouped; his distribution is elegant; and the Chiaroscuro is judiciously observed. Nothing can be more grand than his ornaments and where landscape is introduced, it is designed in a superior taste and through his whole compositions there appears an uncommon grace. But De Piles observes, that it was not such a grace as was the portion of Raphael and Correggio but a general grace, consisting rather in a habit of making the airs of his heads always agreeable, than in a choice of expressions suitable to each subject. By the best judges it seems to be agreed, that although this master was frequently incorrect though not always judicious in his expressions though irregular in his draperies, and apt to design his figures too short and too heavy yet, by the magnificence of his composition, the delicate airs of his faces, the grandeur of his decorations, and the astonishing suavity and gracefulness of the whole together, he must be allowed to have been the mo-t agreeable mannerist that any age hath produced. He had an eye for colour; but his colouring in fresco is far superior to what he performed in oil nor do his easel pictures appear as finished as might be expected from so great a master, when compared what what he painted in a larger size. Some of the most capital works of Pietro, in fresco, are in the Barberini palace at Rome, and the Palazzo Pitti at Florence. Of his oil-pictures, perhaps none excels the altar-piece of Ananias healing St. Paul, in the church of the Concezione at Rome. Alexander VII. created him knight of the golden spur. The grand duke Ferdinand II. also conferred on him several marks of his esteem. That prince one day admiring the figure of a child weeping, which he had just painted, he only gave it one touch of the pencil, and it appeared laughing then, with another touch, he put it in its former state “Prince,” said Berretini, “you see how easily children laugh and cry.” He was so laborious, that the gout, with which he was tormented, did not prevent him rrom working but his sedentary life, in conjunction with his extreme application, augmented that cruel disease, of which he died in 1669.

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

He married Elizabeth, only child of Edward, the first lord Mountagu of Boughton in Northamptonshire, and had issue by her nine sons and five daughters, and was succeeded in his titles and estate by his eldest, Mountagu, who at the battle of Edge-hill, where he commanded the royal regiment of guards, seeing his father wounded and taken prison, was moved with such filial piety, that he voluntarily yielded himself to a commander of horse of the enemy, in order to attend upon him. He afterwards adhered firmly to his majesty in all his distresses, and upon the restoration of king Charles II. was made knight of the garter.

Having related the more personal and private circumstances of Dr. Birch’s history, we proceed to his various publications. The first great work he engaged in, was “The General Dictionary, historical and critical” wherein a new translation of that of the celebrated Mr. Bayle was included and which was interspersed with several thousand lives never before published. It was on the 29th of April, 1734, that Dr. Birch, in conjunction with the rev. Mr. John Peter Bernard, and Mr. John Lockman, agreed with the booksellers to carry on this important undertaking; and Mr. George Sale was employed to draw up the articles relating to oriental history. The whole design was completed in ten volumes, folio; the first of which appeared in 1734, and the last in 1741. It is universally allowed, that this work contains a very extensive and useful body of biographical knowledge. We are not told what were the particular articles written by Dr. Birch but there is no doubt of his having executed a great part of the dictionary neither is it, we suppose, any disparagement to his coadjutors, to say, that he was superior to them in abilities and reputation, with the exception of Mr. George Sale, who was, without controversy, eminently qualified for the department he had undertaken. The next great design in which Dr. Birch engaged, was the publication of “Thurloe’s State Papers.” This collection, which comprised seven volumes in folio, came out in 1742. It is dedicated to the late lord chancellor Hardwicke, and there is prefixed to it a life of Thurloe but whether it was written or not by our author, does not appear. The same life had been separately published not long before. The letters and papers in this collection throw the greatest light on the pe'riod to which they relate, and are accompanied with proper references, and a complete index to each volume, yet was a work by which the proprietors were great losers. In 1744, Dr. Birch published, in octavo, a “Life of the honourable Robert Boyle, esq” which hath since been prefixed to the quarto edition of the works of that philosopher. In the same year, our author began his assistance to Houbraken and Vertue, in their design of publishing, in folio, the “Heads of illustrious persons of Great Britain,” engraved by those two artists, but chiefly by Mr. Houbraken. To each head was annexed, by Dr, Birch, the life and character of the person represented. The first volume of this work, which came out in numbers, was completed in 1747, and the second in 1752. Our author’s concern in this undertaking did not hinder his prosecuting, at the same time, other historical disquisitions: for, in 1747, appeared, in octavo,“His inquiry into the share which king Charles the First had in the transactions of the earl of Glamorgan.” A second edition ef the Inquiry was published in 1756, and it was a work that excited no small degree of attention. In 1751, Dr. Birch was editor of the “Miscellaneous works of sir Walter Raleigh” to which was prefixed the life of that unfortunate and injured man. Previously to this, Dr. Birch published “An historical view of the negociations between the courts of England, France, and Brussels, from 1592 to 1617; extracted chiefly from the ms State Papers of sir Thomas Edmondes, knight, embassador in France, and at Brussels, and treasurer of the household to the kings James I. and Charles I. and of Anthony Bacon, esq. brother to the lord chancellor Bacon. To which is added, a relation of the state of France, with the character of Henry IV. and the principal persons of that court, drawn up by sir George Carew, upon his return from his embassy there in 1609, and addressed to king James I. never before printed.” This work, which consists of one volume, in octavo, appeared in 1749; and, in an introductory discourse to the honourable Philip Yorke, esq. (the late earl of Hardwicke), Dr. Birch makes some reflections on the utility of deducing history from its only true and unerring sources, the original letters and papers of those eminent men, who were the principal actors in the administration of affairs; after which he gives some account of the lives of sir Thomas Edmondes, sir George Carew, and Mr. Anthorry Bacon. The “Historical View” is undoubtedly a valuable performance, and hath brought to light a variety of particulars relative to the subjects and the period treated of, which before were either not at all, or not so fully known. In 17.51, was published by our author, an edition, in two volumes, 8vo, of the “Theological, moral, dramatic, and poetical works of Mrs. Catherine Cockburn” with an account of her life. In the next year came out his “Life of the most reverend Dr. John Tillotson, lord archbishop of Canterbury. Compiled chiefly from his original papers and letters.” A second edition, corrected and enlarged, appeared in 1753. This work, which was dedicated to archbishop Herring, is one of the most pleasing and popular of Dr. Birch’s performances; and he has done great justice to Dr. Tillotsou’s memory, character, and virtues. Our biographer hath likewise intermixed with his narrative of the good prelate’s transactions, short accounts of the persons occasionally mentioned; a method which he has pursued in some of his other publications. In 1753, he revised. the quarto edition, in two volumes, of Milton’s prose works, and added a new life of that great poet and writer. Dr. Birch gave to the world', in the following year, his “Memoirs of the reign of queen Elizabeth, from the year 1581, till her death. In which the secret intrigues of her court, and the conduct of her favourite, Robert earl of Essex, both at home and abroad, are particularly illustrated. From the original papers of his intimate friend, Anthony Bacon, esq. and other manuscripts never before published.” These memoirs, which are inscribed to the earl of Hardwicke, give a minute account of the letters and materials from which they are taken and the whole work undoubtedly forms a very valuable collection in which our author has shewn himself (as in his other writings) to be a faithfnl and accurate compiler and in which, besides a full display of the temper and actions of the earl of Essex, much light is thrown on the characters of the Cecils, Bacons, and many eminent persons of that period. The book is now becoming scarce, and, as it may not speedily be republished, is rising in its value. This is the case, likewise, with regard to the edition of sir Walter Raleigh’s miscellaneous works. Dr. Birch’s next publication was “The history of the Royal Society of London, for improving of natural knowledge, from its first rise. In which the most considerable of those papers, communicated to the society, which have hitherto not been published, are inserted in their proper order, as a supplement to the Philosophical Transactions.” The twq first volumes of this performance, which was dedicated to his late majesty, appeared in 1756, and the two other volumes in 1757. The history is carried on to the end of the year 1687 and if the work had been continued, and had been conducted with the same extent and minuteness, it would have been a very voluminous undertaking. But, though it may, perhaps, be justly blamed in this respect, it certainly contains many curious and entertaining anecdotes concerning the manner of the society’s proceedings at their first establishment. It is enriched, likewise, with a number of personal circumstances relative to the members, and with biographical accounts of such of the more considerable of them as died in the course of each year. In 1760, came out, in one volume, 8vo, our author’s “Life of Henry prince of Wales, eldest son of king James I. Compiled chiefly from his own papers, and other manuscripts, never before published.” It is dedicated to his present majesty, then prince of Wales. Some have objected to this work, that it abounds too much with trifling details, and that Dr. Birch has not given sufficient scope to such reflections and disquisitions as arose from his subject. It must, nevertheless, be acknowledged, that it affords a more exact and copious account than had hitherto appeared of a prince whose memory has always been remarkably popular; and that various facts, respecting several other eminent characters, are occasionally introduced. Another of his publications was, “Letters, speeches, charges, advices, &c. of Francis Bacon, lord viscount St. AJban, lord chancellor of England.” This collection, which is comprised in one volume, 8vo, and is dedicated to the honourable Charles Yorke, esq. appeared in 1763. It is taken from some papers which had been originally in the possession of Dr. Rawley, lord Bacon’s chaplain, whose executor, Mr. John Rawley, having put them into the hands of Dr. Tenison, they were, at length, deposited in the manuscript library at Lambeth. Dr. Birch, speaking of these papers of lord Bacon, says, that it can scarcely be imagined, but that the bringing to light, from obscurity and oblivion, the remains of so eminent a person, will be thought an acquisition not inferior to the discovery (if the ruins of Herculaneum should afford such a treasure) of a new set of the epistles of Cicero, whom our immortal countryman most remarkably resembled as an orator, a philosopher, a writer, a lawyer, and a statesman. Though this, perhaps, is speaking too highly of a collection, which contains many things in it seemingly not very material, it must, at the same time, be allowed, that nothing can be totally uninteresting which relates to so illustrious a man, or tends, in any degree, to give a farther insight into his character. To this catalogue we have still to add “Professor Greaves’s miscellaneous works,” 1737, in two vols. 8vo. Dr. Cud worth’s “Intellectual System,” (improved from the Latin edition of Mosheim) his discourse on the true notion of the Lord’s Supper, and two sermons, with an account of his life and writings, 1743, in two vols. 4to. An edition of Spenser’s “Fairy Queen,” 1751, in three Vols. 4to, with prints from designs by Kent. “Letters between col. Robert Hammond, governor of the Isle of Wight, and the committee of lords and commons at Derbyhouse, general Fairfax, lieut.-general Cromwell, commissary general Ireton, &c. relating to king Charles I. while he was confined in Carisbrooke-castle in that island. Now first published. To which is prefixed a letter from John Ashburnham, esq. to a friend, concerning his deportment towards the king, in his attendance on his majesty at Hampton-court, and in the Isle of Wight,” 1764, 8vo. Dr. Birch’s last essay, “The life of Dr. Ward,” which was finished but a week before his death, was published by Dr. Maty, in 1766.

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

, knight, and LL. D. an illustrious English lawyer, was born July 10, 1723, in Cheapside, in the parish of St. Michael-le-Querne, at the house of his father, Mr. Charles Blackstone, a silkman, and citizen and bowyer of London, who was the third son of Mr. John Blackstone, an eminent apothecary, in Newgate-street, descended from a family of that name in the west of England, at or near Salisbury. His mother was Mary, eldest daughter of Lovelace Bigg, esq. of Chilton Foliot, in Wiltshire. He was the youngest of four children, of whom, John died an infant, Charles, the eldest, and Henry, the third, were educated at Winchester-school, under the care of their uncle Dr. Bigg, warden of that society, and were afterwards both fellows of New college, Oxford. Charles became a fellow of Winchester, and rector of Wimering, in Hampshire; and Henry, after having practised physic for some years, went into holy orders, and died in 1778, rector of Adderbury, in Oxfordshire, a living in the gift of New-college. Their father died some months before the birth of the subject of this article, and their mother died before he was twelve years old. from his birth, the care both of his education and fortune was kindly undertaken by his maternal uncle, Mr. Thomas Bigg, an eminent surgeon in London, and afterwards, on the death of his eldest brothers, owner of the Chilton estate, which, if we mistake not, is still enjoyed by that family. The affectionate care of this uncle, in giving all his nephews a liberal education, supplied the great loss they had so early sustained, and compensated, in a great degree, for their want of more ample fortunes, and it was always remembered by them with the sincerest gratitude. In 1730, being about seven years of age, he was put to school at the Charter-house, and in 1735 was, by the nomination of sir Robert Walpole, on the recommendation of Charles Wither, of Hall, in Hampshire, esq, his cousin by the mother’s side, admitted upon the foundation.

, father to the preceding, and a considerable writer in the last century, was descended from a very ancient and honourable family, and born December 15, 1602, at his father, sir Thomas Pope Blount’s, seat at Tittenhanger, in Hertfordshire. He received the first tincture of letters in the free-school of St. Alban’s, where he manifested an unusual quickness of parts, and having qualified himself for the university, was removed to Trinity-college, in Oxford, and entered a gentleman commoner there in 1616, before he was full fourteen years of age. Some years he spent in that learned society, with great reputation and universal respect, not so much on account of his family, by which he was nearly related to the founder, sir Thomas Pope, as from his personal merit. For in his youth he was of a cheerful disposition, a sprightly wit, an easy address, and frank and entertaining in conversation, charmed all who were of his acquaintance, and was justly esteemed as promising a genius as any in the university. In the year 1618 he took the degree of B.A. and soon after left Oxford for Gray’s-inn, where for some time he applied himself to the study of the law, and set out on his travels in the spring of the year 1634, being then lately become of age. He made first the tour of France, part of Spain and Italy, and then passing to Venice, he there contracted an acquaintance with a Janizary, with whom he resolved to pass into the Turkish dominions. With this view he embarked on the 7th of May, 1634, on board a Venetian galley, in which he sailed to Spalatro, and thence continued his journey by land to Constantinople. There he was very kindly received by sir Peter Wich, then our ambassador at the Port. His stay at Constantinople was short, because, having an earnest desire to see Grand Cairo, and meeting with a sudden opportunity, he readily embraced it, and after a peregrination of near two years, returned safely into England, where, in 1636, he printed an account of his travels, London, 1636, 4to, which soon after came to a second edition, and in 1638 to a third, in the same size. It was then printed in 12mo, and reached many editions the title of the eighth runs thus “A Voyage into the Levant, being a brief relation of a Journey lately performed from England by the way of Venice, into Dalmatia, Sclavonia, Bosnia, Hungary, Macedonia, Thessaly, Thrace, Rhodes, and Egypt, unto Grand Cairo; with particular observations concerning the modern condition of the Turks, and other people under that empire. By sir Henry Blount, knight.” This book made him known to the world, and so much noticed, that shortly after, king Charles I. who desired to fill his court with men of parts, appointed him one of the band of pensioners, then composed of gentlemen of the first families in the kingdom. In 1638, his father, sir Thomas Pope Blount, died, and left him the ancient seat of Blount’s hall, in Staffordshire, and a very considerable fortune. On the 21st of March in the succeeding year, the king conferred on him the honour of knighthood. At the first breaking out of the civil war, he, following the example of the elder branches of his illustrious family, who were eminently loyal, attended the king at York, at Oxford, and other places, was present at the battle of Edgehill, and had there (according to a tradition in the family) the honour of taking care of the young princes. Afterwards he quitted his majesty’s service, and returned to London, where he was questioned for his adhering to the king but he being now grown a very wary and dexterous speaker, so well excused himself, by alleging his duty on account of his post, that he escaped all censure, and was thenceforward well received. It appears, however, that he had not the courage to be faithful, or that Ije had seriously repented his loyalty to the king, for he complied with the usurping government so implicitly, that in 1651 he was named on a committee of twenty persons, for inspecting the practice of the law, and remedying its abuses. He declared himself very warmly against tithes, and would willingly have reduced the income of parish ministers to one hundred pounds a year. A man of this opinion must have been very acceptable at that time. His next appearance, however, was more to his credit. He sat with Dr. Hichard Zouch, Dr. William Clarke, Dr. William Turner, civilians, and with several other eminent persons in the court of king’s (then called the upper) bench, in Westminster hall, on the 5th of July, 1654, by virtue of a commission from Oliver Cromwell, for trying Don Pantalion Saa, brother to the Portuguese ambassador, for murder, of which, being found guilty, he was, much to the honour of the justice of this nation, by sentence of that court, adjudged to suffer death, and was executed accordingly, Jn, the same year, by the death of his elder brother Thomas Pope Blount, esq. the estate of Tittenhanger descended to him. His great reputation for general knowledge and uncommon sagacity was the reason that his name was inserted in the list of twenty-one commissioners appointed, November 1, 1655, to consider of the trade and navigation of the commonwealth, and how it might be best encouraged and promoted, in which station he did his country eminent service. But whatever his compliances with the forms of government set up between 1650 and 1660, he was received into favour and confidence on the ling’s restoration, and appointed high sheriff of the county of Hertford, in 1661. He lived after that as an English gentleman, satisfied with the honours he had acquired, and the large estate he possessed, and having passed upwards uf twenty years in this independent state, be died on the 9th of October, 1682, when he wanted but four months of four-score, and was two days afterwards interred in the vault of his family, at Ridge in Hertfordshire. As to what appears from his writings, he seems to have had strong parts, a lively imagination, and, in consequence of these, some very singular opinions. His style was manly, flowing, and less affected than could be expected, considering the times in, and the subjects on, which he wrote. A Latin fragment, published by his son, in his “Oracles of Reason,” better explains his sentiments than all the rest of his works, and demonstrates that he was a man of an irregular way of thinking.

Mr. Warton, in the life of his great ancestor, says very justly, that his “Voyage into the Levant” is the voyage of a sceptic it has more of the philosopher than the traveller, and would, probably, never have been written, but for the purpose of insinuating his religious sentiments. Yet his reflections are so striking and original, and so artfully interwoven with the thread of his adventures, that they enliven, instead of embarrassing the narrative. He had the art of colouring his paradoxes with the resemblance of truth, and so little penetration had the orthodox court of Charles I. that merely on the merit of this book, he was appointed one of the band of pensioners. For the first forty years of his life he was a boon companion, and much given to raillery; but in the other forty, of a serious temper, and a water drinker. He married in 1647, dame Hester Manwaring, relict of sir William Manwaring, of Cheshire, knight, daughter and coheiress of Christopher Wase, of Upper Holloway, in the county of Middlesex, esq. by whom he left three sons and one daughter.

, an eminent writer towards the close of the seventeenth century, was the eldest “son of sir Henry Blount before mentioned, and was born at Upper Holloway in the county of Middlesex, Sept. 12, 1649. He was carefully educated under the eye of his father, who took care to acquaint him with the several branches of polite literature most worthy the notice of a person of his rank; and so great was the improvement he made under so able an instructor, that, even in his junior years, he was considered both as a judicious and learned man, and on this account, as well as for other marks of worth and genius, he was, by king Charles II. advanced to the degree of a baronet, by apatent dated Jan. 27,1679, in the thirtieth year of his majesty’s reign, and in the lifetime of sir Henry Blount his father. He was elected burgess for St. Albari’s in Hertfordshire, in the parliaments in the thirtieth and thirty-first of king Charles II. and was knight of the shire in three parliaments after the Revolution, having also the honour to be elected commissioner of accounts for the three last years of his life by the house of commons. He always distinguished himself as a lover of liberty, a sincere friend to his country, and a true patron of learning. His strong attachment for literature and criticism, and his extensive acquaintance with the best writers in all ages and sciences, appearecLfully in the” Censura," which he composed, first for his own use and satisfaction, and then published in the universal language for the benefit of others. His talents for original remark appear from his essays, which, in point of learning, judgment, and freedom of thought, are certainly no way inferior to those of the famous Montaigne. His knowledge and modesty are equally conspicuous in another piece of his, wherein he presents the public with the fruits of his reading on natural history, without depriving those from whom he drew his knowledge, of any part of their reputation. What he has written on poetry was likewise drawn together for his own information, and afterwards sent abroad for public use. Having thus satisfied in his riper years, the great expectations which his friends had of him in his youth, having been steady to one party, without violence towards others, after acquiring honour in his several public characters, esteem in private conversation, and affection in domestic life, he quietly ended his days at his seat at Tktenhanger, June 30, 1697, in the forty-eighth year of his age, and was buried the eighth of July following, in the vault of his family, at Ridge in Hertfordshire. He married Jane, daughter of sir Henry Caesar, of Benington Place in the county of Hertford, knight, and by her left issue five sons and nine daughters, but the baronetage is now extinct.

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

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

Lord Berners is now principally known r his translation of “Froissart’s Chronicle,” which he mdertook by command of the king, and was published by 'inson, 1523 1525, 2 vols. fol. It is unnecessary to add h w much this translation has been superseded by that of Thmas Johnes, esq. which lately issued from the Hafod pre>, and has passed through two editions since 1803. Ofers of lord Berners’s works were a whimsical medley of ranslations from the French, Italian, and Spanish novels, hich seem to have been the mode then, as they were afterv.rds in the reign of Charles II. These were, “The Life f Sir Arthur, an Armorican Knight” “The famousesploits of sir Hugh of Bourdeaux” “Marcus Aureliui” and the “Castle of Love.” He also composed a bo: “Of the duties of the inhabitants of Calais,” and a comfy entitled “Ite in Vineam.” Of all these an ample account may be seen in our authorities.

, better known by the name of Brantôme, of which he was abbot, added to that title those of lord and baron of Richemont, chevalier, gentleman of the chamber to the kings Charles IX. and Henry III. and chamberlain to the duke of Alençon. He had the design of being created a knight of Maltha in a voyage he made to that isle during the time of the siege in 1565. He returned to France, where he was fed with vain expectations; but he received no other reward (as he tells us himself) than being welcomed by the kings his masters, great lords, princes, sovereigns, queens, princesses, &c. He died July 5, 1614, at the age of 87. His memoirs were printed in ten volumes, 12mo, viz. four of the French commanders; two of foreign commanders two of women of gallantry one of illustrious ladies; and one of duels. There is another edition of the Hague, 1741, 15 vols. 12mo, on account of the supplement, which makes five, and also a Paris edition 1787, 8 vols. 8vo. These memoirs may be of some use, if read cautiously, by those who would know the private history of Charles IX. of Henry III. and of Henry IV. Here the man is more represented than the prince. The pleasure of seeing these kings in their peculiarities in private life, added to the simplicity of Brantome’s style, renders the reading of his memoirs extremely agreeable. But some of his anecdotes are grossly indecent, and many of them fictions.

, knight of the Polish order of Merit, and an artist of distinguished reputation, was the descendant of a considerable family in Switzerland, but was born in London in 1756. His early destination was the army, under the patronage of lord Heathfield, who was his father’s - friend but having been instructedwhi|p a child in the rudiments of painting, by a foreigner of inconsiderable merit as a horse-painter, he became so attached to the study, as soon to relinquish the military profession, and devote himself wholly to the pencil. For this purpose he was placed under the tuition of Loutherbourg, and having, from his connexions and acquaintance, access to many of the most distinguished collections, he soon acquired considerable reputation by his landscapes and sea-pieces. In 1776, he travelled through Italy, France, and Holland, where his correct knowledge of the language of each country, added to the politeness of his address, and the pleasures of his conversation, procured him an introduction to the best society, and most valuable repositories of the arts on the continent. At his return to England, he exhibited several specimens of his studies at the royal academy, which obtained him reputation and patronage. In 1791 he was appointed painter to the king of Poland, whose brother, the prince primate, had been much pleased with his performances during his residence in this country; and at the same time he received the honour of knighthood of the order of Merit, which was afterwards confirmed by his present majesty, who, in 1794, appointed him landscapepainter to the king. Previous to this he had, in 1792, been elected a member of the royal academy. Some time before his death, by the will of the late Noel Desenfans, esq. an eminent picture-dealer, he became possessed of sufficient property to render a laborious application to his profession no longer necessary, and from that time he lived in the circle of his friends, highly respected for his talents and agreeable manners. He died Jan. 8, 1811, at his house in Portland- street, bequeathing his fine collection of pictures, and his fortune, to Dirlwich college. According to the terms of his will, he leaves the whole of these pictures, besides 10,000l. to keep them in due preservation, and 2,000/ for the purpose of repairing the gallery ki the college for their reception. He also bequeathed legacies of lOOOl. each to the master of the college, and to the chaplain and the fellows of the college are to be the residuary legatees, and are to possess, for its advantage, all the rest of his property, of every denomination. Most part of this will, however, does not take effect until after the death of Mrs. Desenfans, the widow of his benefactor; and after that event he directs that the body of the late Noel Desenfans, which is now deposited in a sarcophagus within a mausoleum in a chapel, attached to his late house in Charlotte-street, Portland-place, shall be removed, together with his own body (which has, by his desire, been deposited in the same mausoleum), and entombed in a sarcophagus, to be "placed in the chapel of Dulwich college. So singular a will, with respect at least to the place chosen for this collection, excited much surprise. The following circumstances, however, which have been communicated by an intimate friend of the testator, may in some measure account for it. After sir Francis became possessed of the Desenfans collection, by the owner’s friendly will in his favour, he wished to purchase the fee simple of his fine house in Charlotte-street, enlarge it, and endow it as a perpetual repository for the collection, easily accessible to the public, and particularly to students as a school of art; but unluckily, his landlord, a nobleman lately deceased, refused his consent, although he afterwards expressed an inclination to grant it, when too late. Sir Francis then conceived the design of hequeathing the collection to the British Museum, but did not execute it, from a fear that the pictures might not be kept entire and unmixed, he being told that it was in the power of the trustees to dispose of what might appear superfluous or inferior. Such was his respect for his deceased friend, that his only ambition was to discover a place where the collection might be kept together, and known in perpetuum, not as his, but as the Desenfans Collection. By whom Dulwich college, an hospital for poor men and women, remote from the residence of artists and men of taste, was suggested, we know not. It was a place sir Francis had probably never before seen; but, having once visited it, and been informed that his terms might be complied with there, without risk of alteration, he disposed of his property as we have related.

, an ingenious scholar, who, from his Attachment to Spanish literature, was usually called by his friends Don Bowle, was a descendant from Dr. John Bowle, bishop of Rochester in the early part of the seventeenth century. He was born in 1725, and educated at Oriel college, Oxford, where he took his master’s degree in 1750, and having entered into holy orders, was presented to the vicarage of Idmiston, Wiltshire. In 1776 he was elected F. S. A. He was a man of great erudition, and muca respected for his various researches in antiquity, and varios other lucubrations in obscure literature. He had the honour or being one of the first detectors of Lauder’s forgeries, and according to Dr. Douglas’s account, had the juste-st claim to be considered as the original detector o! thai unprincipled impostor. In 1765, he was editor of “Miscellaneous pieces of ancient English Poesie,” containing Shakspeare’s “King John,” and some of the satires of Marston. To a very accurate and extensive fund of classical learning, he had added a comprehensive knowledge of most of the modern languages, particularly of the Spanish, Italian, and French; and in the course of his reading contracted a fondness for Cervantes’ admirable romance, which could scarcely be said to be kept within reasonable bounds. Don Quixote himself did not sally forth with more enthusiasm than Mr. Bowie, when in 1777 he published “A Letter to the rev. Dr. Percy, concerning a new and classical edition of Historia del valoroso CavaU lero Don Quixote de la Mancha, to be illustrated by annotations and extracts from the historians, poets, and romances of Spain and Italy, and other writers ancient and modern, with a glossary and indexes, in which are occasionally interspersed some reflections on the learning and genius of the author, with a map of Spain adapted to the history, and to every translation of it,” 4to. He gave also an outline of the life of Cervantes in the Gent. Mag. for 1731, and circulated proposals to print the work hy subscription at three guineas each copy. It appeared accordingly in 1781, in six quarto volumes, the first four consisting of the text, the fifth of the annotations, and the sixth is wholly occupied by the index, but the work did not answer his expectations. The literary journals were either silent or spoke slightingly of his labours; and the public sentiment seemed to be that annotations on Cervantes were not quite so necessary as on Shakspeare. He appears, however, to have taken some pains to introduce them to the public in a favourable light. In 1784 (Gent. Mag. LIV. p. 565) we find him lamenting certain “unfair practices respecting the admission of an account of the work into two periodical publications to which he had some reason to think he was entitled.” He adds, that the perpetrators of these practices were “a false friend, and another, whose encomium he should regard as an affront and real slander the one as fond of the grossest flattery, as the other ready to give it, and both alike wholesale dealers in abuse and detraction.” Nor was this all; in 1785 he published “Remarks on the extraordinary conduct of the Knight of the Ten Stars and his Italian Squire, to the editor of Don Quixote. In a letter to I. S. D. D.” 8vo. This produced an answer from the “Italian Squire,” Baretti, not of the most gentleman-like kind, entitled “Tolondron. Speeches to John Bowie, about his edition of Don Quixote,” 8vo, 1786, and with this the controversy ended. Mr. Bowie contributed many valuable hints and corrections to Granger’s History, and many criticisms and illustrations to Johnson and Steevens’s edition of Shakspeare, and Warton’s History of Poetry. His course of reading well qualified him for literary aid of this description. In the Archaeologia, vol. VI. VII. and VIII. are four papers by him, on the ancient pronunciation of the French language; on some musical instruments mentioned in “Le Roman de la Rose;” on parish registers; and on cards. He was also, under various signatures, a frequent contributor to the Gentleman’s Magazine, but as a divine he was not known to the public. He died Oct. 26, 1788.

, 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.

, was second son of sir Richard Bray, one of the privy council to king Henry VI. who lies buried in the north aile of Worcester cathedral, in which county sir Reginald was born. One of this family (which were lords of Braie, or Bray, in Normandy) came with William the Conqueror into England, where they flourished in the counties of Northampton and Warwick; but Edmond, the father of sir Richard, is styled of Eton Bray, in the county of Bedford, which county they had represented in parliament in 18 Ed. I. and 6 Ed. II. In 1 Rich. III. this Reginald had a general pardon granted to him, probably on account of his having taken part with Henry VI. to whose cause he had a personal as well as hereditary attachment being receiver- general to sir Henry Stafford, who married Margaret, countess of Richmond, mother to the earl of Richmond, afterward king Henry VII. and continued in her service after the death of sir Henry, and was put in trust for her dowry, on her marriage to Thomas, earl of Derby. When the duke of Buckingham had concerted with Morton, bishop of Ely (then his prisoner at Brecknock in Wales), the marriage of the earl of Richmond with the princess Elizabeth, eldest daughter of Edward I V. and the earl’s advancement to the throne, the bishop recommended sir Reginald for the transaction of the affair with the countess, telling the duke he had an old friend with her, a man sober, secret, and well-witted, called Reginald Bray, whose prudent policy he had known to have compassed matters of great importance; and accordingly wrote to him in Lancashire, where he then was with the countess, to come to Brecknock with all speed. He readily obeyed the summons, entered heartily into the design, and was very active in carrying it on; and soon engaged sir Giles Daubeney (afterwards lord Daubeney), sir John Ciieney, Richard GuiUbrd, esq. and many other gentlemen of note, to take part with Henry. After the success at Bosworth, he gradually rose into great favour with the king, who eminently distinguished and liberally rewarded his services. His attachment to that prince was sincere and uriremitted; and such were his ptudence and abilities, that he never forfeited the confidence he had acquired, during an attendance of seventeen years on the most suspicious monarch of his time. He was made a knight banneret, probably at the battle of Bosworth; a knight of the bath at the king’s coronation, and afterwards a kni“ht of the garter. In the first year of the kind’s reign he had a grant of the constableship of the castle of Oakham in Rutlandshire, and was appointed joint chie‘ justice, with the lord Fitzwalter, of all the forests south of Trent, and chosen of the privy council. After this he was appointed high-treasurer, chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, and nigh steward of the university of Oxford. At the queen’s coronation, the ducliess of Norfolk, &c. sat at one side-table at the other, lady Ferrars, v>f Chartley, lady Bray, &c. At the christening of prince Arthur, sir Reginald bore a rich salt of gold which was given by the earl of Derby. He was amongst the knights bannerets when Henry, the king’s second son, was created duke of York in 1494. In the 7th year of the king, he by indenture covenanted to serve him in his wars beyond sea a whole year, with twelve men, himself accompted, each having his custrell and page, twenty-four demy lances, seventy-seven archers on horseback, two hundred and thirty-one archers, and bil’.es on foot twenty-four. In the 10th year he had a grant for life of the Isle of Wight, castle of Carisbrook, and the manors of Swainston, Brixton, Thorley, and Welow, in that isle, at th^ rent of 308l. 6s. 8rf. Camden mentions the grant of the Isle of Wight at the rent of 300 marks. In June 1497 he was at the battle of Blackheath, when the lord Audley, having joined the Cornish rebels, was taken prisoner; on whose execution and attainder, his manor of Shire Vachery and Crap ley in Surry, with a large estate there, was given to sir Reginald. He received many other marks of the king’s bounty and favour, and died 5th August 1503, possessed of a very great estate; notwithstanding which, and his activity as a minister, under a monarch whose love of, money was the cause of great and just complaints amongst the people, historians call him the father of his country, a sage and grave person, a fervent lover of jusuce, and one who would often admonish the king when he did any thing contrary to justice or equity. That he should do this, and the king still continue his favour, is an ample proof of the sense which his sovereign entertained of his services and abilities. He appears to have taken great delight in architecture, and to have had no small skill in it, as he had a principal concern and direction in building Henry Vllth’s chapel in Westminster-abbey, and in the finishing and bringing to perfection the chapel of St. George at Windsor, to which he was a liberal benefactor in his life-time, and for the completion of which he made farther provision by his will. His arms, crest, and device (R. B.) are exhibited on the cieling of the chapel at Windsor in many places; and in the middle of the south aile is a spacious chapel erected by him, and still called by his name, in which also, by his own particular direction, he was interred, though his executors neglected to erect a tomb for him, as he desired. Perhaps they thought his merit would be the most lasting monument. It is supposed that he is buried under the stone which covers Dr. Waterland; for, on opening the vault for that gentleman, who died in 1740, a leaden coffin, of ancient form and make, was found, which by other appearances also was judged to be that of sir Reginald, and was, by order of the dean, immediately arcned over with great decency. He was of great devotion, according to the piety of the times, and a bountiful friend, in his life-time, to many churches. In one of the letters of the dean and chapter of Westminster, John, abbot of Newminster in Northumberland, addresses him as founder of the monastery of Pipwell (in Northamptonshire); but this must be on account of some donations, as that house was founded by William Boutevileyr in 1143. In 1494, being then high steward of Oxford, he gave 40 marks to repair the church of St. Mary’s, in a window of which were the figures of him and his wife kneeling, their coats of arms on their backs, remaining in 1584. The dean and chapter of Lincoln, in recompence for his services to them, receive him and my lady his wife to be brother and sister of their chapter, and to be partakers of all suffrages, prayers, masses, fastings, almsdeeds, and other good deeds, whatever they be, done in the said church, both in their lives and after their deceases. The prior of the cathedral church of Durham receives him in like manner. In a south window of the priory church of Great Malvern in Worcestershire, were the portraits of Henry VII. Elizabeth his queen, prince Arthur, sir Reginald Bray, John Savage, and Thomas LoveJ), esquires, with their coats of arms on their armour, and the following words underneath:” Orate pro bono statu nobilissimi et excellentissimi Regis Henrici Septimi et Elizabeths Reginse, ac Domini Arthuri Principis filii eorundem, nee not) praedilectissimae consortis suoe, ac suorum trium militum." The portraits of the king and sir Reginald remained in 1774, and are engraved in Mr. Strutt’s View of the Arms and Habits of the English, vol. II, plate 60. The others have been broken and destroyed. He had no issue, and his elder brother John having only one daughter, married to sir William Sandes, afterwards lord Sandes of the Vine, he left the bulk of his fortune to Edmund, eldest son of his younger brother John (for he had two brothers of that name). This Edmund was summoned to parliament in 1530, as baron of Eaton Bray; but his son John lord Bray dying without issue in 1557, the estate was divided amongst six daughters of Edmund. Sir Reginald left very considerable estates to Edward and Reginald, younger brothers of Edmund. From Edward the manor of Shire Vachery and Cranley, above mentioned, has descended to the rev. George Bray, who was owner in 1778. Reginald settled at Barrington in Gloucestershire, where the male line of that branch became extinct about sixty years ago.

The active part taken by sir William Browne in the contest with the licentiates, occasioned his being introduced by Mr. Foote in his “Devil upon two sticks.” Upon Foote’s exact representation of him with his identical wig and coat, odd figure, and glass stiffly applied to his eye, he sent him a card complimenting him on having so happily represented him; but, as he had forgot his muff, he had sent him his own. This good-natured method of resenting, disarmed Foote. His next publication was: 4. “A farewell Oration, &c.” a translation of the preceding article, 1768, 4to. 5. “Fragmentum Isaaci Hawkins Browne, arm. sive Anti-Bolinbrokius, liber primus. Translated for a second Religio Medici,” 1768, 4to. The autlior modestly calls this “a very hasty performance;” and says, “In my journey from Oxford to Bath, meeting with continued rain, which kept me three days on the road, in compassion to my servants and horses; and having my friend a pocket companion, I found it the best entertainment my tedious baiting could afford to begin and finish this translation.” This was dated Oct. 24, 1768; and his second part was completed on the 20th of the following month: “My undertaking,” he says, “to complete, as well as I could, the Fragment of my friend, hath appeared to me so very entertaining a work, even amongst the most charming delights and most cheerful conversations at Bath; that I have used more; expedition, if the very many avocations there be considered, in performing this, than in that former translation;” and to this part was prefixed a congratulatory poem “To Isaac Hawkins Browne, esq. son of his deceased friend, on his coming of age, Dec. 7, 1766.” The good old knight’s Opuscula were continually on the increase. The very worthy master of a college at Cambridge, lately living, relates a story of him, that waiting for sir William in some room at the college, where hie was come to place a near relation, he found him totally absorbed in thought, over a fine 4to volume of these Opuscula, which he constantly, he said, carried about with him, that they might be benefited by frequent revisals.

, a man of abilities, succeeded his father William, fourth lord Chandos, in Nov. 1602. He was a friend of the earl of Essex, in whose insurrection he was probably involved, for his name appears on the list of prisoners confined in the Fleet on that account, Feb. 1600. He was made a knight of the bath at the creation of Charles duke of York, Jan. 1604, and in August 1605 was created M. A. at Oxford, the king being present. He was an associate of that active and romantic character, lord Herbert of Cherbury. and appears to have volunteered his services in the Low Countries, when the prince of Orange besieged the city of Juliers in 1610, and the Low Country army was assisted by four thousand English soldiers, under the command of sir Edward Cecil. From the great influence which his hospitality and popular manners afterwards obtained in Gloucestershire, and his numerous attendants when he visited the court, he was styled king of Cotswould, the tract of country on the edge of which his castle of Sudeley was situated. On November 18, 1617, he was appointed to receive and introduce the Muscovite ambassadors, who had brought costly presents from their master to the king. He died August 20, 1621. There is no doubt, says sir Egerton JBrydges (by whom the preceding notices were drawn together) that lord Chandos was a man of abilities as well as splendid habits of life, and by no means a literary recluse, although he is supposed to have been the author of “Horae subsecivas, Observations and Discourses,” Lond. 1620, 8vo, a work containing a fund of good sense and shrewd remark. In sir John Beaumont’s poems are some lines on his death, highly expressive of an excellent character.

His great works are, 1. “The plates for the first four volumes of Boissard’s ` Roman Antiquities’.” 2. Those for the illustration of “The Manners and Customs of the Virginians,” in the “Brief true report of the new found land of Virginia, published by Thomas Hariot, servant to sir Walter Raleigh, &c.” Francfort, 1590. 3. The plates to the Latin narrative of the “Cruelties of the Spaniards in America,” 1598; and 4. his greatest work, “Descriptio Indise Orientalis et Occidentals,” 1598, 5 vols. fol. He published also many detached plates, the most remarkable and scarce of which is the “Procession for the funeral of sir Philip Sidney.” This is a long roll, contrived and invented by Thomas Lant, gent, servant of that honourable knight, and engraven in copper by Derich or Theodore de Brie, in the city of London, 1578." Prefixed is the portrait of Mr. Lant, aged thirty-two. It contains thirty plates (in the copy we have seen, but Strutt says thirtyfour) and has usually been considered as the first English work by De Brye. There was a copy in Mr. Cough’s collection, which was purchased at his sale in 1810 by sir Joseph Banks for thirty-eight guineas. Mr. Strutt describes another roll by De Brye, representing the procession of the knights of the garter in 1576, which was considered as unique. The copy belonged to the late sir John Ferm. De Brye’s two sons were engravers, but nothing is recorded of them, unless, as already noticed, that they continued Boissard’s portraits and Roman antiquities.

, a learned antiquary, was born in Lincolnshire, in the sixteenth century, and flourished in the beginning of the seventeenth. He was descended from the ancient family of the Bucs, or Buckes, of West Stanton, and Herthill, in Yorkshire, and Melford-hall, in Suffolk. His great grandfather, sir John Buc, knight, was one of king Richard the Third’s favourites, and attended that unfortunate prince to the battle of Bosworth, where he lost his crown and life. In the first parliament of king Henry VII. this sir John Buc was attainted for being one of the chief aiders and assistants to the king just now mentioned, in the battle of Bosworth, and soon after was beheaded at Leicester. By this attainder his posterity were reduced to very great distress; but, through the interest of Thomas duke of Norfolk, the great patron of the family, they had probably some of their estates restored to them, and, among others, that in Lincolnshire, where our author was born. In the reign of king James I. he was made one of the gentlemen of his majesty’s privy-chamber, and knighted. He was also constituted master of the revels, whose office was then kept on St. Peter' s-hill, in London. What he mostly distinguished himself by, was writing “The Life and Reign of Richard III. in five books,” wherein, in opposition to the whole body of English historians, he endeavours to represent that prince’s person and actions in a quite different light from what they have been by others; and takes great pains to wipe off the bloody stains that have been fixed upon his character. He has also written: “The third universitie of England; or, a treatise of the foundations of all the colledges, ancient schooles of priviledge, and of houses of learning, and liberall arts, within and about the most famous citie of London. With a briefe report of the sciences, arts, and faculties therein professed, studied, and practised.” And a treatise t)f “The Art of Revels.” Mr. Camden gives him the character of “a person of excellent learning,” and thankfully acknowledges that he “remarked many things in his historiei, and courteously communicated his observations to him.” He has since received very able support, and Richard III. has found a powerful advocate in Horace Walpole, the late lord Orford, who in his “Historic Doubts” has, with much ingenuity, at least, shewn that the evidence produced in confirmation of Richard’s crimes, is far from being decisive, But we have now an “historic doubt” to bring forward of more importance to the present article, which we find in a note on Malone’s Shakspeare, in the following words: “I take this opportunity of correcting an error into which Anthony Wood has fallen, and which has been implicitly adopted in the new edition of the Biographia Britannica, and many other books. The error I allude to, is, that this sir George Buc, who was knighted at Whitehall by king James the day before his coronation, July 23, 1603, was the author of the celebrated * History of king Richard the Third;' which was written above twenty years after his death, by George Buck, esq. who was, I suppose, his son. The precise time of, the father’s death, I have not been able to ascertain, there being no will of his in the prerogative office; but I have reason to believe that it happened soon after the year 1622. He certainly died before August 1629.”

, a learned English physician and botanist, was descended from an ancient family, and born in the isle of Ely, about the beginning of Henry the Eighth’s reign. He was bred up at Cambridge, as some say, at Oxford according to others; but probably both those nurseries of learning had a share in his education. We know, however, but little of his personal history, though he was famous in his profession, and a member of the college of physicians in London, except what we are able to collect from his works. Tanner says, that he was a divine, as well as a physician; that he wrote a book against transubstantiation; and that in June 1550 he was inducted into the rectory of Blaxhall, in Suffolk, which he resigned in November 1554. From his works we learn that he had been a traveller over several parts of Germany, Scotland, and especially England; and he seems to have made it his business to acquaint himself with the natural history of each place, and with the products of its soil. It appears, however, that he was more permanently settled at Durham, where he, practised physic with great reputation; and, among others of the most eminent inhabitants, was in great favour with sir Thomas Hilton, knight, baron of Hilton, to whom he dedicated a book in the last year of queen Mary’s reign. In 1560, he went to London, where, to his infinite surprise, he found himself accused by Mr. William Hilton of Biddick, of having murdered his brother, the baron aforesaid; who really died among his own friends of a malignant fever. The innocent doctor was easily cleared, yet his enemy hired some ruffians to assassinate him, and when disappointed in this, arrested Dr. Bulleyn in an action, and confined him in prison a long time; where he wrote some of his medical treatises. He was a very learned, experienced, and able physician. He was very intimate with the works of the ancient physicians and naturalists, both Greek, Roman, and Arabian. He was also a man of probity and piety, and though he Jived in the times of popery, does not appear to have been tainted with its principles. He died Jan. 7, 1576, and was buried in the same grave with his brother Richard Bulleyn, a divine, who died thirteen years before, in the church of St. Giles, Cripplegate. There is an inscription on their tomb, with some Latin verses, in which they are celebrated as men famous for their learning and piety. Of Dr. Bulleyn particularly it is said, that he was always as ready to accommodate the poor as the rich, with medicines for the relief of their distempers. There is a profile of Bulleyn, with a long beard, before his “Government of Health,” and a whole-length of him in wood, prefixed to his “Bulwarke of defence.” He was an ancestor of the late Dr. Stukeley, who, in 1722, was at the expence of having a small head of him engraved.

, founder of the society of the priests, or fathers, of the Christian doctrine, was born of a noble family at Cavaillon, Feb. 3, 1544. He at first cultivated poetry, and gave himself up to a life of pleasure, but afterwards reformed, lived in a most exemplary manner, went into holy orders, and travelled from place to place, confessing and catechising. His zeal having procured him many disciples, he formed them into a society, whose principal duty was to teach what they called the Christian doctrine. He was appointed general of this society in 1598, the institution having been first approved by pope Clement VIII. in the preceding year. That which goes by the same name in Italy was founded by Mark Cusani, a Milanese knight, and was established by the approbation and authority of Pius V. and Gregory XIII. Caesar de Bus had also some concern in establishing the Ursulines of France. He lost his sight about fourteen years before his death, which happened at Avignon, April 15, 1607. He left only a book of instructions, drawn up for his society, called “Instructions familieres sur les quatre parties de la Doctrine Chretienne,” 1666, 8vo. His life was written by James Beauvais, 4to.

, a poet of a very singular cast, was born at Strensham in Worcestershire, and baptized Feb. 8, 1612. His father’s condition is variously represented. Wood mentions him as competently wealthy; but the author of the short account of Butler, prefixed to Hudibras, who, Dr. Johnson erroneously says, was Mr. Longueville, asserts he was an honest farmer with some small estates who made a shift to educate his son at the grammar-school of Worcester, under Mr. Henry Bright, from whose care he removed for a short time to Cambridge; but, for want of money, was never made a member of any college. Wood leaves us rather doubtful whether he went to Cambridge of Oxford; but at last makes him pass six or seven years at Cambridge, without knowing in what hall or college: yet it can hardly be imagined that he lived so long in either university, but as belonging to one house or another; and it is still less likely that he could have so long inhabited a place of learning with so little distinction as to leave his residence uncertain. Dr. Nash has discovered that his father was owner of a house and a little land, worth about eight pounds, a year, still called Butler’s tenement. Wood had his information from his brother, whose narrative placed him at Cambridge, in opposition to that of his neighbours, which sent him to Oxford. The brother’s seems the best authority, till, by confessing his inability to tell his hall or college, he gives reason to suspect that he was resolved to bestow on him an academical education, but durst not name a college, for fear of detection. Having, however, discovered an early inclination for learning, his father placed him at the free-school of Worcester; whence he was sent, according to the above report, for some time to Cambridge. He afterwards returned to his native country, and became clerk to one Mr. Jefferys of Earl’s Croomb, an eminent justice of the peace for that county, with whom he lived some years in an easy and reputable station. Here he found sufficient leisure to apply himself to whatsoever learning his inclinations led him; which was chiefly history and poetry; adding to these, for his diversion, music and painting. He was afterwards recommended to that great encourager of learning, Elizabeth countess of Kent; in whose house he had not only the opportunity of consulting all kinds of books, but of conversing with Mr. Seldeo, who often employed him to write letters beyond sea, and translate for him. He lived some time also with sir Samuel Luke, a gentleman of an ancient family in Bedfordshire, and a famous commander under Oliver Cromwell. Whilst he resided in this gentleman’s family, it is generally supposed that he planned, if he did not write, the celebrated Hudibras; under which character it is thought he intended to ridicule that knight. After the restoration of Charles II. he was made secretary to Richard earl of Carbury, lord president of the principality of Wales, who appointed him. steward of Ludlow-castle, when the Court was revived there. In this part of his life, he married Mrs. Herbert, a gentlewoman of a good family; and lived, says Wbod^ upon her fortune, having studied the common law, but never practised it. A fortune she had, says his biographer, but it was lost by bad securities. In 1663 was published the first part, containing three cantos, of the poem of “Hudibras,” which, as Prior relates, was made known at court by the taste and influence of the earl of Dorset, and when known, it was necessarily admired: the king quoted, the courtiers studied, and the whole party of the royalists applauded it. Every eye watched for the golden shower which was to fall upon the author, who certainly was not without his share in the general expectation. In 1664 the second part appeared; the curiosity of the nation was rekindled, and the writer was again praised and elated. But praise was his whole reward. Clarendon, says Wood, gave him reason to hope for “places and employments of value and credit;” but no such advantages did he ever obtain. It is reported, that the king once gave him 300 guineas; but of this temporary bounty we find no proof. Wood relates that he was secretary to Villiers duke of Buckingham, when he was chancellor of Cambridge: this is doubted by the other writer, who yet allows the duke to have been his frequent benefactor. That both these accounts are false there is reason to suspect, from a story told by Pack, in his account of the life ef Wycherley, and from some verses which Mr. Thyer has published in the author’s Remains. “Mr. Wycherley,” says Pack, “had always laid hold of any opportunity which offered of representing to the duke of Buckingham how well Mr. Butler had deserved of the royal family, by writing his inimitable Hudibras; and that it was a reproach to the court, that a person of his loyalty and wit should suffer in obscurity, and under the wants he did. The duke always seemed to hearken to him with attention enough; and, after some time, undertook to recommend his pretensions to his majesty. Mr. Wycherley, in Jiopes to keep him steady to his word, obtained of his grace to name a day, when he might introduce that modest and unfortunate poet to his new patron. At last an appointment was made, and the place of meeting was agreed to be the Roebuck. Mr. Butler and his friend attended accordingly: the duke joined them; but, as the devil would have it, the door of the room where they sat was open, and his grace, who had seated himself near it, observing a pimp of his acquaintance (the creature too was a knight) trip by with a brace of ladies, immediately quitted his engagement, to follow another kind of business, at which he was more ready than in doing good offices to men of desert; though no one was better qualified than he, both in regard to his fortune and understanding, to protect them; and, from that time to the day of his death, poor Butler never found the least effect of his promise!” Such is the story. The verses are written with a degree of acrimony, such as neglect and disappointment might naturally excite; and such as it would be hard to imagine Butler capable of expressing against a man who had any claim to his gratitude. Notwithstanding this discouragement and neglect, he still prosecuted his design; and in. 1678 published the third part, which still leaves the poem imperfect and abrupt. How much more he originally intended, or with what events the action was to be concluded, it is vain to conjecture. Nor can it be thought strange that he should stop here, however unexpectedly. To write without reward is sufficiently unpleasing. He had now arrived at an age when he might think it proper to be in jest no longer, and perhaps his health might now begin to fail. He died Sept. 25, 1680; and Mr. Longueville, having unsuccessfully solicited a subscription for his internment in Westminster abbey, buried him at his own cost in the chureb-yard of Covent Garden. Dr. Simon Patrick read the service. About sixty years afterwards, Mr. Barber, a printer, lord mayor of London, bestowed on him a monument in Westminster abbey.

Byrom’s lines “On the Patron of England” are worthy of notice, as having excited a controversy which is, perhaps, not yet decided. In this poem he endeavoured to prove the non-existence of St. George, the patron saint of England, by this argument chiefly, that the English were converted by Gregory the First, or the Great, who sent over St. Austin for that purpose; and he conceives that in the ancient Fasti, Georgius was erroneously set down for Gregorius, and that George nowhere occurs as patron until the reign of Edward III. He concludes with requesting that the matter may be considered by Willis, Stukeley, Ames, or Pegge, all celebrated antiquaries, or by the society of antiquaries at large, stating the plain question to be, “Whether England’s patron was a knight or a pope?” This challenge must have been given some time before the year 1759, when all these antiquaries were living, but in what publication, if printed at all, we have not been able to discover. Mr. Pegge, however, was living when Byrom’s collected poems appeared, and judged the question of sufficient importance to be discussed in the society. His “Observations on the History of St. George” were printed in the fifth volume of the Archseologia, in answer, not only to Byrom, but to Dr. Pettingal, who in 1760 expressed his unbelief in St. George by a “Dissertation on the Equestrian Figure worn by the knights of the Garter:” Mr. Pegge is supposed to have refuted both. The controversy was, however, revived at a much later period (1795) by Mr. Milner, of Winchester, who, in answer to the assertions of Gibbon, the historian, has supported the reality of the person of St. George with much ingenuity.

When the duke of Marlborough was disgraced, and went abroad, he resigned all his employments, choosing, as he had a share in his grace’s prosperity, to be a partaker in his adversity; but first served the campaign, in 1712, under the duke of Ormond. At the accession of George I. on August 1, 1714, he was made master of the robes, and colonel of the second regiment of foot-guards; also envoy extraordinary and plenipotentiary to the States General. In 1715, he was appointed governor of the Isle of Wight; and having extinguished the remains of the rebellion in Scotland, he was elected a knight of the thistle in June 1716, and on the 30th of the same month was created a peer by the title of Lord Cadogan, baron of Reading. His lordship soon after was again sent ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary to the States of Holland; and arriving at Brussels, on Sept. 15, 1716, signed, at the Hague, the treaty of defensive alliance between Great Britain, France,and the States General. He set out for Utrecht, on Jan. 28, 1716, to wait on the king, expected there that afternoon; who was pleased to command his attending him to Great Britain. And Mr. Leathes, his majesty’s secretary at Brusels, was appointed to reside at the Hague, during his lordship’s absence.

, a learned civilian, was born near Tottenham, in Middlesex, in 1557. His father was Cæsar Adelmar, physician to queen Mary and queen Elizabeth lineally descended from Adelmar count of Genoa, and admiral of France, in the year 806, in the reign of Charles the Great. This Cæsar Adelmar’s mother was daughter to the duke de Cesarini, from whom he had the name of Cæsar which name Mary I. queen of England, ordered to be continued to his posterity and his father was Peter Maria Dalmarius, of the city of Trevigio in Italy, LL. D. sprung from those of his name living at Cividad del Friuli. Julius, who is the subject of this article, had his education in the university of Oxford, where he took the degree of B. A. May 17, 1575, as a member of Magdalen hall. Afterwards he went and studied in the university of Paris where, in the beginning of 1581, he was created D. C. L. and had letters testimonial for it, under the seal of that university, dated the 22d of April, 1531. He was admitted to the same degree at Oxford, March the 5th, 1583; and also became doctor of the canon law. In the reign of queen Elizabeth, he was master of requests, judge of the high court of admiralty, and master of St. Catherine’s hospital near the Tower. On the 22d of January, 1595, he was present at the confirmation of Richard Vaughan, bishop of Bangor, in the church of St. Mary-le-Bow, London. Upon kingJames’s accession to the throne, having before distinguished himself by his merit and abilities, he was knighted by that prince, at Greenwich, May 20, 1603. He was also constituted chancellor and under- treasurer of the exchequer and on the 5th of July, 1607, sworn of his majesty’s privy council. January 16th, in the eighth of king James I. he obtained a reversionary grant of the office of master of the rolls after sir Edward Phillips, knight; who, departing this life September 11, 1614, was succeeded accordingly by sir Julius, on the 1st of October following; and then he resigned his place of chancellor of the exchequer. In 1613 he was one of the commissioners, or delegates employed in the business of the divorce between the earl of Essex and his countess; and gave sentence for that divorce. About the same time, he built a chapel at his house, <on the north side of the Strand, in London, which was consecrated, May 8, 1614. As he had been privy-counsellor to king James I. so was he also to his son king Charles I.; and appears to have been custos rotulorum of the county of Hertford. We are likewise informed by one author, that he was chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster. After having thus passed through many honourable employments, and continued in particular, master of the rolls for above twenty years, he departed this life April 28, 1636, in the seventy-ninth year of his age. He lies buried in the church of Great St. Helen’s within Bishopgate, London, under a fair, but uncommon monument, designed by himself; being in form of a deed, and made to resemble a ruffled parchment, in allusion to his office as master of the rolls. With regard to his character, he was a man of great gravity and integrity, and remarkable for his extensive bounty and charity to all persons of worth, or that were in want: so that he might seem to be almoner-general of the nation. Fuller gives the following instance of his uncommon charity “A gentleman once borrowing his coach (which was as well known to poor people as any hospital in England) was so rendezvouzed about with beggars in London, that it cost him all the money in his purse to satisfy their importunity, so that he might have hired twenty coaches on the same terms.” He entertained for some time in hisr house the most illustrious Francis lord Bacon, viscount St. Alban’s. He made his grants to all persons double kindnesses by expedition, and cloathed (as one expresses it) his very denials in such robes of courtship, that it was not obviously discernible, whether the request or denial were most decent. He had also this peculiar to himself, that he was very cautious of promises, lest falling to an incapacity of performance he might forfeit his reputation, and multiply his certain enemies, by hisoiesign of creating uncertain friends. Besides, he observed a sure principle of rising, namely, that great persons esteem better of such they have done great courtesies to, than those they have received great civilities from; looking upon this as their disparagement, the other as their glory.

Balsamo, who had quitted his country, Palermo, in the manner above mentioned, now began to roam about the world. We can here only follow his own account, till we meet him at Rome, for want of other traces and informations. With the money he had procured by his fraud on the silversmith he travelled to Messina. Here he got acquainted with a certain Altotas, a Greek, or, according to others, a Spaniard, who was versed in several languages, possessed a number of Arabic writings, and gave himself out for a great chemist. With this new friend he took ship, visited the Archipelago, and landed at Alexandria in Egypt, where they staid about forty days, and his fellow traveller undertook a variety of chemical operations, and among the rest that of making a sort of silky stuff from temp and flax, by which he got much money. From Alexandria they proceeded to Rodi, where they likewise obtained some money by chemical operations. Quitting the isle of Rodi they bent their course to Grand Cairo, but by contrary winds were driven to Malta, where they remained some time, working in the laboratory of the grandmaster Pinto. Here Altotas died; and Balsamo resolved to go, in company with a knight to whom he was recommended by the grand-master himself, to Naples.

, descended from the ancient and noble house of Calvert, in the earldom of Flanders, and afterwards created lord Baltimore, was born at Kipling in Yorkshire, about 1582. In 1593 he became a commoner of Trinity college, Oxford, and in Feb. 1597 he took the degree of B. A. At his return from his travels he was made secretary to Robert Cecil, one of the principal secretaries of state to James I. who continued him in his service when he was raised to the office of lord high -treasurer. On Aug. 30, 1605, when king James was entertained by the university of Oxford, he was created M. A. with several noblemen and gentlemen. Afterwards he was made one of the clerks of the privy council, and in 1617 received the honour of knighthood, and in Feb. 1619 he was appointed to be one of the principal secretaries of state. Thinking the duke of Buckingham had been the chief instrument of his preferment, he presented him with a jewel of great value; but the duke returned it, acknowledging he had no hand in his advancement, for that his majesty alone had made choice of him on account of his great abilities. In May 1620 the king granted him a yearly pension of 1000l. out of the customs. After having held the seals about five years, he resigned them in 1624, frankly owning to the king, that he was become a Roman catholic. The king, nevertheless, continued him a privy counsellor all his reign; and in Feb. 1625 created him (by the name of sir George Calvert of Danbywiske in Yorkshire, knight) baron of Baltimore in the county of Longford in Ireland. He was at that time a representative in parliament for the university of Oxford.

In 1705, he was nominated her majesty’s lord high commissioner to the Scottish parliament, though he was then only twenty-three years of age, an appointment which gave much satisfaction to that nation, where, on his arrival, he was received with unusual ceremony. On the 28th of June, his grace opened the parliament by a speech, and was so well convinced of the advantages which would result to both kingdoms from an union between England and Scotland, that he employed his whole interest in the promotion of that measure; for which, on his arrival in England, her majesty created him a peer of England, by the title of Baron of Chatham, and Earl of Greenwich. In 1706, he made a campaign under the duke of Marlborough; and greatly distinguished himself by his courage and conduct in the battle of Ramillies, in which he acted as a brigadier-general; and also at the siege of Ostend, and in the attack of Menin, of which his grace took possession on the 25th of August. After that event, he returned to Scotland, in order to be present in the parliament of that kingdom, when the treaty for the union was agitated; and was, as before, very active in the promotion of it, though he declined being one of the commissioners. When a riotous multitude came to the parliament-close, demanding, with loud clamours, “That the treaty of union should be rejected,” his grace went out of the house, and appeased the people who were assembled, by the calmness and strength of reason with which he addressed them; but his zeal in this affair diminished his popularity, though even his enemies did justice to the rectitude of his intentions. In 1708, he commanded twenty battalions at the battle of Oudenarde; and the troops under his command were the first of the infantry that engaged the enemy, a*nd they maintained their post against unequal numbers. He likewise assisted at the siege of Lisle and commanded as major-general at the siege of Ghent, taking possession of the town and citadel on the 3d or' January, 1703-9. He was afterwards raised to the rank of lieutenant-general, and commanded in chief under general Schuyiemberg, at the attack of Tournay. He had also a considerable share, on the llth of September, 1709, in the victory a Malplaquet, where he was much exposed, and gained great honour. On the 20th of December, 1710, he was installed a knight of the garter; and about this time took some part in the debates in parliament, relative to the inquiry which was set on foot concerning the management of affairs in Spain, when he spoke and voted with the tofies, and joined in the censure that was passed on the conduct of the late whig ministry.

, was born at Toulouse in 1656, and shewed an early taste for poetry, whichwas improved by a good education, and when he came to Paris, he took Racine for his guide in the dramatic career. But, though it may be allowed that Campistron approached his merit in the conduct of his pieces, yet he could never equal him in the beauties of composition, nor in his enchanting versification. Too feeble to avoid the defects of Racine, and unable like him to atone for them by beautiful strokes of the sublime, he copied him in his soft manner of delineating the love of his heroes, of whom, it must be confessed, he sometimes made inamoratos fitter for the most comic scenes than for tragedy, in which passion ought always to assume an elevated style. Racine, while he was forming Campistron for the drama, was not inattentive to promote the fortune of the young* poet. Having proposed him to the duke de Vendome for the composition of the heroic pastoral of “Acis and Galatea,” which he designed should be represented at his chateau of Anet, that prince, well satisfied both with his character and his talents, first made him secretary of his orders, and then secretary general of the gallies. He afterwards got him made knight of the military order of St. James in Spain, commandant of Chimene, and marquis of Penange in Italy. The poet, now become necessary to the prince, by the cheerfulness of his temper and the vivacity of his imagination, attended him on his travels into various countries. Campistron, some time after his return, retired to his own country; where he married mademoiselle de Maniban, sister of the first president of Toulouse, and of the bishop of Mirepoix, afterwards archbishop of Bourdeaux; and there he died May 11, 1723, of an apoplexy, at the age of 67. This stroke was brought on by a fit of passion excited by two chairmen who refused to carry him on account of his great weight. Campistron kept good company, loved good cheer, and had all the indolence of a man of pleasure. While secretary to the duke de Vendome, he found it a more expeditious way to burn the letters that were written to that prince than to answer them. Accordingly, the duke, seeing him one day before a large fire, in which he was casting a heap of papers: “There its Campistron,” said he, “employed in answering my correspondents.” He followed the duke even to the field of battle. At the battle of Steinkerque, the duke seeing him always beside him, said, “What do you do here, Campistron?” “Mon seigneur,” answered he, “I am waiting to go back with you.” This sedateness of mind in a moment of so much danger was highly pleasing to the bero. His plays, 1750, 3 vols. 12mo. have been nearly as often printed as those of Corneille, Racine, Crebillon, and Voltaire. The most popular of them are his “Andronicus,” “Alcibiades,” “Acis and Galatea,” “Phocion,” “Adrian,” “Tiridates,” “Phraates,” and “Jaloux Desabuseé.”

, a gentleman well known by his indefatigable attention to the works of Shakspeare, was born at Troston, near Bury, Suffolk, June 11, 1713, and received his education at the school of St. Edmund’s Bury. In the dedication of his edition of Shakspeare, in 1768, to the duke of Grafton, he observes, that “his father and the grandfather of his grace were friends, and to the patronage of the deceased nobleman he owed the leisure which enabled him to bestow the attention of twenty years on that work.” The office which his grace bestowed on Mr. Capell was that of deputy inspector of the plays, to which a salary is annexed of 200l. a year. So early as the year 1745, as Capell himself informs us, shocked at the licentiousness of Hanmer’s plan, he first projected an edition of Shakspeare, of the strictest accuracy, to be collated and published, in due time, “ex fide codicum.” He immediately proceeded to collect and compare the oldest and scarcest copies; noting the original excellencies and defects of the rarest quartos, and distinguishing the improvements or variations of the first, second, and third folios. But while all this mass of profound criticism was tempering in the forge, he appeared at last a self-armed Aristarchus, almost as lawless as any of his predecessors, vindicating his claim to public notice by his established reputation, the authoritative air of his notes, and the shrewd observations, as well as majesty, of his preface. His edition, however, was the effort of a poet, rather than of a critic; and Mr. Capell lay fortified and secure in his strong holds, entrenched in the black letter. Three years after (to use his own language) he “set out his own edition, in ten volumes, small octavo, with an introduction,” 1768, printed at the expence of the principal booksellers of London, who gave him 300l. for his labours. There is not, among the various publications of the present literary aera, a more singular composition than that “Introduction.” In style and manner it is more obsolete, and antique, than the age of which it treats. It is lord Herbert of Cherbury walking the new pavement in all the trappings of romance; but, like lord Herbert, it displays many valuable qualities accompanying this air of extravagance, much sound sense, and appropriate erudition. It has since been added to the prolegomena of Johnson and Steevens’s edition. In the title-page of this work was also announced, “Whereunto will be added, in some other volumes, notes, critical and explanatory, and a body of various readings entire.” The introduction likewise declared, that these “notes and various readings” would be accompanied with another work, disclosing the sources from which Shakspeare “drew the greater part of his knowledge in mythological and classical matters, his fable, his history, and even the seeming peculiarities of his language to which,” says Mr. Capell, “we have given for title, The School of Shakspeare.” Nothing surely could be more properly conceived than such designs, nor have we ever met with any thing better grounded on the subject of “the learning of Shakspeare” than what may be found in the. long note to this part of Mr. Capell’s introduction. It is more solid than even the popular essay on this topic. Such were the meditated achievements of the critical knight-errant, Edward Capell. But, alas! art is long, and life is short. Three-andtvventy years had elapsed, in collection, collation, compilation, and transcription, between the conception and production of his projected edition: and it then came, like human births, naked into the world, without notes or commentary, save the critical matter dispersed through the introduction, and a brief account of the origin of the fables of the several plays, and a table of the different editions. Cenain quaintnesses of style, and peculiarities of printing and punctuation, attended the whole of this publication. The outline, however, was correct. The critic, with unremitting toil, proceeded in his undertaking. But while he was diving into the classics of Caxton, and working his way under ground, like the river Mole, in order to emerge with all his glories; while he was looking forward to his triumphs; certain other active spirits went to work upon his plan, and, digging out the promised treasures, laid them prematurely before the public, defeating the effect of our critic’s discoveries by anticipation. Steevens, Malone, Farmer, Percy, Reed, and a whole host of literary ferrets, burrowed into every hole and corner of the warren of modern antiquity, and overran all the country, whose map had been delineated by Edward Capell. Such a contingency nearly staggered the steady and unshaken perseverance of our critic, at the very eve of the completion of his labours, and, as his editor informs us for, alas! at the end of near forty years, the publication was posthumous, and the critic himself no more! we say then, as his editor relates, he was almost determined to lay the work wholly aside. He persevered, however (as we learn from the rev. editor, Mr. Collins), by the encouragement of some noble and worthy persons: and to such their Cih couragement, and his perseverance, the public was, in 1783, indebted for three large volumes in 4to, under the title of “Notes and various readings of Shakspeare; together with the School of Shakspeare, or extracts from divers English books, that were in print in the author’s time; evidently shewing from whence his several fables were taken, and some parcel of his dialogue. Also farther extracts, which contribute to a due understanding of his writings, or give a light to the history of his life, or to the dramatic history of his time.”

His vindictive temper allowed him to gain but few friends, excepting Civoli and Pomeranci. He lived in continual strife with Caracci, and particularly with Josehino. On the latter’s refusing to fight with him, as he was not a knight, he took the resolution to go to Malta, and cause himself to be admitted cavaliero serviente, in order to compel Josehino to give up all farther evasion. He killed a young man at Home, with whom he quarrelled at tennis, and fled, though sorely wounded, to Zagaroles, to the duke Maria Colonna, from thence to Naples, and afterwards to Malta. As his reputation had now made its way into all parts, he was never permitted to be idle, especially at Malta, where he finished several pieces for the church of St. John and the grand master. The grand master made him a cavaliero serviente, presented him with a golden chain, and gave him two slaves for his attendants.

He affronted a knight of some consequence, and was therefore thrown into prison. He found means to escape by night, and went to Sicily; where not thinking himself safe, he proceeded to Naples. Here he chose to remain till the grand master, to whom he had sent as a present an Herodias with the head of St. John, should procure his pardon. But one day, as he was going out of his inn, he was attacked at the door by armed people, and wounded in the face. Though severely smarting with the wound, he got immediately on board a felucca, and went to Rome, knowing that cardinal Gonzaga had obtained his pardon from the pope. On his landing from the vessel, he was seized upon by the Spanish guard, who took him for another cavalier, and carried him to prison, from whence he was not discharged till they had convinced themselves of their mistake. He now returned to the felucca, in order to fetch his baggage, but found it no longer there. Quite dejected under the pressure of so many misfortunes, he wandered about upon the shore, and at length, in the extreme heat of the sun, reached on foot the gate Porto Ercole, where his courage entirely forsook him a violent fever ensued, of which he died, 1601, in the fortieth year of his age.

, afterwards earl of Totness (descended from an ancient family in the West of England, originally so named from Carew-castle in Pembrokeshire) was born in 1557. His mother was Anne, daughter of sir Nicolas Harvey, kiTight, and his father, George, archdeacon of Totness, and successively dean of Bristol, of the queen’s chapel, of Windsor, of Christ Church, Oxon, and of Exeter; besides several other preferments, most of which he resigned before his decease, which occurred in 1585. George Carew in 1572 was admitted gentleman commoner of Broadgate-hall (now Pembroke college) in Oxford; where he made a good proficiency in learning, particularly in the study of antiquitie’s, but being of an active temper, he left the university without a degree; and applying himself to military affairs, went and served in Ireland against the earl of Desmond. In 1580 he was made governor of Asketten-castle, and in 1589 was created master of arts at Oxford, being then a knight. Some time after, being constituted lieutenant-general of the artillery, or master of the ordnance in Ireland, he was one of the commanders at the expedition to Cadiz, in 1596; and again, the next year, in the intended expedition against Spain. Having in 1599 been appointed president of Munster, he was in 1600 made treasurer of the army, and one of the lords justices of Ireland. When he entered upon his government, he found every thing in a deplorable condition; all the country being in open and actual rebellion, excepting a few of the better sort, and himself having for his defence but three thousand foot and two hundred and fifty horse; yet he behaved with so much conduct and bravery, that he reduced many castles and forts, took James Fitz Thomas, the titular earl of Desmond, and O'Connor, prisoners; and brought the Bourkes, Obriens, and many other Irish rebels, to submission. He also bravely resisted the six thousand Spaniards, who landed at Kinsale, October 1, 1601, and had so well established the province of which he was president, by apprehending the chief of those he mistrusted, and taking pledges of the rest, that no person of consideration joined the Spaniards. In 1602 he made himself master of the castle of Donboy, which was a very difficult undertaking, and reckoned almost impracticable; and by this means prevented the arrival of an army of Spaniards, which were ready to sail for Ireland. He had for some time been desirous of quitting his burdensome office of president of Minister, but he could not obtain permission till the beginning of 1603, when, leaving that province in perfect peace, he arrived in England the 21st of March, three days before queen Elizabeth’s death. His merit was so great, that he was taken notice of by the nevr king, and made by him, in the first year of his reign, governor of the isle of Guernsey, and Castle Cornet: and having married Joyce*, the daughter and heir of William Clopton, of Clopton, co. Warwick, esq. he was June 4, J 605, advanced to the degree of a baron, by the title of lord Carew, of Clopton. Afterwards he was made vice-chamberlain and treasurer to king James’s queen; and in 1608 constituted master of the ordnance throughout England for life; and sworn of the privy-council to the king, as he had before been to queen Elizabeth. Upon king Charles Ist’s accession to the crown, he was created, Feb. 1, 1625, earl of Totness. At length, full of years and honours, he departed this life at the Savoy in London, March 27, 1629, aged seventy- three years and ten months and was buried at Stratford upon Avon, near Clopton leaving behind him the character of a faahful subject, a valiant and prudent commander, an honest counsellor, a genteel scholar, a lover of antiquities, and a great patron of learning. A stately monument was erected to his memory, by his widow, with a long inscription reciting his actions.

, brother to Richard, hereafter mentioned, and second son of Thomas Carew, esq. and Elizabeth his wife, was probably born at his father’s seat at East Anthony, but in what particular year we are not able to ascertain. He was educated in the university of Oxford, after which he studied law in the inns of court, and then set out on his travels. On his return to his native country he was called to the bar, and after some time was appointed secretary to sir Christopher Hatton, lord chancellor of England, by the especial recommendation of queen Elizabeth, who gave him a pro thonotary ship in the chancery, and conferred upon him the honour of knighthood. In 1597, being then a master in chancery, he was sent ambassador to the king of Poland. In the next rei.gn, he was one of the commissioners for treating with the Scotch concerning an union between the two kingdoms; after which he was appointed ambassador to the court of France, where he continued from the latter end of the year 1605 till 1609. During his residence in that country, he was regarded by the French ministers as being too partial to the Spanish interest, but probably ttoeir disgust to him might arise from his not being very tractable in some points of his negotiation, and particularly in the demand of the debts due to the king his master. Whatever might be, his political principles, it is certain, that he sought the conversation of men of letters; and formed an intimacy with Thuanus, to whom he communicated an account of the transactions in Poland, whilst he was employed there, which was of great service to that admirable author in drawing up the 12lst book of his History. After sir George Caret’s return from France, he was advanced to the post of master of the court of wards, which honourable situation he did not long live to enjoy; for it appears from a letter written by Thuanus to Camden, in the spring of the year 1613, that he was then lately deceased. In this letter, Thuanus laments his death as a great misfortune to himself; for he considered sir George’s friendship not only as a personal honour, but as very useful in his work, and especially in removing the calumnies and misrepresentations which might be raised of him in the court of England. Sir George Carew married Thomasine, daughter of sir Francis Godolphin, great grandfather of the lord treasurer Godolphin, and had by her two sons and three daughters. Francis, the elder son, was created knight of the bath at the coronation of king Charles the First, and Attended the earl of Denbigh in the expedition for the relief of ilochelle, where he acquired great reputation by his courage and conduct; but, being seized with a fit of sickness in his voyage homeward, he died in the Isle of Wight, on the 4th of June, 1628, at the age of twenty-seven.

, of the Carews of Beddington, in Surrey, was the son of sir Richard Carew, knight banneret, and Magdalen, daughter of sir Robert Oxenbridge. At an early age he was introduced to the court of king Henry VIII. where he soon became a favourite, and was made one of the gentlemen of the privy chamber. Having been employed upon some public business in France, he became, as many other young men have been, so enamoured of French fashions and amusements, that, when he returned to his own country, he was continually makino- invidious comparisons to the- disadvantage of the English court. His majesty, who was too much of a Briton not to be disgusted at this behaviour, removed him from his person, and sentenced him to an honourable banishment, appointing him governor of Ruysbank in Picardy; to which government he was forthwith commanded to repair, much against his inclination. This little offence^ however, was soon passed over, and we find him again employed by the king, and for several years his constant companion, and a partaker with him in all the justs, tournaments, masques, and other diversions of the same kind, with wh'rch that reign abounded, and which are described very much at large in Hall’s Chronicle: and as a more substantial mark of his favour, the king appointed him master of the horse, an office of great honour, being reckoned the third in rank about the king’s household, and afterwards created him knight of the garter* His promotion may probably be attributed in some measure to the interest of Anne Bullen, to whom he was related through their common ancestor, lord Hoo. His good fortune was not of long continuance; for in 1539 he engaged in a conspiracy, as we are told by our historians, with the marquis of Exeter, the lord Montacute, and sir Edward Neville; the object of which was to set cardinal Pole upon the throne. The accuser was sir Geffrey Poole, lord Montacute’s brother; the trial was summary, and the conspirators were all executed. Sir Nicholas Carew was beheaded on Tower-hill, March 3, 1539, when he made, says Holinshed, “a godly confession, both of his fault and superstitious faith.” Fuller mentions a tradition of a quarrel which happened at bowls between the kipg and sir Nicholas Carew, to which he ascribes his majesty’s displeasure, and sir Nicholas’s death. The monarch’s known caprice, his hatred of the papists, to whom sir Nicholas was zealously attached, the absurdity of the plot, and the improbability of its success, might incline us to hearken to Fuller’s story, if sir Nicholas alone had suffered; but as he had so many partners in his punishment, with whom it is not pretended that the king had any quarrel, it will be more safe, perhaps, to rely upon the account given by our annalists. Sir Nicholas Carew was buried in the church of St. Botolph, Aldersgate, in the same tomb with Thomas lord Darcy, and others of his family.

, earl of Monmouth, was the eldest son of Robert, the first earl of Monmouth, who died in 1639, and whose “Memoirs,” written by himself, and containing some curious particulars of secret history of the Elizabethan period, were published from a manuscript in the possession of the late earl of Corke and Orrery, in 1759, 8vo. Henry, his son, was born in 1596, admitted a fellow commoner of Exeter college, Oxford, at the age of fifteen, and took the degree of B. A. in 1613, after which he was sent to travel into foreign countries. In 1616 he was made a knight of the bath at the creation of Charles prince of Wales. In 1625 he was known by the name of lord Lepington, his father’s title before he was created earl of Monmouth, and was noted, Wood says, as “a person well skilled in modern languages, and a general scholar.” This taste for study was his consolation when the depression of the nobility after the death of Charles I. threw many of them into retirement. He died June 13, 1661. In Chauncey’s Hertfordshire is the inscription on his monument in the church at Rickmansworth, which mentions his living forty-one years in marriage, with his countess, Martha, daughter of the lord treasurer Middlesex. He was a most laborious writer, but chiefly of translations, and, as lord Orford observes, seems to have distrusted his abilities, and to have made the fruits of his studies his amusement rather than his method of fame. Of his lordship’s publications we have, 1. “Romulus and Tarquin; or De Principe et Tyranno,” Lond. 1637, 12mo, a translation from Malvezzi, in praise of which sir John Suckling has some verses in his “Fragmenta Aurea,” and others were prefixed by Stapylton, Davenant, Carew, &c. It came to a third edition in 1648. 2. “Speech in the house of peers, Jan. 30, 1641, upon occasion of the present distractions, and of his Majesty’s removal from Whitehall,” London, 1641. 3. “Historical relations of the United Provinces, and of Flanders,” London, 1652, fol. translated from Bentivoglio. 4. “History of the Wars in Flanders,” ibid. 1654, fol. from the same author, with a portrait of the translator. 5. Cf Advertisement from Parnassus, in two Centuries: with the politic touchstone,“ibid. 1656, fol. from Boccalini. 6.” Politic Discourses, in six books,“ibid. 1657, fol. 7.” History of Venice,“ibid. 1658, fol. both from Paul Paruta, a noble Venetian. 8.” The use of Passions,“ibid. 1649 and 1671, 8vo, from the French of J. F. Senault. 9.” Man become guilty or the corruption of his nature by sin,“ibid, from the same author. 10.” The History of the late Wair of Christendom,“1641, fol. which lord Orford thinks is the same work with his translation of” Sir Francis Biondi’s History of the Civil Wars of England, between the houses of York and Lancaster.“11.” Capriata’s “History of Italy,” 1663, fol. His lordship began also to translate from the Italian “Priorato’s History of France,” but died before he could finish it. It was completed by William Brent, esq. and printed at London, 1677.

In the following year, 1777, an expedition being planned from Canada, to effect a co-operation with the principal British force, the command of the armament was conferred on general Burgoyne. Sir Guy Carleton (for he had been made knight of the Bath in July 1776), from his official situation in Canada, his conduct, and especially his defence of Quebec, might have reasonably expected this appointment; he was an older general, of more military experience, and better acquainted with the country, its inhabitants, and resources. His character commanded greater authority than Burgoyne’s had hitherto established, and as no military grounds could be alleged for superseding Carleton to make room for Burgoyne, his promotion was imputed to parliamentary influence more than to his official talents. Carleton, disgusted with a preference by no means merited, as soon as he heard- of the appointment, resigned his government, in which he was succeeded by general Haldimand, but before he departed, exerted himself to the utmost to enable Burgoyne to take the field with advantage.

, afterwards created viscount Falkland, and descended from the family of the Gary’s, of Cockington, in Devonshire, was the son of sir Edward Gary, of Betkhamsted and Aldenham, in the county of Hertford, knight, master of the Jewel-office to queen Elizabeth and king James I. by Catherine his wife, daughter of sir Henry Knevet, knight, and widow of Henry lord Paget. He was born at Aldenham; and, when about sixteen years of age, was sent to Exeter-college in Oxford, where it does not appear he took any degree: but when he quitted the university, he left behind a celebrated name. Soon after, he was introduced to court; and in 1608, made one of the knights of the bath at the creation of Henry prince of Wales. In 1617, he was sworn in comptroller of his majesty’s houshold, and one of his privy-council: and on the 10th of November, 1620, was created viscount of Falkland, in the county of Fife, in Scotland. King James I. knowing his great abilities and experience, constituted him lord deputy of Ireland; into which high office he was sworn, September 18, 1622; and continued in it till 1629. During his administration, he kept a strict hand over. the Roman catholics in that kingdom; who sent frequent complaints to the court of England against him, and though he proceeded very honourably and justly, yet by the clamour of the Irish, and the prevailing power of his Popish enemies, he was removed in disgrace; but his innocence being afterwards vindicated, this affront was in some measure atoned for by the subsequent t'avour of the king. At his return to England, he lived in honour and esteem, till 1633; when having the misfortune to break one of his legs, on a stand in TheobaldVpark, he died in September and was buried at Aldenham. He married Elizabeth, sole daughter andheir of sir Laurence Tanfield, chief baron of the exchequer, with whom he had the manor of Great Tew, Burford, and other estates in Oxfordshire. He is said to have written many things, which never were published, except, 1. “The History of the most unfortunate prince, king Edward II.” found among his papers, and printed in 1680, fol. and 8vo, with a preface of sir James Harrington; at a time, says Wood, “when the press was open for all books that could make any thing against the then government.” 2. “A Letter to James I.” and an “Epitaph on Elizabeth countess of Huntingdon,” which is in Wilford’s Memorials. The letter to the king was in behalf of his son, the subject of the following article; who, for challenging sir Francis Willoughby, had been thrown into the Meet. It was printed in the “Cabala.” In the Harl. ms. 1581, there are four original letters from lord Falkland to the duke of Buckingham.

, queen of England, and fifth wife of Henry VIII. was daughter of lord Edmund Howard (third son of Thomas duke of Norfolk, and grandson of John first duke of Norfolk), by Joyce, daughter of sir Richard Culpepper, of Holingbourne in Kent, knight. Her mother dying while she was young, she was educated under the care of her grandmother, the duchess dowager of Norfolk; and when she grew up, the charms of her person soon captivated the affections of Henry VIII, who, upon his divorce from Anne of Cleves, married her, and shewed her publicly as queen, Aug. 8, 1540, But this marriage proved of the utmost prejudice to the cause of the reformation, which had begun to spread itself in the kingdom. ' The queen being absolutely guided by the counsels of the duke of Norfolk, her uncle, and Gardiner bishop of Winchester, used all the power she had over the king to support the credit of the enemies of the protestants, In the summer of 1541, she attended his majesty to York, to meet his nephew the king of Scotland, who had promised to give him an interview in that city, but was diverted by his clergy, and a message from the court of France, from that resolution; and during that progress she gained so entire an ascendant over the king’s heart, that at his return to London, on All-Saints day, when he received the sacrament, he gave public thanks to God for the happiness which he enjoyed by her means and desired his confessor, the bishop of Lincoln, to join with him in the like thanksgiving. But this proved a very short-lived satisfaction, for the jiext clay, archbishop Cranmer came to him with information that the queen had been unfaithful to his bed. By the advice of the lord chancellor and other privy counsellors, the archbishop wrote the particulars on a paper, which he delivered to the king, being at a loss how to open so delicate a matter in conversation. When the king read it, he was much confounded, and his attachment to the queen made him at first consider the story as a forgery, but having full proof, the persons with whom the queen Jiad been guilty, Dierham and Mannoch, two of the duchess dowager of Norfolk’s domestics, were apprehended, and not only confessed what was laid to their charge, but revealed some other circumstances, which placed the guilt of the queen in a most heinous light. The report of this struck the king so forcibly, that he lamented his misfortune with a flood of tears. The archbishop and some other counsellors were sent to examine the queen, who at first denied every thing, but finding that her crime was known, confessed all, and subscribed the paper. It appeared likewise, that she had intended to continue in that scandalous course of life; for as she had brought Dierham into her service, she had also retained one of the women, who had formerly been privy to their familiarities, to attend upon her in her bed-chamber; and while the king was at Lincoln, by the lady Rochford’s means, one Culpepper was brought to her at eleven at night, and stayed with her till four next morning; and at his departure received from her a gold chain. Culpepper being examined, confessed the crime: for which he, with Dierham, suffered death on the 1 Oth of December.

He was one of the earliest in inviting over the prince of Orange; and James II. upon the first alarm from Holland, being jealous of him above any other peer, endeavoured to draw him to court, which the earl evaded. Upon the prince’s landing, he appeared in arms for him, and was afterwards received by him with the highest marks of affection and esteem. In the debates of the house of lords concerning the throne, he was very zealous for declaring the prince and princess of Orange king and queen of England. Feb. 14, 1689, he was admitted one of the privy-council, and not long after, named lord steward of their majesties’ houshold; and, April 3, 1689, chosen a knight of the garter. At their majesties’ coronation he acted as lord high steward of England; and, in the first session of parliament afterwards, procured a resolution of the house of lofds, as to the illegality of the judgment given against him in the former reign, and a vote, that no peer ought to be committed for non-payment of a fine to the crown. Jan. 1691 he attended king William to the congress at the Hague, where he lived in the utmost state and magnificence; and had the honour to entertain several sovereign princes at his table, the king himself being also present incognito. May 12, 1694, he was created marquis of Harrington, and duke of Devonshire; which, with his garter and white staff, the place of lieutenant and custos rotulorum of the county of Derby, and justiceship in Eyre, was perhaps as much honour as an English subject could enjoy. After the queen’s death, when the king’s absence made the appointment of regents necessary, he was one of the lords justices for seven successive years; an honour which no other temporal peer enjoyed.

, baron Ogle, viscount Mansfield, earl, marquis, and duke of Newcastle, one of the most accomplished persons, as well as one of the most able generals and most distinguished patriots of the age, was son of sir Charles Cavendish, youngest son of sir William Cavendish, and younger brother of the first earl of Devonshire, by Catherine, daughter of Cuthbert lord Ogle. He was born in 1592, and discovering great capacity in his infancy, his father had him educated with such success, that he early acquired a large stock of solid learning, to which he added the graces of politeness. This soon made him be taken notice of at the court of James I. where he was quickly distinguished by the king’s favour; and in 1610, was made knight of the bath, at the creation of Henry prince of Wales. In 1617, his father died, by which he came to the possession of a very large estate and having a great interest at court, he was by letters- patent, dated November 3, 1620, raised to the dignity of a peer of the realm, by the style and title of baron Ogle and viscount Mansfield; and having no less credit with Charles I. than with his father king James, was in* the third year of the reign of that prince advanced to the higher title of earl of Newcastle upon Tyne, and at the same time he was created baron Cavendish of Bolesover. Our genealogists and antiquaries give us but a very obscure account of these honours, or at least, of the barony of Ogle, to which, in the inscription upon his own and his grandmother the countess of Shrewsbury’s tomb, he is said to have succeeded in right of his mother. His attendance on the court, though it procured him honour, brought him very early into difficulties; and there is some reason to believe that he was not much liked by the great duke of Buckingham, who perhaps was apprehensive of the large share he had in his master’s favour. However, he did not suffer, even by that powerful favourite’s displeasure, but remained in full credit with his master; which was notwithstanding so far from being beneficial to him, that the services expected from him, and his constant waiting upon the king, plunged him very deeply in debt, though he had a large estate, of which we find him complaining heavily in his letters to his firm and steady friend the lord viscount Wentworth, afterwards earl of Strafford. But th&e difficulties never in the least discouraged him from doing his duty, or from testifying his zeal and loyalty, when the king’s service required it. In 1638, when it was thought requisite to take the prince of Wales, afterwards Charles II. from the nursery, the king made choice of the earl of Newcastle, as the person in his kingdom most fit to have the tuition of his heir-apparent and accordingly declared him governor to the prince. In the spring of 1639, the first troubles in Scotland broke out, which induced the king to assemble an army in the north; soon after which, he went down thither to put himself at the head of it; and in his way, was most splendidly entertained by the earl of Newcastle, at his noble seat at Welbeck, as he had been some years before when he went into that kingdom to be crowned; which though in itself a very trivial matter, yet such was the magnificence of this noble peer, that from the circumstances attending them, both these entertainments have found a place in general histories. But this was not the only manner in which he expressed his warm affection for his master. Such expeditions require great expences, and the king’s treasury was but indifferently provided, for the supply of which, the earl contributed ten thousand pounds, and also raised a troop of horse, consisting of about two hundred knights and gentlemen, who served at their own charge; and this was honoured with the title of the Prince’s troop. These services, however, rather heightened than lessened that envy borne to him by some great persons about the court, and the choice that had been made of his lordship for the tuition of the prince, which was at first so universally approved, began now to be called in question by those who meant very soon to call every thing in question. On this the earl desired to resign his office, which he did; and in June 1640, it was given to the marquis of Hertford. As his lordship took this step from the knowledge he had of the ill-will borne him by the chief persons amongst the disaffected, so he thought he could not take a better method to avoid the effects of their resentment, than to retire into the country; which accordingly. he did, and remained there quietly till he received his majesty’s orders to visit Hull; and though these came at twelve o'clock at night, his lordship went immediately thither, though forty miles distant, and entered the place with only two or three servants, early the next morning. He cffered his majesty to have secured for him that important fortress, and all the magazines that were there: but instead of receiving such a command as he expected, his majesty sent him instructions to obey whatever directions were sent him by the parliament; upon the heels of which, came their order for him to attend the service of the house; which he accordingly did, when a design was formed to have attacked him, but his general character was so good, that this scheme did not succeed. He now again retired into the country, but soon after, upon the king’s coming to York, his lordship was sent for thither; and in June 1642, his majesty gave him directions to take upon him the care of the town of Newcastle, and the command of the four adjacent counties of Northumberland, Cumberland, Westmoreland, and Durham. These orders were easily issued, but they were not so easily to be carried into execution; for at this time, the king had not either money, forces, or ammunition; and yet there never was more apparent necessity, for at that juncture his majesty had not a single port open in his dominions; and if either the order had been delayed a few days, or had been^ sent to any other person, the design had certainly miscarried. But, as soon as he received his majesty’s commands, he repaired immediately to the place, and by his own interest there secured it: he raised also a troop of one hundred and twenty horse, and a good regiment; of foot, which secured him from any sudden attempts. Soon after, the queen, who was retired out of the kingdom, sent a supply of arms and ammunition, which being designed for the troops under the king’s command, the earl took care they should be speedily and safely conducted to his majesty under the escdVt of his only troop, which his majesty kept, to the great prejudice of his own affairs in the nor x th. The parliament, in the mean time, had not forgotten the earl’s behaviour towards them, but as a mark of their resentment excepted him by name; which was so far from discouraging, that it put his lordship upon a more decided part: and having well considered his own influence in those parts, he offered to raise an army in the north for his majesty’s service. On this the king gave him a commission, constituting him general of all the forces raised north of Trent; and likewise general and commander in chief of such as might be raised in the counties of Lincoln, Nottingham, Lancaster, Chester, Leicester, Rutland, Cambridge, Huntingdon, Norfolk, Suffolk, and Essex; with power to confer the honour of knighthood, coin money, and to print and set forth such declarations as should seem, to him expedient; of all which extensive powers, though freely conferred, and without reserve, his lordship made a very sparing use. But with respect to the more material point of raising men, his lordship prosecuted it with such diligence, that in less than three months he had an army of eight thousand horse, foot, and dragoons, with which be marched directly into Yorkshire; and his forces having defeated the enemy at Fierce-bridge, his lordship advanced to York, where sir Thomas Glen ham, the governor, presented him with the keys, and the earl of Cumberland and many of the nobility resorted thither to compliment and to assist his lordship. He did not long remain there; but, having placed a good garrison in the city, marched on towards Tadcaster, where the parliament forces were very advantageously posted. The design which the earl had formed, not only for reducing that 'place, hut for making the troops that were there prisoners, tailed, through the want of diligence in some of his officers; hut notwithstanding this, his lordship attacked the place so vigorously, that the enemy thought fit to retire, and leave him in possession of the hest part of Yorkshire. This advantage he improved to the utmost, hy estahiishing garrisons in proper places, particularly at Newark upon Trent, by which the greatest part of Nottinghamshire, and some part of Lincolnshire, were kept in obedience. In the beginning of 1643, his lordship gave orders for a great convoy of ammunition to be removed from Newcastle to York, under the escort of a body of horse, commanded by lieutenantgeneral King, a Scotch officer, whom his majesty had lately created lord Ethyn. The parliament forces attempted to intercept this convoy at Y arum-bridge, but were beaten on the 1st of February with a great loss. Soon after this, her majesty landing at Burlington, the earl drew his forces that way to cover her journey to York, where she safely arrived on the 7th of March, and having pressing occasions for money, his lordship presented her with three thousand pounds, and furnished an escort of fifteen hundred men, under the command of lord Percy, to conduct a supply of arms and ammunition to the king at Oxford, where he kept them for his own service. Not long after, sir Hugh Cholmondley and captain Brown Bushel were prevailed upon to return to their duty, and give up the important port and castle of Scarborough. This was followed by the routing Ferdinando lord Fairfax on Seacroft, or as some call it Bramham-moor, by lord George Goring, then general of the horse under the earl, when about eight hundred of the enemy were taken prisoners; and this again made way for another victory gained on Tankersly-moor. In the month of April, the earl marched to reduce Rotherham, which he took by storm, and soon after Sheffield; but in the mean time, lord Goring and sir Francis Mackworth were surprised, on the 2 1st of May, at Wakefield, where the former and most of his men were made prisoners, which was a great prejudice to the service. In the same month her majesty went from York to Pomfret under the escort of the earPs forces; and from thence she continued Jier journey tp Oxford, with a body of seven thousand horse, foot, and dragoons, detached for that service by the earl; and those forces, likewise, the king kept about him. In the month of June the earl reduced Howly-house by storm; and on the 30th gained a complete victory over Ferdinando lord Fairfax, though much superior to him in numbers, on Adderton- heath, near Bradford, where the enemy had seven hundred men killed, and three thousand taken prisoners; and on the 2d of July following Bradford surrendered. The earl advanced next into Lincolnshire, where he took Gainsborough and Lincoln; but was then recalled by the pressing solicitations of the gentlemen of Yorkshire into that country, wherq Beverley surrendered to him on the 28th of August, and in the next month, his lordship was prevailed on to besiege Hull, the only place of consequence then held for the parliament in those parts. Notwithstanding these important successes obtained by an army raised, and in a great measure kept up by his lordship’s personal influence and expence, there have not been wanting censures upon his conduct; of which, however, his majesty had so just a sense, that by letters-patent dated the 27th of October, he advanced him to the dignity of marquis of Newcastle; and in the preamble of his patent all his services are mentioned with suitable encomiums. That winter the earl marched into Derbyshire, and from thence to his own house at Welbeck in Nottinghamshire, where he received the news of the Scots intending to enter England, which brought him back into Yorkshire, from whence he sent sir Thomas Glenham to Newcastle, and himself for some time successfully opposed the Scots in the bishopric of Durham: but, the forces he left behind under the command of lord Bellasis at Selby being routed, the marquis found himself obliged to retire, in order, if possible, to preserve York; and this he did with so much military prudence, that he arrived there safely in the month of April 1644, and retaining his infantry and artillery in that city, sent his horse to quarter in Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, and Leicestershire, for the sake of subsistence. The city was very soon blocked up by three armies, who quickly commenced a regular siege, and were once very near taking the place by storm; and at last, having lain before it three months, brought the garrison into great distress for want of provision; and if the marquis had not very early had recourse to a short allowance, had infallibly reduced it by famine. For though sir Charles Lucas, who commanded the marquis’s horse, importuned the king for relief, yet it was the latter end of June before his majesty could send a sufficient body, under the command of prince Rupert, to join sir Charles Lucas, and attempt the forcing the enemy to raise the siege; which, however, upon their approach, they did, remaining on the west side of the Owse with all their forces, while the king’s army advanced on the east side of the same river. By this quick and vigorous march, prince Rupert had done his business; but, as is very well observed by a most judicious historian of these times, he would needs overdo it; and not content with the honour of raising the siege of York by a confederate army much superior to his own, he was bent upon having the honour to beat that army also; and this brought on the fatal battle of Hessom, or, as it is more generally called, Marston-moor, which was fought July 2, 1644, against the consent of the marquis of Newcastle, who, seeing the king’s affairs totally undone thereby, made the best of his way to Scarborough, and from thence, with a few of the principal officers of his army, took shipping for Hamburgh. After staying about six months at Hamburgh, he went by sea to Amsterdam, and from thence made a journey to Paris, where he continued for some time; and where, notwithstanuing the vast estate he had when the civil war broke out, his circumstances were now so bad, that himself and his young wife were reduced to the pawning their cloaths for a dinner. He removed afterwards to Antwerp, that he might be nearer his own country; and there, though under very great difficulties, he resided for several years; while the parliament in the mean time levied prodigious sums upon his estate, insomuch that the computation of what he lost by the disorders of those times, though none of the particulars "can be disproved, amount in the whole to a sum that is almost incredible. It has been computed at 733,579l. All these hardships and misfortunes never broke his spirit in the least, which his biographer somewhat fondly says was chiefly owing to his great foresight; for as he plainly perceived after the battle of Marston-moor, that the affairs of Charles I. were irrecoverably undone, so he discerned through the thickest clouds of Charles lid’s adversity, that he would be infallibly restored: and as he had predicted Hie civil war to the father before it began, so he gave the strongest assurance to the son of his being called home, by addressing to him a treatise upon Government and the Interests of Great Britain with respect to the other powers of Europe; which he wrote at a time when the hopes of those about his majesty scarcely rose so high as the marquis’s expectations. During this long exile of eighteen years, in which he suffered so many and so oreat hardships, this worthy nobleman wanted not some consolations that were particularly such to one of his high and generous spirit. He was, notwithstanding his low and distressed circumstances, treated with the highest respect, and with the most extraordinary marks of distinction, by the persons entrusted with the government of the countries where he resided. He received the high compliment of having the keys of the cities he passed through in the Spanish dominions offered him: he was visited by don John of Austria, and by several princes of Germany. But what comforted him most was the company very frequently of his royal master, who, in the midst of his sufferings, bestowed upon him the most noble order of the garter. On his return to England at the restoration, he was received with all the respect due to his unshaken fidelity and important services was constituted chief justice in Eyre of the counties north of Trent, and, by letters- patent dated the 16th of March 1664, was advanced to the dignity of earl of Ogle, and duke of Newcastle. He spent the remainder of his life, for the most part, in a country retirement, and in reading and writing, in which he took singular pleasure. He also employed a great part of his time in repairing the injuries which his fortune had received, and at length departed this life December 25, 1676, in the eighty-fourth year of his age. His grace was twice married, but had issue only by his first lady. His body lies interred, with that of his duchess, under a most noble monument at the entrance into Westminster-abbey, with an inscription suitable to his merits. His titles descended to his son Henry, earl of Ogle, who was the last heir male of this family, and died July 26, 1691, in whom the title of Newcastle, in the line of Cavendish, became extinguished, but his daughters married into some of the noblest families of this kingdom.

Of his pursuits and travels abroad nothing further is known with certainty, except that in his peregrinations, he declares that he confined himself “for the most part to the countries of Brabant, Flanders, Holland, and Zealand and in France was never.” It is, however, reasonable to suppose that he preserved the same respectable character in foreign countries which he had acquired in his own; and that, whilst he was indulging his favourite literary passion in the perusal of histories and romances, to which he seems to have been excited by his friend Bolomyer, canon of Lausanne, he was placed by his sovereign, or his sister, the lady Margaret, on the household establishment of the Jatter, when she came with a splendid retinue to Bruges to offer her hand to Charles, duke of Burgundy; and Caxton was, without doubt, privy to all the splendid spectacles and festivities of this marriage. In what rank or Duality he served the duchess is not known; but the freedom with which she used Mr. Caxton, in finding fault with his English, and ordering him to correct it, &c. seems to shew that the place he had in her grace’s family was no mean or ordinary one. Lewis and Oldys, in Mr. Dibdiu'.s opinion, are incorrect in saying that he was employed by the duchess to translate into English Kaoul Le Fevre’s French History of Troy t the fact was, that Caxton had commenced the translation voluntarily, without her knowledge, and had proceeded as far as five or six quires when he for some reason gave it up. About this time, having mentioned to Jady Margaret the progress he had made, she desired to see his manuscript, and it was on this occasion that she found fault with his English, but commanded him at the same time to finish the translation, and amply rewarded him on the completion of it. From the prologues and epilogues of this work we learn several particulars of the author, as that, at the time of finishing the performance, iiis eyes “were dimmed with over-much looking on the white paper; that his courage was not so prone and ready to labour as it had been; and that age was creeping on him daily, and enfeebling all his body: that he had practised and learnt, at his great charge and expense, to ordain this said book in print, after the manner and form as v.e there see it: and that it was not written with pen and ink as other books be.” Hence we discover that he was now adyanced in years, and that he had learnt to exercise the art of printing, but by what steps he had acquired this knowledge his biographers have not been able to discover. It appears, as already noticed, that the original of Ilaonl’s Trojan History was the first book Caxton printed: “The Oration of John llussel on Charles duke of Burgundy being created a Knight of the Garter,” was the second, and Caxton’s translation of Raoul, the third; and this third was most probably printed in 1471. That he was particularly curious to know, and inquisitive after, the invention of printing, can scarcely be doubted, but his inquiries as well as his experience seem to have been con lined to such specimens as the presses of the Low Countries produced, and he does not appear to have seen any of the beautiful productions of the Roman, Venetian, and Parisian presses before he caused his own fount of letters to be cut. The types used by Caxion in the French and English editions of Raoul Le Fevre’s history, as well as those in the “Game of Chess,” resemble, in character and form, rather than in size, the types of Ulric Zel and other printers in the Low Countries. Nor is it at all improbable that Caxton consulted Zel and Olpe, the earliest typographical artists in the city of Cologne, about the formation of his own letters, as those able men are supposed to have learnt the art of printing in the office of Gutenberg and Fust. Colard Mansion, a printer at Bruges, might also have assisted him in the necessary materials for his office.

Of all Cervantes’s writings his “Don Quixote” is that only which now is entitled to much attention, although some of his “Novels” are elegant and interesting. But on his “Don Quixote” his fame will probably rest as long as a taste for genuine humour can be found. It ought also, says an elegant modern critic, to be considered as a most useful performance, that brought about a great revolution in the manners and literature of Europe, by banishing the wild dreams of chivalry, and reviving a tasta for the simplicity of nature. In this view, the publication of Don Quixote forms an important era in the history of mankind. Don Quixote is represented as a man, whom it is impossible not to esteem for his cultivated understanding, and the goodness of his heart; but who, by poring night and day upon old romances, had impaired his reason to such a degree, as to mistake them for history, and form the design of traversing the world, in the character, and with the accoutrements, of a knight-errant. His distempered fancy takes the most common occurrences for adventures similar to those he had read in his books of chivalry. And thus, the extravagance of these books being placed, as it were, in the same groupe with the appearances of nature and the real business of life, the hideous disproportion of the former becomes so glaring by the contrast, that the most inattentive reader cannot fail to be struck with it. The person, the pretensions, and the exploits, of the errant-knight, are held up to view in a thousand ridiculous attitudes. In a word, the humour and satire are irresistible; and their effects were instantaneous. This work no sooner appeared than chivalry vanished. Mankind awoke as from a dream. They laughed at themselves for having been so long imposed on by absurdity; and wondered they had not made the discovery sooner. They were astonished to find, that nature and good sense could yield a more exquisite entertainment than they had ever derived from the most sublime phrenzies of chivalry. This, however, was the case; and that Don Quixote was more read, and more relished, than any other romance had ever been, we may infer from the sudden and powerful effects it produced on the sentiments of mankind, as well as from the declaration of the author himself; who tells us, that upwards of 12,000 copies of the first part (printed at Madrid in 1605) were circulated before the second could be ready for the press; an amazing rapidity of sale, at a time when the readers and purchasers of books were but an inconsiderable number compared to what they are in our days. “The very children (says he) handle it, boys read it, men understand, and old people applaud the performance. It is no sooner laid down by one than another takes it up; some struggling, and some intreating, for a sight of it. In fine (continues he) this history is the most delightful, and the least prejudicial entertainment, that ever was seen; for, in the whole book, there is not the least shadow of a dishonourable word, nor one thought unworthy of a good catholic.” Don Quixote occasioned the death of the old romance, and gave birth to the new. Fiction from this time divested herself of her gigantic size> tremendous aspect, and frantic demeanour: and, descending to the level of common life, conversed with man as his equal, and as a polite and chearful companion. Not that every subsequent romance-writer adopted the plan, or the manner of Cervantes; but it was from him they learned to avoid extravagance and to imitate nature. And now probability was as much studied, as it had been formerly neglected.

These sentiments, which we have adopted from Dr. Seattle’s “Dissertations,” are the sentiments of sober criticism; but those who have allowed their imaginations to be heated by a frequent perusal of Don Quixote, have not scrupled to attribute to Cervantes more serious puiv poses than he could possibly have had in contemplation. They have supposed that his object was to bring knighterrantry into ridicule, and they infer that he was so successful as to banish knight-errantry from the nations of Europe. But no assumption can be worse founded than the existence of knight-errantry in Cervantes’s time. No man in all Europe at that time went about defending virgins, redressing grievances, and conquering whole armies with the assistance of enchanters. Such imaginary beings and events existed only in the old romances, which being the favourite reading in Spain, Cervantes very properly levelled his satire at them in the person of Don Quixote, whom he describes as become insane by a constant perusal of them; and so far is he from insinuating that knighterrantry existed, that he makes his hero the ridicule of every person he meets. Cervantes’s sole purpose was to introduce a better style of writing for popular amusement, and he fully succeeded; and we may say with Dr. Warton, how great must be the native force of Cervantes’s humour, when it can be relished by readers even unacquainted with Spanish manners, with the institution of chivalry, and with the many passages of old romances, and Italian poems, to which it perpetually alludes! The great art, says the same critic, of Cervantes, consists in having painted his mad hero with such a number of amiable qualities, as to make it impossible for us totally to despise him. This light and shade in drawing characters, shews the master. It is thus that Addison has represented his sir Roger de Coverley, and Shakspeare his Falstaff. We know not, however, how to applaud what Dr. Warton calls a striking propriety in the madness of Don Quixote, “not frequently taken, notice of,” namely, his time of life. Thuanus informs us that madness is a common disorder among the Spaniards at the latter part of life, about the age in which the knight is represented. Without resting on this assertion, for which we know no better authority than the “Perroniana et Tlmana,” we conceive it highly probable that Cervantes made his hero elderly, that his pretended vigour of arm, and above all, his love addresses, might appear more ridiculous. We adopt with more satisfaction a sentiment of the late Mr. Owen Cambridge, in the preface to his “Scribleriad,” because it exalts Cervantes’s great work to that superiority of rank, as a mock-heroic, to which it seems justly entitled, and in which it is likely to remain undisturbed. Mr. Cambridge says, that in reading the four celebrated mock-heroic poems, the Lutrin, Dispensary, Rape of the Lock, and Dunciad, he perceived they had all some radical defect; but at last he found, by a diligent perusal of Don Quixote, that Propriety was the fundamental excellence of that work; that all the marvellous was reconcileable to probability, as the author leads his hero into that species of absurdity only, which it was natural for an imagination heated with the continual reading of books of chivalry, to fall into; and that the want of attention to this was the fundamental error of those poems above mentioned.

, a learned physician in the sixteenth century, noted chiefly for being one of the founders of the college of physicians, London, was educated in Merton college in Oxford, of which he was fellow. He took his degree of master of arts about the year 1502; after which, travelling into Italy, he studied physic at Padua, and there took his degree of doctor in that faculty. After his return, he became physician to Henry VIII.; and with Thomas Linacre and others, founded the college of physicians. Henry VHIth’s charter, for the foundation of this college, bears date at Westminster, September 23, 1518, and is said to have been obtained at the request of Dr. John Chamber, Thomas Linacre, Fernandez de Victoria, his physicians; and of Nicolas Halsewell, John Fraunces, and Robert Yaxley, of the same faculty: but especially through the intercession and interest of cardinal Wolsey. The first college of this society was in Knight Rider-street, being the gift of Dr. Linacre. Afterwards they removed to Amen-corner, where they bought an house and ground but the house being burnt down in 1666, the fellows purchased a large piece of ground in Warwick-lane, upon which they erected the present college. The number of fellows at first was but thirty. Charles II. at their request, augmented the number to forty. And James II. in their new charter, was pleased to increase the number to eighty, and not to exceed. To the college belong, at present, a president, four censors, and twelve electors.

, an eminent man-midwife, was grandson to Dr. Peter Chamberlen, who, with his fathers and uncles, were physicians to the kings James I. Charles I. and II. James II. William, and queen Anne. He was born in 1664, and educated at Trinity college, Cambridge, where he took his master’s degree in 1683, and that of M. D. in 1690. He has a Latin poem in the “Hymenæus Cantabrigiensis,” on the marriage of prince George of Denmark with the princess Anne, 1683. He, his father, and brothers, invented among them an obstetric forceps, with which they were enabled to deliver women with safety in cases where, before this discovery, the child was usually lost. In 1672 he went to Paris, but happening to be unsuccessful in a case there, he thought it adviseable to remove to Holland, where he is said to have succeeded better. Here he imparted his secret to two eminent practitioners, and received a considerable reward. On his return to London he had great practice, and realized a handsome fortune. In 1683 he published his translation of “Mauriceau’s Midwifery,” a work in great request, and republished as late as 1755. Mauriceau mentions him often in some of his works, but always with the littleness of jealousy. Chamberlen’s forceps, improved by Smellie and some other practitioners, continues in use, and gives the inventor an honourable rank among the improvers of art. In 1723 we find him attending bishop Atterbury in the Tower, in lieu of Dr. Freind, who was himself a prisoner. He died at his house in Covent-garden, June 17, 1728; and a very fine marble monument was erected to his memory in Westminster-abbey at the expence of Edmund, duke of Buckingham. The long Latin epitaph, the production of bishop Atterbury, records, besides his skill, his benevolence, liberality, and many other amiable personal characteristics. Dr. Chamberlen was thrice married; and his widow, the daughter of sir Willoughby Aston, bart. was afterwards married to sir Thomas Crew, of Utkinton, in Cheshire, knight, who also left her a widow, but she died suddenly, April 6, 1734, and that year Dr. Chamberlen’s library was sold by Fletcher Gyles.

In 1771, Mr. Chambers was announced in the catalogue of the royal academy as a knight of the Swedish order of the Polar Star; and the following year he published the work just alluded to, and entitled “A Dissertation on Oriental Gardening,” 4to. The design of this work is to demonstrate, that notwithstanding the boasted improvement of our national taste in ornamental gardening, we are yet in a state of ignorance and barbarism with respect to this pleasing art, of which the Chinese alone are masters. In. the preface he says, that his account of the Chinese manner of gardening was collected from his own observations in China, from conversations with their artists, and remarks transmitted to him at different times by travellers. Besides sir William’s failure in proving his main point, this publication was very unlucky in another respect. A sketch of it had been published some years before; but the performance itself appearing immediately after the publication of Mr. Mason’s “English Garden,” it was suggested, very invidiously perhaps, that our author’s intention was to depreciate the designs of our English gardeners, in order to divert his sovereign from his plan of improving Richmond gardens into the beautiful state in which they now appear. The strange and horrible devices described in this “Dissertation” have been much ridiculed, but are no more than what had been before published by father Attirer, in his account of the emperor of China’s gardens, near Pekin, translated by Mr. Spence (under the assumed literary name of sir Harry Beaumont) in 1753, and since republished in Dodsley’s “Fugitive Pieces.” In whatever light, however, the “Dissertation” might be considered, it was certainly productive of amusement, and the cause of gardeners and gardening was amply revenged by a publication which appeared next year, and was generally attributed to Mr. Mason, entitled “An Heroic Epistle to sir William Chambers, knt. comptroller- general of his majesty’s works, and author of a late Dissertation on Oriental Gardening; enriched with explanatory notes, chiefly extracted from that elaborate performance.” A vein of solemn irony, and delicate yet keen satire, runs through this poetical commentary; and sir William’s principles of design in gardening, or rather the Oriental principles, which he had so fondly adopted, are treated with very little respect. It was followed in 1774, by “.An Heroic Postscript.”

, in Latin Castellanus, a very learned French prelate, is said by some to have been of obscure birth, but his biographer Galland makes him of an ancient family, and the son of a brave knight. Yet this is doubtful, if what he said to king Francis I. be more than a witticism. The king once asked him if he was a gentleman; to which Chatel answered “that there were three in the ark, but he did not really know from which of them he descended.” He was, however, born at Arc, in Burgundy, and in the eleventh year of his age, before which his parents died, he was sent to Dijon, for education, where he made an astonishing progress, and before he had been there six years, was appointed a teacher, in which capacity he soon distinguished himself, and on one occasion made a public display of more than grammatical talents. His master, Peter Turreau, was accused of being an astrologer, and Chatel pleaded his cause so ably that he was acquitted. He afterwards travelled, in order to cultivate the acquaintance of the learned men of his time, and particularly of Erasmus, whom he met at Basil, and who conceived such a high opinion of his learning, as to recommend him to Frobenius, to be corrector of the Greek and Latin authors, printed at his celebrated press. While here he had also an opportunity of correcting some of Erasmus’s works; but they left Basil together, when the popish religion was established there. Erasmus retired to Fribourg, and Chatel returned to France, where he accepted the offer made him by some persons of distinction, to be tutor to certain young men who were to study law at Bourges, under the celebrated Alciat. As they were not yet prepared to depart, he read public lectures on the Greek text of St. Paul’s epistle to the Romans; and unfortunately for his reputation, was entrapped into an intrigue with a young woman, a circumstance on which Bayle expatiates with his usual delight ~in what is indelicate. ChatePs scholars, however, being at length ready, he accompanied them to Bourges, and studied law, filling up his leisure hours with topics of polite literature. His diligence was unremitting, as he slept scarcely three hours in the night, and the moment he waked ran with eagerness to his books. This method of study he preserved, even afterwards, when appointed reader to the king.

It would be of more consequence to be able to determine what particular merits were rewarded by this royal bounty. Mr. Tyrwhitt can find no proof, and no ground for supposing that it was bestowed on Chaucer for his poetical talents, although it is almost certain that he had distinguished himself, as a poet, before this time. The “Assemblee of Foules,” the “Complaint of the Blacke Knight,” and the translation of the “Roman de la Rose,” were all composed before 1367, the sera which we are now considering. What strengthens Mr. Tyrwhitt' s opinion of the king’s indifference to Chaucer’s poetry, is his appointing him, a few years after, to the office of comptroller of the custom of wool, with an injunction that “the said Geffrey write with his own hand his rolls touching the said office in his own proper person, and not by his substitute.” The inferences, however, which Mr. Tyrwhitt draws from this fact, viz. “that his majesty was either totally insensible of our author’s poetical talents, or at least had no mind to encourage him in the cultivation or exercise of them,” savours rather too much of the conjectural spirit which he professes to avoid. He allows that, notwithstanding what he calls “the petrifying quality, with which these Custom-house accounts might be expected to operate upon Chaucer’s genius,” he probably wrote his “House of Fame” while he was in that office. Still less candid to the memory of Edward will these inferences appear, if we apply modern notions of patronage to the subject; for in tvhat manner could the king more honourably encourage the genius of a poet, than by a civil employment which rendered him easy in his circumstances, and free from the suspicious obligations of a pension or sinecure?

One effect of this connection was the marriage of our poet, by which he became eventually related to his illustrious patron. John of Gaunt’s duchess, Blanche, entertained in her service one Catherine Rouet, daughter of sir Payne, or Pagan Rouet, a native of Hainault, and Guion king at arms for that country. This lady was afterwards married to sir Hugh Swinford, a knight of Lincoln, who died soon after his marriage, and on his decease, his lady returned to the duke’s family, and was appointed governess of his children. While in this capacity, she yielded to the duke’s solicitations, and became his mistress. She had a sister, Philippa, who is stated to have been a great favourite with the duke and duchess, and by them, as a mark of their high esteem, recommended to Chaucer for a wife. He accordingly married her about 1360, when he was in his thirty-second year, and this step appears to have increased his interest with his patron, who took every opportunity to promote him at court. Besides the instances already given, we are told that he was made shield-­bearer to the king, a title at that time of great honour, the shield-bearer being always next the king’s person, and generally, upon signal victories, rewarded with military honours. But here again his biographers have mistaken the meaning of the courtly titles of those days. In the 46 Edward III. 1372, the king appointed him envoy, with two others, to Genoa, by the title of scutifer noster, “our squier.” Scutifer and armiger, according to Mr. Tyrwhitt, are synonymous terms with the French escuier; but Chaucer’s biographers thinking the title of squier too vulgar, changed it to shield-bearer, as if Chaucer had the special office of carrying the king’s shield. With respect to the nature of this embassy to Genoa, biography and history are alike silent, and from that silence, the editor of the Canterbury tales is inclined to doubt whether it ever took place, or whether he had that opportunity of visiting Petrarch, an event which his biographers refer to the same period.

In the latter end of the same year, he was seized with a paralytic stroke, from which in appearance he soon perfectly recovered. The flattering prospect, however, of his continuanc6 in life, soon vanished; for, on the 1 Oth of April, 1752, he was suddenly carried off by a fit of an apoplexy, at Bath, in the sixty -fourth year of his age. He married Deborah Knight, a citizen’s daughter, and, if we mistake not, sister of the famous Robert Knight, cashier to the South-sea company in 1720. By this lady Mr. Cheselden had only one daughter, Wilhelmina Deborah, who was married to Charles Cotes, M. D. of Woodcote, in Shropshire, and member of parliament for Tamworth, in Staffordshire. Dr. Cotes died without issue, on the 2 1st of March, 1748; and Mrs. Cotes, who survived him, died some years since at Greenhithe, in the parish of Swanscombe, in the county of Kent. Mrs. Cheselden died in 1764. Mr. Cheselden’s reputation was great in anatomy, but we apprehend that it was still greater, and more justly founded, in surgery. The eminent surgeon Mr. Sharp, in a dedication to our author, celebrates him as the ornament of his profession; acknowledges his own skill in surgery to have been chiefly derived from him; and represents, that posterity will be ever indebted for the signal services he has done to this branch of the medical art. In surgery he was undoubtedly a great improver, having introduced simplicity into the practice of it, and laid aside the operose and hurtful French instruments which had been formerly in use. Guided by consummate skill, perfectly master of his hand, fruitful in resources, he was prepared for all events, and performed every operation with remarkable dexterity and coolness. Being fully competent to each possible case, he was successful in all. He was at the same time eminently distinguished by his tenderness to his patients. Whenever he entered the hospital on his morning visits, the reflection of what he was unavoidably to perform, impressed him with uneasy sensations; and it is even said that he was generally sick with anxiety before he began an operation, though during the performance of it he was, as hath already been observed, remarkably cool and self-collected. Our author’s eulogist relates a striking contrast between him and a French surgeon of eminence. The latter gentleman, having had his feelings rendered callous by a course of surgical practice, was astonished at the sensibility shewn by Mr. Cheselden previously to his operations, and considered it as a great mark of weakness in his behaviour. Yet the same gentleman, being persuaded to accompany Mr. Cheselden to the fencing-school, who frequently amused himself with it as a spectator, could not bear the sight, and was taken ill. The adventure was the subject of conversation at court, and both were equally praised for goodness of heart; but the principle of humanity appears to have been stronger in Mr. Cheselden, because the feeling of it was not weakened by his long practice.

After the dissolution of the parliament in 1678, sir Winston was dismissed from the post of clerk of the green cloth, much against his master’s will, who restored him again, and continued him in it during the rest of his reign. He enjoyed the same degree of favour from court, during the short reign of James II.; and having lived to see his eldest son raised to the peerage, he departed this life, March 26, 1688. Besides three sons, and as many daughters, who died in their infancy, sir Winston had several sons and daughters, who lived to grow up. The eldest of his sons was John Churchill, afterwards duke of Marlborough, of whom we shall speak largely in the next article. Arabella, the eldest of his children, born in March 1648,. was maid of honour to the duchess of York, and mistress to the duke, afterwards James II. by whom she had two sons and two daughters. The eldest, James Fitz-James, was created by his father duke of Berwick: he was also knight of the garter and of the golden fleece, marshal of France, and grandee of Spain of the first class. He was reputed one of the greatest officers in his time; and when generalissimo of the armies of France, fell by a cannon-shot at the siege of Phillipsburg in 1734. Henry Fitz-James, grand prior of France, lieutenant-general and admiral of the French gal lies, Was born in 1673, and died in 1702. Henrietta, born in 1670, married sir Henry Waldgrave of Cheuton, and died 1730. The youngest daughter was a nun but afterwards married colonel Godfrey, by whom she had two daughters.

Lord Churchill was graciously received by the prince of Orange; and it is supposed to have been in consequence of his lordship’s solicitation, that prince George of Denmark took the same step, as his consort the princess Anne did also soon after, by the advice of lady Churchill. He was entrusted in that critical conjuncture by the prince of Orange, first to re-assemble his troop of guards at London, and afterwards to reduce some lately-raised regiments, and to new model the army, for which purpose he was invested with the rank and title of lieutenant-general. The prince and princess of Orange being declared king and queen of England, Feb. 6, 1689, lord Churchill was on the 14th sworn of their privy council, and one of the gentlemen of the bed-chamber to the king; and on the 9th of April following, raised to the dignity of earl of Marlborough in the county of Wilts. He assisted at the coronation of their majesties, and was soon after made commander in chief of the English forces sent over to Holland. He presided at the battle of Walconrt, April 15, 1689, and gave such extraordinary proofs of his skill, that prince Waldeck, speaking in his commendation to king William, declared, that “he saw more into the art of war in a day, than some generals in many years.” It is to be observed, that king William commanded this year in Ireland, which was the reason of the earl of Marlborough’s being at the head of the English troops in Holland, where he laid the foundation of that fame among foreigners, which he afterwards extended all over Europe. He next did great services for king William in Ireland, by reducing Cork and some other places of much importance; in all which he shewed such uncommon abilities, that, on his first appearance at court after his return, the king was pleased to say, that “he knew no man so fit for a general, who had seen so few campaigns.” All these services notwithstanding did not hinder his being disgraced in a very sudden manner: for, being in waiting at court as lord of the bed-chamber, and having introduced to his majesty lord George Hamilton, he was soon followed to his own house by the same lord, with this short and surprising message, “That the king had no farther occasion for his services;” the more surprising, as his majesty just before had not discovered the least coldness or displeasure towards him. The cause of this disgrace is not even at present known; but only suspected to have proceeded from his too close attachment to the interest of the princess Anne. This strange and unexpected blow was followed by one much stranger, for soon after he was committed to the Tower for high treason; but was released, and acquitted, upon the principal accuser being convicted of perjury and punished; yet it is now believed that a correspondence had been carried on between the earl of Marlborough and the exiled king; and during queen Mary’s life, he kept at a distance from court, attending principally, with his lady, on the princess Anne. After queen Mary’s death, when the interests of the two courts were brought to a better agreement, king William thought fit to recall the earl of Marlborough to his privy council; and in June 1698, appointed him governor to the duke of Gloucester, with this extraordinary compliment, “My lord, make him but what you are, and my nephew will be all I wish to see him.” He continued in favour to the king’s death, as appears from his having been three times appointed one of the lords justices during his absence namely, July 16, 1698; May 31, 1699; and June 27, 1700. As soon as it was discerned that the death of Charles II. of Spain would become the occasion of another general war, the king sent a body of troops over to Holland, and made lord Marlborough commander in chief of them. He appointed him also ambassador extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to their high mightinesses. The king following, and taking a view of the forces, dined with him at his quarters in Sept. 1700; and this was one of the last favours he received from king William, who died the 8th of March following, unless we reckon his recommendation of him to the princess of Denmark, a little before his death, as the fittest person to be trusted with the command of the army which was to protect the liberty of Europe. About a week after, he was elected knight of the most noble order of the garter, and soon declared captaingeneral of all her majesty’s forces in England and abroad; upon which he was immediately sent over to the Hague with the same character that he had the year before. His stay in Holland was very short, but enough to give the States General the necessary assurances of his mistress’s sincere intention to pursue the plan that had formerly been settled. The States concurred with him in all that he proposed, and made him captain-general of all their forces, appointing him 100,000 florins per annum.

, an eminent designer and engraver, was born at Metz, in 1637, of a family in such an humble condition, that he entered while very young into the abbey of St. Arnould, in that city, in quality of helper in the kitchen. He had such a natural talent for drawing, that all the moments of leisure he could get from his employment he Hlled up in making little portraits with a pen on such scraps of paper as he found about the kitchen. The prior of the house caught him one day occupied in this manner; and, on examining his performance, perceived in it such marks of genius as allowed him not to doubt that young Le Clerc would attain to excellence if assisted by art. He immediately took the resolution to cultivate his natural talents, put the crayon into his hand, and gave him to the care of one of the monks, with orders to get him instructed. At ten years old he could handle the graver. At the same time he applied himself to the study of geometry, perspective, fortification, and architecture, in which he made as rapid a progress as in drawing and engraving. Marshal de la Ferte made choice of him for his geographical engineer; Louis XIV. for his engraver in ordinary, at the solicitation of Colbert; and pope Clement XI. honoured him with the title of a Roman knight. In addition to this superior merit, and this strong capacity for the arts, Le Clerc had kind affections and an insinuating address. He died at Paris the 25th of October, 1714, at the age of seventy-seven. This master treated every subject with equal excellence; as landscapes, architecture, ornaments, discovering a lively and glowing imagination kept under due restraint, a correctness of design, a wonderful fertility, and elegant expression and execution. The productions of his graver, amounting to upwards of 3000, would have been sufficient of themselves to have gained him great reputation, independently of those of his pen. The principal of the latter kind are: 1. “A Treatise of Theoretic and Practical Geometry,” reprinted in 174-5, 8vo, with the life of the author. Colbert, informed of the success of this work, ordered Le Clerc a pension of 600 crowns, and apartments in the Gobelins. But he presently after gave up this pension, which confined him to the king’s service, in order to work more freely, and on subjects of his own choice. 2. “A Treatise on Architecture,” 12 vols. 4to. 3. “A Discourse on Perspective,” in which the author shews a profound knowledge of his subject. After Callot, he is the engraver who has most distinctly shewn five or six leagues extent of country in a small space.

, third earl of Cumberland, and father to the preceding, was very eminent for his skill in navigation. He was born at Brougham castle, We*stmoreland, Aug. 8, 1558, and educated at Peterhouse, Cajnbridge, where his tutor was the celebrated John Whitgift^ afterwards archbishop of Canterbury. In this place he applied himself chiefly to the study of the mathematics, to which his genius led him, and by which he became qualified for the several great expeditions he afterwards undertook. His first public employment, of a melancholy kind indeed, was in 1586, when he was one of the peers who sat in judgment upon Mary queen of Scots. But having a greater inclination to act by sea than by land, and, according to the fashion of the times, being bent on making foreign discoveries, and defeating the ambitious designs of the court of Spain, then preparing the armada that was to conquer England, he fitted out, at his own charge, a little fleet, consisting of three ships and a pinnace, with a view to send them into the South Sea, to annoy the Spanish settlements there. They sailed from Gravesend, June 26, 1586, and from Plymouth Aug. J7; but were forced back hy contrary winds into Dartmouth, from whence putting out again on the 29th, they fell in with the coast of Barbary the 17th September, and the next day sailed into the road of Santa Cruz. On the 25th they came to the river Oro, just under the northern tropic, where they anchored. Searching upwards the next day, they found that river to be as broad all the way for fourteen or fifteen leagues, as at the mouth, which was two leagues over; but met with no town nor house. On the last of September they departed for Sierra Leone; where they arrived the 2 1st of October, and going on shore, they burned a town of the negroes, and brought away to their ships about fifteen tons of rice; and having furnished themselves with wood and water, they sailed the 2 1st of November from Sierra Leone, making the straights of Magellan. The 2d of January 1587 they discovered land; and on the 4th of that month fell in with the American shore, in 30 deg. 40 min. south lat. Continuing their course southward, they took, January 10, not far from the river of Plata, a small Portuguese ship; and the next day another; out of which they furnished themselves with what necessaries they wanted. The 12th of January they came to Seal Island, and two days after to the Green Island, near which they took in water. Returning to Seal Island, a consultation was held on the 7th of February, whether they should continue their course for the South Sea, and winter in the straights of Magellan, or spend three or four months upon the coast of Brazil, and proceed on their voyage in the spring. The majority being for the former, they went as far as 44 degrees of southern latitude. But meeting with storms and contrary winds, they took a final resolution, on the 21st of February, to return to the coast of Brazil. Accordingly they fell in with it the 5th of April, and, after taking in water and provisions in the bay of Camana, came into the port of Baya the llth. Eight Portuguese ships being there, they found means to carry off four of them, the least of which were of a hundred and thirty tons, notwithstanding all the resistance made by the enemy; and also brought a supply of fresh provision from the shore. In this spirited manner, the earl undertook no less than eleven expeditions, fitted out at his own expence, in which he made captures to a prodigious amount 5 and, on his return, was graciously received by his royal mistress, who created him knight of the garter in 1591. In 1601 he was one of the lords that were sent with forces to reduce the earl of Essex to obedience. He departed this life at the Savoy in London, Oct. 30, 1605, and was buried at Skipton, in Yorkshire, the 30th of March following; where a fine toinb was afterwards erected to his memory.

Pennant informs us that at an audience which the earl had after one of his expeditions, queen Elizabeth, perhaps designedly, dropped one of her gloves. His lordship took it up, and presented it to her; upon which she graciously desired him to keep it, as a mark of her esteem. In this manner, Pennant adds, his ambition was gratified with a reward that suited her majesty’s avarice. With the romantic gallantry of the times, he adorned this glove with diamonds, and wore it in the front of his high-crowned hat on days of tournament, as is expressed in the fine print of him, by Robert White. Another instance of the queen’s favour to the earl of Cumberland, was her appointing him her champion in all her tilting matches, from the thirtythird year of her reign. In this office he succeeded the gallant old knight sir Henry Lea, who resigned it with much ceremony in 1590. Mr. Wai pole, in his Miscellaneous Antiquities, has obliged the public with an entertaining account of his lordship’s investiture. He excelled 'all the nobility of his time in the exercises of tiltings, turnings, and courses of the field. His magnificent armour worn on such occasions, adorned with roses and fleurs de lis, is actually preserved at Appleby castle. In Skipton castle is a picture of the earl of Cumberland and his family, which is deemed a curious performance. It is tripartite, in form of a screen. The earl, who occupies the centre, is dressed in armour, spotted with stars of gold; but much of it is concealed by a vest and skirts reaching to his knees: his helmet and gauntlet, lying on the floor, are studded in like manner. His lady stands by him in a purple gown, and white petticoat, -embroidered with gold. She pathetically extends one hand to two beautiful boys, as if in the action of dissuading her lord from the dangerous voyages in which he engaged, when more interesting and tender claims urged the presence of a parent. “How must he have been affected,” says Mr. Pennant, “by his refusal, when he found that he had lost both on his return from two expeditions, if the heart of a hero does not too often divest itself of the tender sensations!” The letters of Margaret, the earl of Cumberland’s lady, are extant in manuscript, and also her Diary; from which it appears that she unfortunately married without liking, and met with the same return. She complains greatly of the coolness of her lord, and of his neglecting their daughter, Anne Clifford. The countess of Cumberland even endured great poverty, of which she writes in a most moving strain to king James I. to several great persons, and to the earl himself. Mr. Pennant observes, that all her letters are humble, suppliant, and pathetic, though the earl was said to have parted with her on account of her high spirit. But although this lady might sometimes be obliged, from peculiar circumstances, to write in a strain of humiliation, it is certain that she was a woman who possessed great fortitude and magnanimity of mind. This is apparent from the account her daughter has given of her; nor do we perceive, in that account, any traces of the poverty which the letters seen by Mr. Pennant represent her to have endured. Her conduct, after the death of her lord, in the contest between her and Francis, earl of Cumberland, her brother-in-law, for the family estate, was truly spirited, as she would never submit to give up her daughter’s right. With regard to her quarrel with her husband, the blame was principally on his side, as he was irregular in his manners, and appears, particularly, to have engaged in an amour with a lady of quality. A reconciliation, however, seems to have been effected between the earl and the countess; for she was present with him at the time of his decease, and he then expressed much affection towards her. We learn, from the inscription on the picture before mentioned, that, during the latter part of his life he felt the good effects of his early education for he died penitently, willingly, and christianly.

, son of the preceding artist, was born at Paris in 1715, and, assisted by the instructions of his father, and his mother Louise Madeleine Hortemels, became an engraver of considerable celebrity. In 1749, he travelled to Italy with the marquis de Marigny, and after his return, was in 1752 made a member of the royal academy of Paris, and, in the sequel, appointed secretary and historian to that society. In addition to these honours, he was made a knight of the order of St. Michael, and keeper of the king’s drawings. Of his works, then extremely numerous, Mr. Jombert published a catalogue in 1770. He died April 29, 1790, after having published some works connected with his profession, as, 1. “Lettres sur les Peintures d'Herculaneum,” 1751, 12mo. 2. “Dissertation sur l'effet de la lumiere et des ombres, relativement a la peinture,” 1757, 12mo. 3. “Voyage d‘ltalie, ou Recueil d’ observations sur les ouvrages d‘architecture, de peinture, et de sculpture, que l’on voit dans les principales villes d'ltalie,” Lausanne, 1773, 3 vols. 8vo. 4. “Les Mysotechniques aux enfers,” 1763, 12mo. 5. “Lettres sur les Vies de Slodz et de Deshays,” 1765, 12mo. 6. “Projet d'une salle de spectacle,” 1765, 12mo. Cochin gave the design for the monument of the mareschal D'Harcourt, executed by Pigal, which is now in the French museum.

A parliament was summoned, and met January 1621; and in February there was a great debate in the house of commons upon several points of importance, such as liberty of speech, the increase of popery, and other grievances. Sir Edward Coke was a member, and his age, experience, and dignity gave him great weight there: but it very soon appeared that he resolved to act a different part from what the court, and more especially the great favourite Buckingham, expected. He spoke very warmly; and also took occasion to shew, that proclamations against the tenor of acts of parliament were V9id: for which he is highly commended by Camden. The houses, being adjourned by the king’s command in June, met again in November; and fell into great heats about the commitment of sir Edwin Sands, soon after their adjournment, which had such unfortunate consequences, that the commons protested, Dec. 18, against the invasion of their privileges. The king prorogued the parliament upon the 21st; and on the 27th, sir Edward Coke was committed to the Tower, his chambers in the Temple broke open, and his papers delivered to sir Robert Cotton and Mr. Wilson to examine. January 6, 1622, the parliament was dissolved: and the same day sir Edward was charged before the council with having concealed some true examinations in the great cause of the earl of Somerset, and obtruding false ones: nevertheless, he was soon after released, but not without receiving high marks of the king’s resentment: for he was a second time turned out of the king’s privy-council, the king giving him this character, that “he was the fittest instrument for a tyrant that ever was in England.” And yet, says Wilson, in the house he called the king’s prerogative an overgrown monster. Towards the close of 1623 he was nominated, with several others, to whom large powers were given, to go gver to Ireland; which nomination, though accompanied with high expressions of kindness and confidence, was made with no other view but to get him out of the way for fear he should be troublesome, but he remained firm in his opinions, nor does it appear that he ever sought to be reconciled to the court; so that he was absolutely out of favour at the death of king James. In the beginning of the next reign, when it was found necessary to call a second parliament, he was pricked for sheriff of Bucks in 1625, to prevent his being chosen. He laboured all he could to avoid it, but in vain; so that he was obliged to serve the office, and to attend the judges at the. assizes, where he had often presided as lord chief justice. This did not hinder his being elected knight of the shire for Bucks in the parliament of 1628, in which he distinguished himself more than any man in the house of commons, spoke warmly for the redress of grievances, argued boldly in defence of the liberty of the subject, and strenuously supported the privilege of the house. It was he that proposed and framed the petition of rights; and, June 1628, he made a speech, in which he named the duke of Buckingham as the cause of all our miseries, though, lord Clarendon tells us, he had before blasphemously styled him the saviour of the nation; but although there is no great reason to conclude that all this opposition to the arbitrary measures of the court flowed from any principles of patriotism, he became for a time the idol of the party in opposition to the court, and his conduct at this time is still mentioned with veneration by their historians and advocates. Our own opinion is, that although lord Coke was occasionally under the influence of temper or interest, he was, upon the whole, a more independent character than his enemies will admit. After the dissolution of this parliament, which happened the March following, he retired to his house at Stoke Fogeys in Buckinghamshire^ where he spent the remainder of his days; and there, Sept. 3, 1634, breathed his last in his eighty-sixth year, expiring with these words in his mouth, as his monument informs us, “Thy kingdom come! thy will be done!” While he lay upon his death-bed, sir Francis Windebank, by an order of council, came to search for seditious and dangerous papers by virtue whereof he took his “Commentary upon Littleton,” and the “History of his Life” before it, written with his own hand, his “Commentary upon Magna Charta, &c.” the “Pleas of the Crown,” and the “Jurisdiction of Courts,” his eleventh and* twelfth “Reports” in ms. and 51 other Mss. with the last will of sir Edward, wherein he had been making provision for his younger grand-children. The books and papers were kept till seven years after, when one of his sons in 1641 moved the house of commons, that the books and papers taken by sir Francis Windebank might be delivered to sir Robert Coke, heir of sir Edward; which the king was pleased to grant. Such of them as could be found were accordingly delivered up, but the will was never heard of more.

These troubles and persecutions made him weary of the world, so that he began to think of disposing of his effects, and of retiring. Having therefore a very plentiful estate without any near relations (for, numerous as his brethren were, he had outlived them all), he resolved, in the midst of life and health, to consecrate the whole property of it to some standing and perpetual benefaction. And this he performed by founding St. Paul’s school, in London, of which he appointed William Lilly first master in 1512. He ordained, that there should be in this school an high master, a surmaster, and a chaplain, who should teach gratis 153 children, divided into eight classes and he endowed it with lands and houses, amounting then to 122l. 4s. 7½d per annum, of which endowment he made the company of mercers trustees. To further his scheme of retiring, he built a convenient and handsome house near Richmond palace in Surrey, in which he intended to reside, but having been seized by the sweating sickness twice, and relapsing into it a third time, a consumption ensued, which proved fatal September 16, 1519, in his fifty-third year. He was buried in St. Paul’s choir, with an humble monument prepared for him several years before, and only inscribed with his bare name. Afterwards a nobler was erected to his honour by the company of mercers, which was destroyed with the cathedral in 1666; but the representation of it is preserved in sir William Dugdale’s “History of St. Paul’s,” and in Knight’s life of the dean. On the two sides of the bust was this inscription: “John Colet, doctor of divinity, dean of Paul’s, and the only founder of Paul’sschocrf, departed this life, anno 1519, the son of sir Henry Colet, knt. twise mayor of the cyty of London, and free of the company and mistery of mercers.” Lower, there were other inscriptions in Latin. About 1680, when the church was taking down in order to be rebuilt, his leaden coffin was found inclosed in the wall, about two feet and a half above the floor. At the top of it was a leaden plate fastened, whereon was engraved the dean’s name, his dignity, his benefactions, &c. Besides his dignities and preferments already mentioned, he was rector of the fraternity or gild of Jesus in St. Paul’s church, for which he procured new statutes; and was chaplain and preacher in ordinary-to Henry VIII; and, if Erasmus is not mistaken, one of the privy-council.

Of his writings, those which he published himself, or which have been published since his death, are as follow: 1. “Oratio habita a doctore Johanne Colet, decano sancti Pauli, ad clerum in convocatione, anno 1511.” This being hardly to be met with, except in the Bodleian library at Oxford, among archbishop Laud’s Mss. was reprinted by Knight in his appendix to the life of Colet; where also is reprinted an old English translation of it, supposed to have been done by the author himself. 2. “Rudimenta grammatices a Joanne Coleto, decano ecclesioe sancti Pauli Londin. in usum scholae ab ipso institutae:” commonly called “Paul’s Accidence, 1539,” 8vo. 3. “The construction of the eight parts of speech, entitled Absolutissimus de octo orationis partium constructione libellus:” which, with some alterations, and great additions, makes up the syntax in Lilly’s grammar, Antwerp, 1530, 8vo. 4. “Daily Devotions or, the Christian’s morning and evening sacrifice.” This is said not to be all of his composition. 5. “Monition to a godly Life,” 1534, 1563, &c. 6. “Epistolae ad Erasmum.” Many of them are printed among Erasmus’s epistles, and some at the end of Knight’s Life of Colet. There are still remaining in ms. others of his pieces, enumerated in the account of his Life by Knight. It is probable that he had no intention of publishing any thing himself; for he had an inaccuracy and incorrectness in his way of writing, which was likely to expose him to the censures of critics; and besides, was no perfect master of the Greek tongue, without which he thought a man was nothing. The pieces above mentioned were found after his death in a very obscure corner of his study, as if he had designed they should lie buried in oblivion; and were written in such a manner as if intended to be understood by nobody but himself. With regard to sermons, he wrote but few; for he generally preached without notes.

As soon as Columbus’ s ship was discovered approaching, all the inhabitants of Palos ran eagerly to the shore, where they received the admiral with royal honours. The court was then at Barcelona, and Columbus took care immediately to announce his arrival to the king and queen, who were no less delighted than astonished with this unexpected event, and gave orders for conducting him into the city with all imaginable pomp receiving him clad in their royal robes, and seated on a throne under a magnificent canopy. Notwithstanding all this respect, however, Columbus was no longer regarded than he was successful. The colonists he afterwards carried over were to the last degree unreasonable and unmanageable; so that he was obliged to use some severities with them; and complaints, were made to the court of Spain against him for cruelty. On this, Francis de Bovadilla, a knight of Calatrava, was appointed to inquire into the conduct of Columbus; with orders, in case he found the charge of mal-administration, proved, to supersede him, and assume the office of governor of Hispaniola. The consequence of this was, that Columbus was sent to Spain in chains. From these, however, he was freed immediately on his arrival, and had an opportunity granted him of vindicating his innocence. He was, however, deprived of all power; and notwithstanding his great services, and the solemnity of the agreement between him and Ferdinand, Columbus never could obtain the fulfilment of any part of that treaty. At last, disgusted with the ingratitude of a monarch whom he had served with such fidelity and success, and exhausted with fatigues, he died May 29th, 1506.

, only son of William, first earl of Northampton, by Elizabeth, sole daughter and heiress of sir John Spencer, alderman of London, was born in 1601. He was made knight of the bath in 1616, when Charles, duke of York (afterwards Charles I.) was created prince of Wales; with whom he became a great favourite. In 1622 he accompanied him into Spain, in quality of master of his robes and wardrobe; and had the honour to deliver all his presents, which amounted, according to computation, to 64,000l. At the coronation of that prince he attended as master of the robes; and in 1639, waited on his majesty in his expedition against the Scots. He was likewise one of those noblemen, who, in May 1641, resolved to defend the protestant religion, expressed in the doctrine of the church of England, and his majesty’s royal person, honour, and estate as also the power and privilege of parliaments, and the lawful rights and liberties of the subject. In 1642 he waited upon his majesty at York, and after the king set up his standard at Nottingham, was one of the first who appeared in arms for him. He did him signal services, supporting his cause with great zeal in the counties of Warwick, Stafford, and Northamptom. He was killed, March 19, 1643, in a battle fought on Hopton-heath, near Stafford; in which, though the enemy was routed, and much of their artillery taken, yet his lordship’s horse being unfortunately shot under him, he was somehow left en­“compassed by them. When he was on his feet, he killed with his own hand the colonel of foot, who first came up to him; notwithstanding which, after his head-piece was struck off with the butt-end of a musquet, they offered him quarter, which he refused, saying,” that he scorned to accept quarter from such base rogues and rebels as they were:“on this he was killed by a blow with an halbert on the hinder part of his head, receiving at the same time another deep wound in his face. The enemy refused to deliver up his body to the young earl of Northampton, unless he would return, in exchange for it, all the ammunition, prisoners, and cannon he had taken in the late battle: but at last it was delivered, and buried in Allhallows church in Derby, in the same vault with his relation the old countess of Shrewsbury. His lordship married Mary, daughter of sir Francis Beaumont, knt. by whom he had six sons and two daughters. The sons are all said to have inherited their father’s courage, loyalty, and virtue particularly sir William, the third son, who had the command of a regiment, and performed considerable service at the taking of Banbury, leading his men on to three attacks, during which he had two horses shot under him. Upon the surrender of the town and castle, he was made lieutenantgovernor under his father; and on the 19th of July, 1644, when the parliament’s forces came before the town, he returned answer to their summons;” That he kept the castle for his majesty, and as long as one man was left alive in it, willed them not to expect to have it delivered:“also on the 16th of September, they sending him another summons, he made answer,” That he had formerly answered them, and wondered they should send again." He was so vigilant in his station, that he countermined the enemy eleven times, and during the siege, which held thirteen weeks, never went into bed, but by his example so animated the garrison, that though they had but two horses left uneaten, they would never suffer a summons to be sent to them, after the preceding answer was delivered. At length, his brother the earl of Northampton raised the siege on the 26th of October, the very day of the month, on which both town and castle had been surrendered to the king two years before. Sir William continued governor of Banbury, and performed many signal services for the king, till his majesty left Oxford, and the whole kingdom was submitting to the parliament; and then, on the 8th of May, 1646, surrendered upon honourable terms. In 1648, he was major-general of the king’s forces at Colchester, where he was so ni'ich taken notice of for his admirable behaviour, that Oliver Cromwell called him the sober young man, and the godly cavalier. At the restoration of king Charles II. he was made one of the privy-council, and master-general of the ordnance; and died October 19, 16h3, in the 39th year of his age. There is an epitaph to his memory in the church of Compton- Winyate. Henry, the sixth and youngest, who was afterwards bishop of London, is the subject of the next article.

On this occasion lieutenant Cook was promoted to be captain, and his commission bore date the 25th of May 1768. He immediately hoisted the pendant, and took command of the ship, in which he sailed down the river on the 30th of July. In this voyage he was accompanied by Joseph Banks, esq. (since sir Joseph, bart. knight of the bath, and president of the royal society) and Dr. Solander. On the 13th of October he arrived at Rio de Janeiro, and on the 13th of April 1769 came to Otaheite, where the transit of Venus was observed in different parts of the island. He staid there until the 13th of July, after which he went in search of several islands, which he discovered. He then proceeded to New Zealand, and on the 10th of October 1770, arrived at Batavia with a vessel almost worn out, and the crew much fatigued and very sickly. The repairs of the ship obliged him to continue at this unhealthy place until the 27th of December, in which time he lost many of his seamen and passengers, and more in the passage to the Cape of Good Hope, which place he reached on the 15th of March 177-1. On the 14-th of April he left the Cape, and the 1st of May anchored at St. Helena, from whence he sailed on the 4th, and came to anchor in the Downs on the 12th of June, after having been absent almost three years, and in that time had experienced every danger to which a voyage of such a length is incident, and in which he had made discoveries equal to those of all the navigators of his country from the time of CoJumbus to the present. The narrative of this expedition was written by Dr. Hawkesworth, who, although the facts contained in it have not been denied, nor the excellence of the composition disputed, was, on its publication, treated with peculiar severity, owing to some opinions on the nature of providence, which Dr, Hawkesworth incautiously advanced, Soon after captain Cook’s return to England, it was resolved to equip two ships to complete the discovery of the southern hemisphere. It had long been a prevailing idea, that the unexplored part contained another continent; and Alexander Dalrymple, esq. a gentleman of great skill and an enterprising spirit, had been very firmly persuaded of its existence. To ascertain the fact was the principal object of this expedition; and that nothing might be omitted that could tend to facilitate the enterprise, two ships were provided, furnished with every necessary which could promote the success of the undertaking. The first of these ships was called the Resolution, under the command of captain Cook; the other, the Adventure, commanded by captain Furneaux. Both of them sailed from Deptfortl on the 9th of April 1772, and arrived at the Cape of Good Hope on the 30th of October. They departed from thence on the 22d of November, and from that time until the 17th of January 1773, continued endeavouring to discover the continent, when they were obliged to relinquish the design, observing the whole sea covered with ice from the direction of S. E. round by the south to west. They then proceeded into the South Seas, and made many other discoveries, and returned to the Cape of Good Hope on the 2 1 st of March 1774, and from thence to England on the 14th of July; having during three years and eighteen days (in which time the voyage was performed) lost but one man by sickness, in captain Cook’s ship; although he had navigated throughout all the climates from fifty-two degrees north to seventy-one degrees south, with a company of an hundred and eighteen men. The relation of this voyage was given to the public by captain Cook himself, and by Mr. George Forster, son of Dr. Forster, who had been appointed by government to accompany him for the purpose of making observations on such natural productions as might be fouud in the course of the navigation; but the publication was superintended by Dr. Douglas, the late bishop of Salisbury.

Several ingenious sayings of his are recorded; particularly the following: “That there were three objects, before whom he could not do amiss; his prince, his conscience, and his children.” This facetious story is likewise related of him: “A Sussex knight, having spent a great estate at court, and reduced himself to one park and a fine house in it, was yet ambitious to entertain the king (Edward VI.) For that purpose he new painted his gates, with a coat of arms and this motto over them, in large golden letters, Oia Vanitas. Sir Anthony offering to read it, desired to know of the gentleman what he meant by Oia, who told him it stood for omnia.” I wonder,“replied he,” that, having made your omnia so little as you have, you should yet make your vanitas so large."

What became of the notes and observations he made in his long peregrinations, is unknown. The following only, which he sent to his friends in England, were printed in his absence: 1. “Letters from Asmere, the court of the great mogul, to several persons of quality in England, concerning the emperor and his country of East-India,” 1616, 4to, in the title of which is our author’s picture, riding on an elephant. 2. “A Letter to his mother Gertrude, dated from Agra in East India, containing the speech that he spoke to the great mogul in the Persian lauguage.” 3. “Certain Observations from the mogul’s court and East India.” 4. “Travels to, and observations in, Constantinople and other places in the way thither, and in his journey thence to Aleppo, Damascus, and Jerusalem.” 5. “His oration, Purus, Putus Coryatus; quintessence of Coryate; spoken extempore, when Mr. llugg dubbed him a knight on the ruins of Troy, by the name of Thomas Coryate the first English knight of Troy.” 6. “Observations of Constantinople abridged.” All these are to be found in the “Pilgrimages” of Sam Purchas. 7. “Diverse Latin and Greek epistles to learned men beyond the seas;” some of which are in his “Crudities.” Among his persecutors was Taylor the Water-poet, who frequently endeavours to raise a laugh at his expence. To Coryate’s works may be added a copy of verses, in the Somersetshire dialect, printed in Guidott’s “Collection of Treatises on the Bath Waters,” 1725, 8vo.

, an eminent English antiquary, “whose name,” says Dr. Johnson, “must always be mentioned with honour, and whose memory cannot fail of exciting the warmest sentiments of gratitude, whilst the smallest regard for learning subsists among us,” was son of Thomas Cotton, esq. descended from a very ancient family, and born at Denton in Huntingdonshire, Jan. 22, 1570; admitted of Trinity college, Cambridge, where he took the degree of B. A. 1585; and went to London, where he soon made himself known, and was admitted into a society of antiquaries, who met at stated seasons for their own amusement. Here he indulged his taste in the prosecution of that study for which he afterwards became so famous; and in his 18th year began to collect ancient records, charters, and other Mss. In 1600 he accompanied Camden to Carlisle, who acknowledges himself not a little obliged to him for the assistance he received from him in carrying on and completing his “Britannia;” and the same year he wrote “A brief abstract of the question of Precedency between England and Spain.” This was occasioned by queen Elizabeth’s desiring the thoughts of the society of antiquaries upon that point, and is still extant in the Cotton library. Upon the accession of James I. he was created a knight; and during this reign was very much courted and esteemed by the great men of the nation, and consulted as an oracle by the privy counsellors and ministers of state, upon very difficult points relating to the constitution. In 1608 he was appointed one of the commissioners to inquire into the state of the navy, which had lain neglected ever since the death of queen Elizabeth; and drew up a memorial of their proceedings, to be presented to the king, which memorial is still in his library. In 1609 he wrote “A discourse of the lawfulness of Combats to be performed in the presence of the king, or the constable and marshal of England,” which was printed in 1651 and in 1672. He drew up also, the same year, “An answer to such motives as were offered by certain military men to prince Henry, to incite him to affect arms more than peace.” This was composed by order of that prince, and the original ms. remains in the Cotton library. New projects being contrived to repair the royal revenue, which had been prodigally squandered, none pleased the king so much as the creating a new. order of knights, called baronets; and sir Robert Cotton, who had been the principal suggester of this scheme, was in 1611 chosen to be one, being the thirty-sixth on the list. His principal residence was then at Great Connington, in Huntingdonshire; which he soon exchanged for Hatley St. George, in the county of Cambridge.

Earl Cowper was one of the governors of the Charterhouse, and a fellow of the royal society. He was twice married. By his first wife, Judith, who was daughter and heiress of sir Robert Booth, of London, knight, he had one son, who died young. Mary, his second wife, who did not long survive him, was daughter of John Clavering, esq. of Chopwell, in the bishopric of Durham. By this lady he had issue two sons and two daughters. His eldest son, William, succeeded him in his titles and estate; and his second son, Spencer, became dean of Durham. His eldest daughter, lady Sarah Cowper, who is said to have been “distinguished for her sense and accomplishments,” died unmarried in 1758. His. youngest, lady Anne, was married in 1731 to James Edward Colleton, esq. of Hayneshill in Berkshire, and died in 1750.

, a faithful and industrious collector of old English literature, was born of an ancient and respectable family at Lechdale in Gloucestershire, Sept. 20, 1689. He was educated in grammatical learning, first under the rev. Mr. Collier, at Coxwell in Berkshire, and afterwards under the rev. Mr. Collins, at Magdalen school, Oxford, from which he entered a commoner of Trinity college, Oxford, in 1705. From Oxford, where he wore a civilian’s gown, he came to London, with a view of pursuing the civil law; but losing his friend and patron sir John Cook, knight, who was dean of the arches and vicargeneral, and who died in 1710, he abandoned civil law and every other profession. An anonymous funeral poem to the memory of sir John Cook, entitled “Astrea lacrirnans,” the production probably of Coxeter, appeared in 1710. Continuing in London without any settled pursuit, he became acquainted with booksellers and authors. He amassed materials for a biography of our poets, which were afterwards used in what is called Gibber’s Lives. (See art. The Cibber). He also assisted Mr. Ames in the History of British typography. He had a curious collection of old plays, and pointed out to Theobald many of the blackletter books which that critic used in his edition of Shakspeare. He compiled one, if not more, of the indexes to Hudson’s edition of Josephus in 1720. In 1739 he published a new edition of Baily’s, or rather Hall’s, lire of bishop Fisher, first printed in 1655. In 1744 he circulated proposals “for printing the dramatic works of Thomas May, esq. a contemporary with Ben Jonson, and, upon his decease, a competitor for the bays. With notes, and an account of his life and writings.” fl The editor,“says he,” intending to revive the best of our plays, faithfully collated with all the editions, that could be found in a search of above thirty years, happened to communicate his scheme to one who now invades it. To vindicate which, he is resolved to publish this deserving author, though out of the order of his design. And, as a late spurious edition of “Gorboduc” is sufficient to shew what mistakes and confusion may be expected from the medley now advertising in ten volumes, a correct edition will be added of that excellent tragedy; with other poetical works of the renowned Sackville, his life, and a glossary. These are offered as a specimen of the great care that is necessary, and will constantly be used, in the revival of such old writers as the editor shall be encouraged to restore to the public in their genuine purity.“Such are the terms of the proposals: and they shew, that, though this design did not take effect, Coxeter was the first who formed the scheme, adopted by Dodsley, of publishing a collection of our ancient plays. Sackville’s” Gorboduc,“here referred to, is the edition published by Mr. Spence in 1736. In 1747 he was appointed secretary to a society for the encouragement of an essay towards a complete English history; under the auspices of which appeared the first volume of Carte’s” History of England.“Mr. Warton made considerable use of his Mss. in his” History of Poetry“and in 1759, an edition of Massinger’s works was published in 4 vols. 8vo. said to be” revised, corrected, and the editions collated by Mr. Coxeter." He died of a fever April 19, 1747, in his 59th year, and was buried in the chapel-yard of the Royal hospital of Bridewell: leaving an orphan daughter, who was often kindly assisted with money by Dr. Johnson, and in her latter days by that excellent and useful institution, the Literary Fund. She died in Nov. 1807.

, of an illustrious family of Italy, established in the comtat Venaissin, knight of Malta, and one of the greatest generals of his age, was born in 1541, and entered into the service in 1557. At the age of fifteen he was at the siege of Calais, and contributed greatly to the taking of that place, by a brilliant action that brought him to the notice of Henry II. He afterwards signalized himself against the Huguenots, or protestants, at the battles of Dreux, of Jarnac, and of Moncontour, in 1562, 1568, and 1569. The youthful hero so greatly distinguished himself in his caravans, especially at the battle of Lepanto in 1571, that he was made choice of, though wounded, to carry the news of the victory to the pope and to the king of France. We find him two years afterwards, in 1573, at the siege of la Rochelle, and in almost all the other considerable rencontres of that period. He every where shewed himself worthy of the name usually given him hy Henry IV. of the Brave Crillon. Henrv Hi. who was well acquainted with his valour, made him knight of his orders in 1585. The specious pretences of the league, the mask of religion which it put on, could never shake the fidelity of the brave Crillon, however great his antipathy to the Huguenots. He rendered important services to his prince in the affair of the Barricades, at Tours, and elsewhere. Henry III. ventured to propose to Crillon to assassinate the duke de Guise, a rebellious subject whom he was afraid to put to death by the sword of the law. Crillon offered to fiorht him; but disdained to hear of assassination. When Henry IV. had made the conquest of his kingdom, Crillon was as faithful to him as he had been to his predecessor. He repulsed the leaguers before Boulogne. The army of Villars having invested Villebceuf in 1592, he vigorously defended that place, replying to the besiegers, on their summoning the besieged to surrender, “Crillon is within, and the enemy without.” Henry, however, did but little for him; “because,” said he, “I was sure of the brave Crillon and I had to gain over my persecutors.” The peace of Vervins having put an end to the wars that had troubled Europe, Crillon retired to Avignon, and there died, in the exercises of piety and penance, the 2d of December 1615, at the age of seventy-four. Francis Bening, a Jesuit, pronounced the discourse at his funeral: a piece of burlesque eloquence, printed in 1616, under the title of “Boucher d'Honnenr,” the “Buckler of Honour,” and reprinted not many years since, as a specimen of ridiculous jargon. Mademoiselle de Lusson published in 2 vols. 12mo, 1757, the life of this hero, called by his contemporaries I'homme sans peur (the man without fear), le brave des braves (the bravest of the brave). This was translated into English by Miss Lomax, of Hertfordshire, and after being revised by Richardson, the author of Clarissa, was published at London, 1760, 2 vols. 12mo. Crillon appears to have been a second chevalier Bayard, not on account of his fantastic and sullen humour, but from the excellence of his heart and his attachment to religion. It is well known that being present one day at a sermon on the sufferings of Christ, when the preacher was come to the description of the flagellation, Crillon, seized with a sudden fit of enthusiasm, put his band to his sword, crying out, “Where wert thou, Crillon?” These sallies of courage, the effect of an exuberant vivacity of temper, engaged him too frequently in duels, in which he always came off with honour. Two instances are recorded of an intrepidity highly characteristic of Crillon. At the battle of Moncontour in 1569, a Huguenot soldier thought to serve his party by dispatching the bravest and most formidable of the catholic generals. In this view he repaired to a place where Crillon, in his return from pursuing the fugitives, must necessarily pass. The soldier no sooner perceived him than he drew the trigger of his piece. Crillon, though severely wounded in the arm, ran up to the assassin, laid hold on him, and was instantly going to thrust him through with his sword, when the soldier threw himself at his feet and begged his life. “I grant it thee,” said Crillou; “and if any faith could be put in a man that is at once a rebel to his king, and an apostate to his religion, I would put thee on thy parole never to bear arms but in the service of thy sovereign.” The soldier, confounded at this act of magnanimity, swore that he would for ever shake off all correspondence with the rebels, and return to the catholic religion. — The young duke of Guise, to whom Henry IV. had sent him at Marseilles, was desirous of trying how far the fortitude of Crillon would go. In this design he caused the alarm to be sounded before the quarters of his brave commander, and two horses to be led to his door. Then, running up to his apartments, pretended that the enemy was master of the port and town, and proposed to him to make his escape, that he might not swell the triumph of the conquerors. Though Crillon was hardly well awake when he heard these tidings, he snatched up his arms without the least trepidation, maintaining that it was better to die sword in hand, than survive the loss of the place. Guise, finding it impossible, by all the arguments he could use, to alter his resolution, accompanied him out of the chamber; but, when they were about the middle of the stairs, he burst out into a violent laughter, which plainly discovered the trick to Crillon. He then put on a graver countenance than when he thought he was going to fight; and griping the duke of Guise by the hand, he said, with an oath, according to his custom, “Young man, never again amuse thyself with putting to the test the heart of an honest man. Par la mort! if thou hadst found me weak, I would have poignarded thee!” After these words he retired without saying any thing more. We will conclude with the laconic billet written to him from the field of battle by Henry IV. after the victory of Arques, where Crillon was unable to be present: “Hang thyself, Crillon! We have been fighting at Arques, and thou wert not there. Adieu, brave Crillon! I love thee whether right or wrong.”

As bishop Croft lived, so he died, without the least tincture of that popery which he had contracted in his youth, as appears clearly enough from the preamble to his will: “I do,” says he, “in all humble manner most heartily thank God, that he hath been most graciously pleased, by the light of his most holy gospel, to recall me from the darkness of gross errors and popish superstitions, into which I was seduced in my younger days, and to settle me again in the true ancient catholic and apostolic faith, professed by our church of England, in which I was born and baptized, and in which I joyfully die,” &c. He had one only son, Herbert, who was educated in Magdalen college, Oxford, was created baronet by Charles II. Nov. 167 1, and was twice knight of the shire in the reign of king William. He died 1720, and was succeeded by his son Archer, and he by his son and namesake in 1761, who dying in 1792, without male issue, the title descended to the rev. Herbert Croft, a gentleman well known in the literary world.

, earl of Essex, an eminent statesman in the sixteenth century, was the son of Walter Cromwell, a blacksmith, at Putney, near London, and in his latter days a brewer; after whose decease, his mother was married to a sheerman in London. What education he had, was In a private school: and all the learning he attained to, was (according to the standard of those times), only reading and writing, and a little Latin. When he grew up, having a very great inclination for travelling, he went into foreign countries, though at whose expence is not known; and by that means he had an opportunity of seeing the world, of gaining experience, and of learning several languages, which proved of great service to him afterwards. Coming to Antwerp, where was then a very considerable English factory, he was by them retained to be their clerk, or secretary. But that office being too great a confinement, he embraced an opportunity that offered in 1510, of taking a journey to Rome. Whilst he remained in Italy he served for some time as a soldier under the duke of Bourbon, and was at the sacking of Rome: and at Bologna he assisted John Russel, esq. afterwards earl of Bedford, in making his escape, when he had like to be betrayed into the hands of the French, being secretly in those parts about our king’s affairs. It is also much to his credit, as an early convert to the reformation, that, in his journey to and from Rome, he learned by heart Erasmus’s translation of the New Testament. After his return from his travels he was taken into the family and service of cardinal Wolsey, who is said to have first discovered him in France, and who made him his solicitor, and often employed him in business of great importance. Among other things, he had the chief hand in the foundation of the two colleges begun at Oxford and Ipswich by that magnificent prelate; and upon the cardinal’s disgrace in 1529, he used his utmost endeavours and interest to have him restored to the king’s favour: even when articles of high-treason against him were sent down to the house of commons, of which Cromwell was then a member, he defended his master with so much wit and eloquence, that no treason cauld be laid to his charge: which honest beginning procured Cromwell great reputation, and made his parts and abilities to be much taken notice of. After the cardinal’s household was dissolved, Cromwell was taken into the king’s service (upon the recommendation of sir Christopher Hales, afterwards master of the rolls, and sir John Russel, knt. above-mentioned) as the fittest person to manage the disputes the king then had with the pope; though some endeavoured to hinder his promotion, and to prejudice his majesty against him, on account of his defacing the small monasteries that were dissolved for endowing Wolsey’s colleges. But he discovering to the king some particulars that were very acceptable to him respecting the submission of the clergy to the pope, in derogation of his majesty’s authority, he took him into the highest degree of favour, and soon after he was sent to the convocation, then sitting, to acquaint the clergy, that they were all fallen into a praemunire on the above account, and the provinces of Canterbury and York were glad to compromise by a present to the king of above 100,000l. In 1531 he was knighted; made master of the king’s jewel-house, with a salary of 50l. per annum; and constituted a privy-counsellor. The next year he was made clerk of the Hanaper, an office of profit and repute in chancery; and, before the end of the same year, chancellor of the exchequer, and in 1534, principal secretary of state, and master of the rolls. About the same time he was chosen chancellor of the university of Cambridge; soon after which followed a general visitation of that university, when the several colleges delivered up their charters, and other instruments, to sir Thomas Cromwell. The year before, he assessed the fines laid upon those who having 40l. per annum estate, refused to take the order of knighthood. In 1535 he was appointed visitor-general of the monasteries throughout England, in order for their suppression; and in that office is accused of having acted with much violence, although in other cases promises and pensions were employed to obtain the compliance of the monks and nuns. But the mode, whatever it might be, gave satisfaction to the king and his courtiers, and Cromwell was, on July 2, 1536, constituted lord keeper of the privy seal, when he resigned his mastership of the rolls . On the 9th of the same month he was advanced to the dignity of a baron of this realm, by the title of lord Cromwell of Okeham in Rutlandshire; and, six days after, took his place in the house of lords. The pope’s supremacy being now abolished in England, lord Cromwell was made, on the 18th of July, vicar-general, and vicegerent, over all the spirituality, under the king, who was declared supreme head of the church. In that quality his lordship satin the convocation holden this year, above the archbishops, as the king’s representative. Being-invested with such extensive power, he employed it in discouraging popery, and promoting the reformation. For that purpose he caused certain articles to be enjoined by the king’s authority, differing in many essential points from the established system of the Roman-catholic religion; and in September, this same year, he published some injunctions to the clergy, in which they were ordered to preach up the king’s supremacy; not to lay out their rhetoric in extolling images, relics, miracle*, or pilgrimages, but rather to exhort their people to serve God, and make provision for their families: to put parents and other directors of youth in mind to teach their children the Lord’s-prayer, the Creed, and the Ten Commandments in their mother-tongue, and to provide a Bible in Latin and English, to be laid in the churches for every one to read at their pleasure. He likewise encouraged the translation of the Bible into English; and, when finished, enjoined that one of the largest volume should be provided for every parish church, at the joint charge of the parson and parishioners. These alterations, with the dissolution of the monasteries, and (notwithstanding the immense riches gotten from thence) his demanding at the same time for the king subsidies both from the clergy and laity, occasioned very great murmurs against him, and indeed with some reason. All this, however, rather served to establish him in the king’s esteem, who was as prodigal of money as he was rapacious and in 1537 his majesty constituted him chief justice itinerant of all the forests beyond Trent and on the 26th of August, the same year, he was elected knight of the garter, and dean of the cathedral church of Weils. The year following he obtained a grant of the castle and lordship of Okeham in the county of Rutland; and was also made constable of Carisbrook-castle in the Isle of Wight. In September he published new injunctions, directed to all bishops and curates, in which he ordered that a Bible, in English, should be set up in some convenient place in every church, where the parishioners might most commodiously resort to read the same: that the clergy should, every Sunday and holiday, openly and plainly recite to their parishioners, twice or thrice together, one article of the Lord’s Prayer, or Creed, in English, that they might learn the same by heart: that they should make, or cause to be made, in their churches, one sermon every quarter of a year at least, in which they should purely and sincerely declare the very gospel of Christ, and exhort their hearers to the works of charity, mercy, and faith not to pilgrimages, images, &c. that they should forthwith take clown all images to which pilgrimages or offerings were wont to be made: that in all such benefices upon which they were not themselves resident, they should appoint able curates: that they, and every parson, vicar, or curate, should for every church keep one book of register, wherein they should write the day and year of every wedding, christening, and burying, within their parish; and therein set every person’s name that shall be so wedded, christened, or buried, &c. Having been thus highly instrumental in promoting the reformation, and in dissolving the monasteries, he was amply rewarded by the king in 1539, with many noble manors and large estates that had belonged to those dissolved houses. On the 17th of April, the same year, he was advanced to the dignity of earl of Essex; and soon after constituted lord high chamberlain of England. The same day he was created earl of Essex he procured Gregory his son to be made baron Cromwell of Okeham. On the 12th of March 1540, he was put in commission, with others, to sell the abbey-lands, at twenty years’ purchase: which was a thing he had advised the king to do, in order to stop the clamours of the people, to attach them to his interest, and to reconcile them to the dissolution of the monasteries. But as, like his old master Wolsey, he had risen rapidly, he was now doomed, like him, to exhibit as striking an example of the instability of human grandeur; and au unhappy precaution to secure (as he imagined) his greatness, proved his ruin. Observing that some of his most inveterate enemies, particularly Gardiner, bishop of Winchester, began to be more in favour at court than himself, he used his utmost endeavours to procure a marriage between king Henry and Anne of Cleves, expecting great support from a queen of his own making; and as her friends were Lutherans, he imagined it would bring down the popish party at court, and again recover the ground he and Cranmer had now lost. But this led immodiaieiy to his destruction; for the king, not liking the queen, began to hate Cromwell, the great promoter of the marriage, and soon found an opportunity to sacrifice him; nor was this difficult. Cromwell was odious to all the nobility by reason of his low binh: hated particularly by Gardiner, and the Roman catholics, for having been so busy in the dissolution of the abbies: the reformers themselves found he could not protect them from persecution; and the nation in general was highly incensed against him for his having lately obtained a subsidy of four shillings in the pound from the clergy, and one tenth and one fifteenth from the laity; notwithstanding the immense sums that had flowed into the treasury out of the monasteries. Henry, with his usual caprice, and without ever considering that Cromwell’s faults were his own, and committed, if we may use the expression, for his own gratification, caused him to be arrested at the council table, by the duke of Norfolk, on the 10th of June, when he least suspected it. Being committed to the Tower, he wrote a letter to the king, to vindicate himself from the guilt of treason; and another concerning his majesty’s marriage with Anne of Cleves; but we do not find that any notice was taken of these: yet, as his enemies knew if he were brought to the bar he would justify himself by producing the king’s orders and warrants for what he had done, they resolved to prosecute him by attainder; and the bill being brought into the house of lords the 17th of June, and read the first time, on the 19th was read the second and third times, and sent down to the commons. Here, however, it stuck ten days, and at last a new bill of attainder was sent up to the lords, framed in the house of commons: and they sent back at the same time the bill the lords had sent to them. The grounds of his condemnation were chieHy treason and heresy; the former very confusedly expressed. Like other falling favourites, he was deserted by most of his friends, except archbishop Cranmer, who wrote to the king in his behalf with great boldness and spirit. But the duke of Norfolk, and the rest of the popish party, prevailed; and, accordingly, in pursuance of his attainder, the lord Cromwell was brought to a scaffold erected on Tower-hill, where, after having made a speech, and prayed, he was beheaded, July 28, 1540. His death is solely to be attributed to the ingratitude and caprice of Henry, whom he had served with great faithfulness, courage, and resolution, in the most hazardous, difficult, and important undertakings. As for the lord Cromwell’s character, he is represented by popish historians as a crafty, cruel, ambitious, and covetous man, and a heretic; but their opponents, on better grounds, assert that he was a person of great wit, and excellent parts, joined to extraordinary diligence and industry; that his apprehension was quick and clear; his judgment methodical and solid; his memory strong and rational; his tongue fluent and pertinent; his presence stately and obliging; his heart large and noble; his temper patient and cautious; his correspondence well laid and constant; his conversation insinuating and close: none more dextrous in finding out the designs of men and courts; and none more reserved in keeping a secret. Though he was raised from the meanest condition to a high pitch of honour, he carried his greatness with wonderful temper; being noted in the exercise of his places of judicature, to have used much moderation, and in his greatest pomp to have taken notice of, and been thankful to mean persons of his old acquaintance. In his whole behaviour he was courteous and affable to all; a favourer in particular of the poor in their suits; and ready to relieve such as were in danger of being oppressed by powerful adversaries; and so very hospitable and bountiful, that about two hundred persons were served at the gate of his house in Throgmorton-strcet, London, twice every day, with bread, meat, and drink sufficient. He must be regarded as one of the chief instruments in the reformation; and though he could not prevent the promulgation, he stopped the execution, as far as he could, of the bloody act of the six articles. But when the king’s command pressed him close, he was not firm enough to refuse his concurrence to the condemnation and burning of John Lambert. In his domestic concerns he was very regular; calling upon his servants yearly, to give him an account of what they had got under him, and what they desired of him; warning them to improve their opportunities, because, he said, he was too great to stand long; providing for them as carefully, as for his own son, by his purse and credit, that they might live as handsomely when he was dead, as they did when he was alive. In a word, we are assured, that for piety towards God, fidelity to his king, prudence in the management of affairs, gratitude to his benefactors, dutifulness, charity, and benevolence, there was not any one then superior to him in England.

, second son of sir Thomas Culpeper of Hollingbourne, in Kent, knight, was born in 1636, and entered a commoner of University college, Oxford, in the beginning of 1640, and was created B. A. in 1643. He afterwards travelled, and on his return was elected probationer fellow of All Souls’ college, but soon retired to his estate in Kent, and after the restoration received the honour of knighthood. When he died is not ascertained, but probably it was about the end of the seventeenth century. He wrote: 1. “Moral Discourses and Essays upon several subjects,” Lond. 1655, 8vo. 2. “Considerations touching Marriage,” 4to. 3. “A Discourse shewing the many advantages, which will accrue to this kingdom by the abatement of usury. Together with the absolute necessity of reducing interest of money to the lowest rate it bears in other countries,” ibid. 1668, 4to. This occasioned a short controversy, in consequence of which sir Thomas wrote, 4. “The necessity of abating Usury, re-asserted,” ibid. 1670, 4to. 5. “Brief Survey of the growth of Usury in England, with the mischiefs attending it,” ibid. 1671, 4to. 6. “Humble proposal for the relief of Debtors, and speedy payment of their Creditors,” ibid. 1671, 4to. 7. “Several Objections against the Reducement of Interest, propounded in a letter, with the answer thereto,” ibid. 1671, 4to. He also wrote a preface to “A Tract against the high rate of Usury, presented to the parliament in 1623,” and reprinted by him in 1668: it was originally written by his father, sir Thomas Culpeper, who died in 1661, and appears to have bequeathed to his son his sentiments on usury, and the necessity of adjusting the interest of money on a new rate.

, a learned Swede, who was born at Winberga, in Holland, in 1708, deservedly obtained the appellation of the father of Swedish poetry by two poems written in that language; the one entitled “The Liberty of Sweden,” published in 1743; the other the tragedy of “Brunhilda.” He successively raised himself to be preceptor to prince Gustavus, counsellor in ordinary of the chancery, knight of the northern star, and at last to the dignity of chancellor of the court. By command of the king he engaged to compile a history of his own country from the earliest period to the present time, which he accomplished in three volumes quarto; and which was afterwards translated into the German language. Sweden is indebted to him also lor a great number of epistles, satires, fables, thoughts, and some panegyrics on the members otthe royal academy of sciences, of which he was a principal ornament: all these have been collected and printed in 6 vols. There is likewise by him a translation of the president Montesquieu, on the Causes of the grandeur and declension of the Romans. Von Dalin died in August 1763, leaving a reputation for literature, which his works are thought to confirm.

, brother of the preceding, was born in 1638. The endowments of his mind and person advanced him at the court of Louis XIV. and his decided taste for literature obtained him a place in the French academy, and in that of sciences. He died at Paris in 1720, at the age of eighty-two, privy ­councillor, knight of several orders, grand-master of the royal and military order of Notre Dame dn Mont Carmel, and of St. Lazare de Jerusalem. On being invested with this last dignity, he paid greater attention than had been before shewn to the choice of the chevaliers, iincl revived the ancient pomp at their reception, which the wits endeavoured to turn into ridicule. But what was superior to all ridicule was, that by his care he procured the foundation of upwards of twenty-five commanderies, and employed the revenues of the office of grand-master, to the education of twelve young gentlemen of the best nobility of the kingdom, as has been mentioned in onr account of his brother. At the court (says Fontenelle), where there is but little faith in probity and virtue, he always preserved his reputation clear and entire. His conversation, his manners, all savoured of a politeness which was far less that of a man of fashion, than of a friendly and obliging person. His wish at all times to play the part of a grandee, might have been passed over, on account of the worthiness of his character. Madame de Montespun, who thought him not qualified exactly for that, said rather tartly, that it was impossible not to love him, and not to laugh at hi ID. His first wife was Frances Morin, sister to the marechal dEstrées, and his second the countess de Louvestein, of the palatine house. There are extant by the marquis de Dangeau, memoirs in manuscript, from whence Voltaire, Renault, and la Beaumelle, have taken many curious anecdotes; but it was not always Dangeau, says Voltaire, who made these memoirs: “It was (according to this satirist) an old stupid valet-de-chambre, who thought proper to make manuscript gazettes of all the nonsense, right or wrong, that he could pick up in the anti-chambers,” by which Voltaire would insinuate that the memoirs which bear the name of the marquis de Dangeau are to be read with caution. There is Another little work of his, also in manuscript, in which he gives the picture of Louis XIV. in a very interesting manner, such as he was among his courtiers.

, a brave warrior in the end of the sixteenth and beginning of the seventeenth century, and created earl of Dariby by king Charles I. was the second son of sir John Danvers, knight, by Elizabeth his wife, daughter and coheir to John Nevil the last lord Latimer. He was born at Dantesey in Wiltshire, on the 28th of June, 1573. After an education suitable to his birth, he went and served in the Low Country wars, under Maurice count of Nassau, afterwards prince of Orange; and was engaged in many military actions of those times, both by sea and land. He was made a captain in the wars of France, occasioned in that kingdom by the League; and there knighted for his good service under Henry IV. king of France. He was next employed in Ireland, as lieutenantgeneral of the horse, and serjeant-major of the whole army, under Robert earl of Essex, and Charles Baron of Montjoy, in the reign of queen Elizabeth. Upon the accession of king James I. he was, on account of his family’s deserts and sufferings, advanced, July 21, 1603, to the dignity of a peer of this realm, by the title of Baron of Dantesey: and in J 605, by a special act of parliament, restored in blood as heir to his father, notwithstanding the attainder of his elder brother, sir Charles Danvers, knight. He was also appointed lord president of Munster in Ireland; and in 1620 made governor of the Isle of Guernsey for life. By king Charles I. he was created earl of Danby, February 5, 1625-6; and made of his privy council; and knight of the order of the garter. Being himself a man of learning, as well as a great encourager of it, and observing that opportunities were wanting in the university of Oxford for the useful study of botany, he purchased for the sum of two hundred and fifty pounds, five acres of ground, opposite Magdalen college, which had formerly served for a burying-place to the Jews (residing in great numbers at Oxford, till they were expelled England by king Edward I. in 1290), and conveyed his right and title to that piece of land to the university, on the 27th of March, 1622. The ground being first considerably raised, to prevent its being overflowed by the river Cherwell, the heads of the university laid the first stones of the walls, on the 25th of July following. They were finished in 1633, being fourteen feet high: and cost the noble benefactor about five thousand pounds. The entrance into the garden is on the north side under a stately gate, the charge of building which amounted to between rive and fix hundred pounds. Upon the front of that gateway, is this Latin inscription: Gloriie Dji Opt. Max. Honori Caroli Regis, in usum Acad. et Keipub. Henricus Comes Danby, D.D. MDCXXXII. For the maintenance of it, and of a gardener, the noble founder left, by will, the impropriate rectory of Kirkdale in Yorkshire: which was afterwards settled for the same purpose, by his brother and heir sir John Danvers, knt. The earl of Danby’s will bore date the 14th of December, 1640.

, an eminent navigator, of the sixteenth century, was born at Sandridge, in the parish of StokeGabriel, near Dartmouth in Devonshire. His birth near that eminent sea-port, having given him a fair opportunity, to which probably was added a strong natural disposition, he put himself early to sea; where, by the help of a good master, and his subsequent industry, knowledge, and experience, he became the most expert pilot, and one of the ablest navigators of his time. The first public employment he had was in 1585, when he undertook to discover a new passage, by the north-west parts of America, to the East-Indies. For that purpose, he sailed from Dartmouth, on the seventh of June, with two barks, one of fifty and the other of thirty-five tons, which were fitted out at the charge of some noblemen and gentlemen; and met, July 19, many islands of ice floating, in 60 degrees northern latitude. They were soon encompassed with them; and going upon some, perceived, that the roaring noise they heard, at which they were greatly astonished, was caused only by the rolling of the ice together. The next day, they discovered the southern coast of Greenland, five hundred leagues distant from the Durseys, or Missenhead, in Ireland; and observed it to be extremely rocky and mountainous, and covered with snow, without any signs of wood, grass, or earth to be seen. The shore, likewise, was so full of ice, that no ship could come near it by two leagues: and so shocking was the appearance of it, and the cracking of the ice so hideous, that they imagined it to be a quite desolate country, without a living creature, or even any vegetable substance; for which reason captain Davis named it, “The Land of Desolation.” Perceiving that they were run into a very deep bay, wherein they were almost surrounded with ice, they kept coasting along the edge of it, south-south-west, till the 25th of July; when, after having gone fifty or sixty leagues, they found that the shore lay directly north. This made them alter their course to the north-west, in hopes of finding their desired passage: but on the 29th they discovered land to the north-east, in 64 degr. 15 min. latitude. Making towards it, they perceived that they were passed the ice, and were among many green, temperate, and pleasant islands, bordering upon the shore; though the hills of the continent were still covered with great quantities of snow. Among these islands were many fine bays, and good roads for shipping: they landed in some, and the people of the country came down and conversed with them by signs, making Mr. Davis understand, that there was a great sea towards the north west. He staid in this place till the first of August, and then proceeded in his discovery. The sixth of that month, they found land in 66 degr. 40 min. latitude, quite free from ice; and anchored in a safe road, under a great mountain, the cliffs whereof glistered like gold. This mountain he named, Mount Raleigh: the road where their ships lay at anchor, Totness Road: the bay which encompassed the mountain, Exeter Sound: the foreland towards the north, Dier’s Cape: and the foreland towards the south, Cape Walsingham. He departed from hence the eighth of August, coasting along the shore, which lay south-south-west, and east-north-east; and on the eleventh came to the most southerly cape of that land, which he named, “The Cape of God’s Mercy,” as being the place of their first entrance for the discovery. Going forward, they came into a very fine straight, or passage, in some places twenty leagues broad, in others thirty, quite free from ice, the weather in it very tolerable, and the water of the same colour and nature as the main ocean. This passage still retains the name of its first discoverer, being called to this day Fretum Davis, or Davis’s Straights. Having sailed, north-west, sixty leagues in this passage, they discovered several islands in the midst of it; on some of which they landed. The coast was very barren, without wood or grass; and the rocks were like fine marble, full of veins of divers colours. Some days after they continued searching for the north-west passage, but found only a great number of islands. And, on the 2oth, the wind coming contrary, they altered their course and design, and returning for England, arrived at Dartmouth the 29th of September. The next year Mr. Davis undertook a second voyage, for the farther discovery of the north-west passage, being supported and encouraged again by secretary Walsingham, and other adventurers. With' a view therefore of searching the bottom of the Straights he had been in the year before, he sailed from Dartmouth, May the 7th, 1586, with four ships, and the 15th of June discovered land in 60 degrees latitude, and 47 degrees longitude west from London. The ice along the coast reached in some places ten, in some twenty, and in others fifty leagues into the sea; so that, to avoid it, they were forced to bear into 57 degrees latitude. After many tempestuous storms, they made the land again, June the 29th, in 64 degrees of latitude, and 58 of longitude; and ran among the temperate islands they had been at the year before. But the water was so deep, they could not easily come to an anchor; yet they found means to go ashore, on some of the islands, where they were much caressed and welcomed by the natives, who knew them again. Having finished a pinnace, which was to serve them for a front in their discoveries, they landed, not only in that, but also in their boats, in several places: and, upon the strictest search, found the land not to be a continent, as they imagined, but a collection of huge, waste, and desert isles, with great sounds and inlets passing between sea and sea. They pursued their voyage the 11th of July, and on the 17th, in 63 degrees 8 minutes latitude, met with a prodigious mass of ice, which they coasted till the 30th. This was a great obstacle and discouragement to them, not having the like there the year before; and, besides, the men beginning to grow sickly, the crew of one of the ships, on which he chiefly depended, forsook him, and resolved to proceed no farther. However, not to disappoint Mr. W. Sanderson, who was the chief adventurer in this voyage, and for fear of losing the favour of secretary Walsingham, who had this discovery much at heart, Mr. Davis undertook to proceed alone in his small bark of thirty tons. Having therefore fitted, and well-victualled it, in a harbour lying in 66 degrees 33 minutes latitude, and 70 degrees longitude, which he found to be a very hot place, and full of muscatoes, he set sail the 12th of August, and coming into a straight followed the course of it for eighty leagues, till he came among many islands, where the water ebbed and flowed six fathom deep. He had hopes of finding a passage there, but upon searching farther in his boat, he perceived there was none. He then returned again into the open sea, and kept coasting southward as far as 54 degrees and a half of latitude: in which time he found another great inlet near forty leagues broad, between two lands, west, where the water ran in with great violence. This, he imagined, was the passage so long sought for; but the wind being then contrary, and two furious storms happening soon after, he neither thought it safe nor wise to proceed farther, especially in one small bark, and when the season was so far advanced. He, therefore, sailed for England the 11th of September; and arrived there in the beginning of October. By the observations which he made, he concluded, that the north parts of America are all islands. He made a third voyage to these parts again the year following, 1587. All the western merchants, and most of those of London, refused to be engaged farther in the undertaking; but it was encouraged by the lord treasurer Burleigh and secretary Walsinghain. Mr. Davis having, in his last voyage, discovered prodigious quantities of excellent cud-tish, in 56 degrees of latitude, two ships were sent along with him for fishing, and one only for the discovery of the North west passage. They sailed from Dartmouth the 19tii of May, and discovered land the 14th of June, at sixteen leagues distance, but very mountainous, and covered with snow. On the 21st of June the two barks left him, and went upon the fishing, after having promised him, not to depart till his return to them about the end of August, yet having finished their voyage in about sixteen days after, they set sail for England without any regard to their promise. Captain Davis, in the mean time, pursued his intended discovery, in the sea between America and Greenland, from 64 to 73 degrees of latitude. Having entered the Straights which bear his name, he went on northward, from the 21st to the 30th of June; naming one part Merchants Coast; another, the London Coast; another, Hope Sanderson in 73 degrees latitude, being the farthest he went that day. The wind coming northerly, he altered his course, and ran forty leagues west, without seeing any laud. On the 2d of July, he fell in with a great bank of ice, which he coasted southward till the 1 9th of July, when he came within sight of Mount Raleigh on the American coast, in about 67 degrees of latitude. Having sailed sixty leagues north-west into the gulf that lies beyond it, he anchored, July 23, at the bottom of that gulf, among many islands, which he named “The Earl of Cumberland’s Isles” He quitted that place again the same day, and sailed back south-east, in order to recover the sea; which he did the 29th in 62 degrees of latitude. The 30th he passed by a great bank, or inlet, to which he gave the name of Lumley’s Inlet; and the next day by a head land, which he called “The Earl of Warwick’s Foreland.” On the first of August he fell in with the southermost cape, named by him Chudley’s Cape: and, the 12th, passed by an island which he named Darcy’s Island. When he came in 52 degrees of latitude, not finding the two ships that had promised to stay for him, he was in great distress, having but little wood, and only half a hogshead of water left; yet, taking courage, he made the best of his way home, and arrived at Dartmouth September the 15th, very sanguine, that the north-west passage was most probable, and the execution easy; but secretary Walsinghaw dying not long after, all farther search was laid aside. Mr. Davis, notwithstanding, did not remain idle. For, August 26, 1591, he was captain of the Desire, rear admiral to Mr. Thomas Cavendish, in his second unfortunate expedition to the South -Sea; and is highly blamed by Mr. Cavendish, for having deserted him, and thereby being the cause of his overthrow. After many disasters, Mr. Davis arrived again at Bear-haven in Ireland, June 11, 1593. He performed afterwards no less than five voyages to the East-Indies, in the station of a pilot. One was in a Dutch ship, in which he set out, March 15, 1597-8, from Flushing, and returned to Middleburgh, July 23, 1600. Of the rest we have no account, except of that which he performed with sir Edward Michelbourne, in which were spent nineteen months, from December 5, 1604, to July 9, 1606. During this voyage Mr. Davis was killed, on the 27th of December, 1605, in a desperate fight with some Japonese near the coast of Malacca. He married Faith, daughter of sir John Fulford, of Fulford in Devonshire, knight, by Dorothy his wife, daughter of John lord Bouchier, earl of Bath, by whom probably he had issue: for some of his posterity are said to have been living about the middle of the last century, at or near Deptford.

, a celebrated Austrian general, prince of Tiano, knight of the golden fleece, and of the order of Maria Theresa, field marshal, minister of state, and president of the Aulic council of war, was born in 1705, of an ancient and illustrious family. He was colonel of a regiment of infantry in 1740, and distinguished himself in the war which Maria Theresa carried on for the preservation of the dominions which were left her by Charles VI. The succeeding war procured him a still more brilliant fame. Prince Charles of Lorraine being besieged in Prague, Daun, at the headof an army collected in haste, took the resolution to force the enemy to raise the siege, gave battle to the king of Prussia at Chotchemitch, the 18th of June, 1757, and gained a complete victory. It was on this occasion that the empress-queen instituted the military order that bears her name. The battle of Hochkirchen, in 1758, added fresh laurels to those of the deliverer of Prague. In 1758, by a series of judicious movements he delivered Olmutz, and attacked the Prussians in 1759 at Pirna, took the whole army commanded by general Finck, and made them prisoners of war. He had not the same success at Siplitz near Torgau, in 1760, where the enemy, after the marshal had been obliged to retire from the field on account of a dangerous wound, gained the superiority. This was followed by the peace of Hubertsbourg in 1763. He died at Vienna, the 5th of February 1766, with the reputation of an experienced, brave, circumspect general, humane and compassionate, uniting the virtues of the Christian with those of the soldier. Occasions where prudence was more necessary than activity, were particularly favourable to him. His perceptions were quick and sure; but, when the urgency of the moment excluded maturity of reflection, he found it difficult to take a vigorous determination. Accordingly his victories were often without effect, and the vanquished, by bold and rapid manoeuvres, sometimes were enabled almost instantly to repair their defeat.

, the first earl of Essex of this name and family, a general equally distinguished for his courage and conduct, and a nobleman not more illustrious by his titles than by his birth, was descended from a most ancient and noble farrr!“, being the son of sir Richard Devereux, knight, by Do 'thy, daughter of George earl of Huntingdon, and gra.idson of Walter viscount of Hereford, so created by king Edward the Sixth. He was born about 1540, at his grandfather’s castle in Carmarthenshire, and during his education applied himself to his studies with great diligence and success. He succeeded to the titles of viscount Hereford and lord Ferrers of Chartley, in the nineteenth year of his age, and being early distinguished for his modesty, learning, and loyalty, stood in higii favour with his sovereign, queen Elizabeth. In 1569, upon the breaking out of the rebellion in the north, under the earls of Northumberland and Westmoreland, he raised a considerable body of forces, which joining those belonging to the lord admiral and the earl of Lincoln, he was declared marshal of the army, and obliged the rebels to disperse. This so highly recommended him to the queen, that in 1572 she honoured him with the garter, and on the 4th of May, the same year, created him earl of Essex, as being descended by his great grandmother from the noble family of Bourchier, long before honoured with the same title. In the month of January following, he was one of the peers that sat in judgment upon the duke of Norfolk. At this time he was such a favourite with the queen, that some, who were for confining her good graces to themselves, endeavoured to remove him by encouraging an inclination he shewed to adventure both his person and fortune for her majesty’s service in Ireland. Accordingly, on the 16th of August, 1573, he embarked at Liverpool, accompanied by lord Darcy, lord Rich, and many other persons of distinction, together with a multitude of volunteers, who were incited by the hopes of preferment, and his lordship’s known reputation. His reception in Ireland was not very auspicious landing at Knockfergus on the 16th of September, he found the chiefs of the rebels inclined apparently to submit; but having gained time, they broke out again into open rebellion. Lord Rich was called away by his own affairs, and by degrees, most of those who went abroad with the earl, came home again upon a variety of pretences. In this situation Essex desired the queen to carry on the service in her own name, and by her own command, though he should be at one half of the expence. Afterwards he applied to the earls of Sussex and Leicester, and the lord Burleigh, to induce the queen to pay one hundred horse and six hundred foot; which, however, did not take effect; but the queen, perceiving the slight put upon him, and that the lord deputy had delayed sending him his commission, was inclined to recal him out of Ulster, if Leicester and others, who had promoted his removal, had not dissuaded her. The lord deputy, at last, in 1574, sent him his patent, but with positive orders to pursue the earl of Desmond one way, while himself pressed him another. The earl of Essex reluctantly obeyed, and either forced or persuaded the earl of Desmond to submission; and it is highly probable, would have performed more essential service, if he had not been thwarted. The same misfortune attended his subsequent attempts; and, excepting the zeal of his attendants, the affection of the English soldiers, and the esteem of the native Irish, he gained nothing by all his pains. Worn out at length with these fruitless fatigues, he, the next year, desired leave to conclude upon honourable terms an accommodation with Turlough Oneile, which was refused him. He then surrendered the government of Ulster into the lord deputy’s hands, believing the forces allowed him altogether insufficient for its defence; but the lord deputy obliged him to resume it, and to majrch against Turlough, Oneile, which he accordingly did; and his enterprize” being in a fair way of succeeding, he was surprized to receive instructions, which peremptorily required him to make peace. This likewise he concluded, without loss of honour, and then turned his arms against the Scots from the western islands, who had invaded and taken possession, of his country. These he quickly drove out, and, by the help of Norris, followed them into one of their islands; and was preparing to dispossess them of other posts, when he was required to give up his command, and afterwards to serve at the head of a small body of three hundred men, with no other title than their captain. All this he owed to Leicester; but, notwithstanding his chagrin, he continued to perform his duty, without any shew of resentment, out of respect to the queen’s service. In the spring of the succeeding year he came over to England, and did not hesitate to express his indignation against the all-powerful favourite, for the usage he had met xvith. But as it was the custom of that great man to debase his enemies by exalting them, so he procured an order for the earl of Essex’s return into Ireland, with the sounding title of earl -marshal of that kingdom, and with promises that he should be left more at liberty than in times past; but, upon his arrival at Ireland, he found his situation so little altered for the better, that he pined away with grief and sorrow, which at length proved fatal to him, and brought him to his end. There is nothing more certain, either from the public histories, or private memoirs and letters of that age, than the excellent character of this noble earl, as a brave soldier, a loyal subject, and a disinterested patriot; and in private life he was of a chearful temper, kind, affectionate, and beneficent to all who were about him. He was taken ill of a flux on the 21st of August, and in great pain and misery languished to the 22d of September, 1576, when he departed this life at Dublin, being scarcely thirty-five years old. There was a very strong report at the time, of his being poisoned; but for this there seems little foundation, yet it must have been suspected, as an inquiry was immediately made by authority, and sir Henry Sidney, then lord deputy of Ireland, wrote very fully upon this subject to the privy-council in England, and to one of the members of that council in particular. The corpse of the earl was speedily brought over to England, carried to the place of his nativity, Carmarthen, and buried there with great solemnity, and with most extraordinary i< monies of the unfeigned sorrow of all the country round about. A funeral sermon was preached on this occasion, Nov. 26, 1576, and printed at London 1577, 4to. He married Lettice, daughter to sir Frances Knolles, knight of the garter, who survived him many years, and whose speedy marriage after his death to the earl of Leicester, upon whom common fame threw the charge of hastening his death, perhaps might encourage that report. By this lady he had two sons, Robert and Walter, and two daughters, Penelope, first married to Robert lord Rich, and then to Charles Blount, earl of Devonshire; and Dorothy, who becoming the widow of sir Thomas Perrot, knight, espoused for her second husband Henry Percy earl of Northumberland.

After a long stay in France, where he was highly caressed, he came over to England; and in 1639 was, with sir Walter Montague, employed by the queen to engage the papists to a liberal contribution to the king, which they effected; on which account some styled the forces then raised for his majesty, the popish army. Jan. 1640, the house of commons sent for sir Kenelm in order to know how far, and upon what grounds, he had acted in. this matter; which he opened to them very clearly, without having the least recourse to subterfuges or evasions. Upon the breaking out of the civil war, being at London, he was by the parliament committed prisoner to Winchesterhouse; but at length, in 1643, set at liberty, her majesty the queen dowager of France having condescended to write a letter, with her own hand, in his favour. His liberty was granted upon certain terms; and a very respectful letter written in answer to that of the queen. Hearne has preserved a copy of the letter, directed to the queen regent of France, in the language of that country; of which the following is a translation: “Madam, the two houses of parliament having been informed by the sieur de Gressy, of the desire your majesty has that we should set at liberty sir Kenelm Digby; we are commanded to make known to your majesty, that although the religion, the past behaviour, and the abilities of this gentleman, might give some umbrage of his practising to the prejudice of the constitutions of this realm; nevertheless, having so great a regard to the recommendation of your majesty, they have ordered him to be discharged, and have authorized us farther to assure your majesty, of their being always ready to testify to you their respects upon every occasion, as well as to advance whatever may regard the good correspondence between the two states. We remain your majesty’s most humble servants, &c.” In regard to the terms upon which this gentleman was set at liberty, they will sufficiently appear from the following paper, entirely written, as well as subscribed by his own hand: “Whereas, upon the mediation of her majesty the queen of France, it hath pleased both houses of parliament to permit me to go into that kingdom; in humble acknowledgement of their favour therein, and to preserve and confirm a good opinion of my zeal and honest intentions to the honour and service of my country, I do here, upon the faith of a Christian, and the word of a gentleman, protest and promise, that I will neither directly nor indirectly negociate, promote, consent unto or conceal, any practice or design prejudicial to the honour or safety of the parliament. And, in witness of my reality herein, I have hereunto subscribed my name, this 3d day of August, 1643, Kenelm Digby.” Hovfever, before he quitted the kingdom, he was summoned by a committee of the house of commons, in order to give an account of any transactions he might be privy to between archbishop Laud and the court of Rome; and particularly as to an offer supposed to be made to that prelate from thence of a cardinal’s hat. Sir Kenelm assured the committee that he knew nothing of any such transactions; and that, in his judgment, the archbishop was what he seemed to be, a very sincere and learned protestant. During his confinement at Winchester-house, he was the author of two pieces at the least, which were afterwards made public; namely, 1. “Observations upon Dr. Browne’s Religio Medici,” 1643. 2. “Observations on the 22d stanza in the 9th canto of the 2d book of Spenser’s Fairy Queen,” 1644, containing, says his biographer, “a very deep philosophical commentary upon these most mysterious verses.” His appearance in France was highly agreeable to many of the learned in that kingdom, who had a great opinion of his abilities, and were charmed with the spirit and freedom, of his conversation. It was probably about this time that, having read the writings of Descartes, he resolved to go to Holland on purpose to see him, and found him in his retirement at Egmond. There, after conversing with him. upon philosophical subjects some time, without making himself known, Descartes, who had read some of his works, told him, that “he did not doubt but he was the famous sir Kenelm Digby!” “And if you, sir,” replied the knight, “were not the illustrious M. Descartes, I should not have come here on purpose to see you.” Desmaizeaux, who has preserved this anecdote in his Life of St. Evremond, tells us also of a conversation which then followed between these great men, about lengthening out life to the period of the patriarchs, which we have already noticed in our account of Descartes. He is also said to have had many conferences afterwards with Descartes at Paris, where he spent the best part of the ensuing winter, and employed himself in digesting those philosophical treatises which he had been long meditating; and which he published in his own language, but with a licence or privilege from the French king the year following. Their titles are, J. “A Treatise of the nature of Bodies.” 2. “A Treatise declaring the operations and nature of Man’s Soul, out of which the immortality of reasonable Souls is evinced/' Both printed at Paris in 1644, and often reprinted at London. He published also, 3.” Institutionum peripateticarum libri quinque, curn appendice theologica de origine mundi," Paris, 1651: which piece, joined to the two former, translated into Latin by J. L. together with a preface in the same language by Thomas Albius, \hat is, Thomas White, was printed at London in 4to, 1C69.

In 1657 we find him at Montpelier; whither he went, partly for the sake of his health, which began to be impaired by severe fits of the stone, and partly for the sake of enjoying the learned society of several ingenious persons, who had formed themselves into a kind of academy there. To- these he read, in French, his “Discourse of the Cure of Wounds by the Powder of Sympathy,” which, was translated into English, and printed at London; and afterwards into Latin, and reprinted in 1669, with “The Treatise of Bodies, &c.” As to the philosophical arguments in this work, and the manner in which the author accounts for the strange operations of this remedy, however highly admired in those days, they will not now be thought very convincing. He spent the year 1658, and part of 1659, in the Lower Germany; and then returned to Paris, where we find him in 16CO. He returned the year following to England, and was very well received at court; although the ministers were far from being ignorant of the irregularity of his conduct, and the attention he paid to Cromwell while the king was in exile. It does not appear, however, that any other favour was shewn him than seemed to be due to a man of letters. In the first settlement of the royal society we find him appointed one of the council, by the title of sir Kenelm Digby, knight. Chancellor to our dear mother queen Mary. As long as his health permitted, he attended the meetings of this society; and assisted in the improvements that were then made in natural knowledge. One of his discourses, “Concerning the Vegetation of Plants,” was printed in 1661; and it is the only genuine work of our author of which we have not spoken. For though the reader may find in Wood, and other authors, several pieces attributed to him, yet these were published after his decease by one Hartman, who was his operator, and who put his name in the titlepage, with a view of recommending compositions very unworthy of him to the public. It may be proper to observe in this place, that he translated from the Latin of Albertus Magnus, a piece entitled “A treatise of adhering to God,” which was printed at London in 1654; and that he had formed a design of collecting and publishing the works of Roo-er Bacon.

, an English nobleman of great parts, was son of the preceding, and born at Madrid, in October, 1612. In 1626 he was entered of Magdalencollege, in Oxford, where he lived in great familiarity with the well-known Peter Heylin, and gave manifest proofs of those great endowments for which he was afterwards so distinguished. In 1636 he was created M. A. there, just after Charles 1. had left Oxford; where he had been spendidly entertained by the university, and particularly at St. John’s college, by Dr. Laud, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury. In the beginning of the long parliament he was disaffected to the court, and appointed one of the committee to prepare a charge against the earl of Strafford, in 1640 but afterwards would not consent to the bill, “not only,” as he said, “because he was unsatisfied in the matter of law, but for that he was more unsatisfied in the matter of fact.” From that time he became a declared enemy to the parliament, and shewed his dislike of their proceedings in a warm speech against them, which he made at the passing' of the bill of attainder against the said earl, in April 1641. This speech was condemned to be burnt, and himself in June following, expelled the house of commons. In Jan. 1642, he went on a message from his majesty to Kingston-upon-Thames, to certain gentlemen there, with a coach and six horses. This they improved into a warlike appearance; and accordingly he was accused of high treason in parliament, upon pretence of his levying war at Kingston-upon-Thames. Clarendon mentions “this severe prosecution of a young nobleman of admirable parts and eminent hopes, in so implacable a manner, as a most pertinent instance of the tyranny and injustice of those times.” Finding what umbrage he had given to the parliament, and how odious they had made him to the people, he obtained leave, and a licence from his majesty, to transport himself into Holland; whence he wrote several letters to his friends, and one to the queen, which was carried by a perfidious confidant to the parliament, and opened. In a secret expedition afterwards to the king, he was taken by one of the parliament’s ships, and carried to Hull; but being in such a disguise that not his nearest relation could have known him, he brought himself off very dextrously by his artful management of the governor, sir John Hotham. In 1643 he was made one of the secretaries of state to the king, and high steward of the university of Oxford, in the room of William lord Say. In the latter end of 1645 he went into Ireland, and exposed himself to great hazards of his life, for the service of the king; from thence he passed over to Jersey, where the prince of Wales was, and after that into France, in order to transact some important matters with the queen and cardinal Mazarin. Upon the death of the king, he was exempted from pardon by the parliament, and obliged to live in exile till the restoration of Charles II. when he was restored to all he had lost, and made knight of the garter. He became very active in public affairs, spoke frequently in parliament, and distinguished himself by his enmity to Clarendon while chancellor. He died at Chelsea, March 20, 1676, after succeeding his father as earl of Bristol. Many of his speeches and letters are still extant, to he found in our historical collections and he wrote “Elvira,” a comedy, &c. There are also letters of his cousin sir Kenelm Digby, against popery, mentioned in our account of sir Kenelm yet afterwards he became a papist himself; which inconsistencies in his character have been neatly depicted by lord Orford. “He was,” says he, “a singular person, whose life was one contradiction. He wrote against popery, and embraced it; he was a zealous opposer of the court, and a sacrifice for it; was conscientiously converted in the midst of his prosecution of lord Strafford, and was most unconscientiously a prosecutor of lord Clarendon. With great parts he always hurt himself and his friends; with romantic bravery, he was always an unsuccessful commander. He spoke for the test act, though a Roman catholic, and addicted himself to astrology on the birth-day of true philosophy.”

index. Faulkner’s Hist, of Fulham. Park’s Royal and Noble Authors. Cumberland’s Life. Some account of his uncle, Knight’s Life ofColet. Hawkins’s Life of Johnson. Dodsley’s, Pcareh’s, and NiclioU's Poems. Bowles’s edition of Pope’s Works, Louoj^r’s Common-place li^ok, vol. 1. Cose’s Life of purity of his own character in the following terms: “It is no more fit for a judge to decline to give an account of his doings than for a Christian of his faith. God knoweth I have endeavoured always to keep a good conscience; for a troubled one who can bear? I have now sat in this court fifteen years, and I should know something. Surely, if I had gone in a mill so long, dust would cleave to my clothes. I am old, and have one foot in the grave; therefore I will look to the better part as near as 1 can. But omnia haberc in memoria, et in nullo errarc, divinum potius est quain human um.” He died Sept. 13, 1628, in the seventy-third year of his age, and was buried in the ambulatory before the door of the library, formerly called Lady Mary’s Chapel, in the cathedral church of Exeter. Within that library is a very sumptuous monument erected to his memory, containing his figure and that of his wife, cut in alabaster, under a stately arch supported by marble pillars. This learned judge, by his happy education, accompanied with excellent natural parts and unremitted industry, became so general a scholar, that it was said of him, that it was difficult to determine whether he were the better artist, divine, civil or common lawyer. Among his other studies, he was a great lover of antiquities, and attained to such an eminence of knowledge and skill in that department of literature, that he was regarded as one of the ablest members of the famous society of antiquaries, which may be said to have begun in 1571, but which more particularly flourished from 1590 to 1614. Rewrote, I. “The Lawyer’s Light; or, due direction for the study of the Law,” London, 1629, 4to. 2. “A complete Parson, or a description of advowsons and church livings, delivered in several readings, in an inn of chancery called the New Inn,” printed 1602, 1603, 1630, 4to. 3. “The History of the ancient and modern estate of the principality of Wales, duchy of Cornwall, and earldom of Chester,” 1630, 4to. 4. “The English Lawyer, a treatise describing a method for the managing of the Laws of this Land, and expressing the best qualities requisite in the student, practiser, judges, &c.” London, 1631, 4to. 5. “Opinion touching the antiquity, power, order, state, manner, persons, and proceedings, of the High Courts of Parliament in England,” London, 1658, 8vo. 6. “A Treatise of particular Estates,” London, 1677, duodecimo, printed at the end of the fourth edition of William Noy’s Works, entitled, “The Ground and Maxims of the Law.” 7. “A true representation of forepassed Parliaments to the view of the present times and posterity.” This still remains in manuscript. Sir John Doddridge also enlarged a book called “The Magazine of Honour,” London, 1642. 7'he same book was afterwards published under his name by the title of “The Law of Nobility and Peerage,” Lond. 16S7, 1658, 8vo. In the Collection of curious Discourses, written by eminent antiquaries, are two dissertations by our judge; one of which is on the dimensions of the land of England, and the other on the office and duty of heralds in this country. Mr. Bridgman, in his “Legal Bibliography,” informs us that many valuable works have been attributed to sir John Doddridge, which in their title-pages have borne the names of others. He mentions particularly Sheppard’s “Law of Common Assurances touching Deeds in general,” and “Wentworth’s office and dutie of Executors;” both which are said to have been written by Doddridge.

, a celebrated lawyer and statesman, in the reign of Henry VII. was born in 1462. Some have said, that he was the son of a mechanic: but this notion probably took its rise from prejudices conceived against him for his mal-administrations in power; for he was of the ancient family of the Dudleys, and his father was sir John Dudley, second son of John Dudley, baron of Dudley, and knight of the garter. About the age of sixteen he was sent to Oxford, where he spent some time and afterwards removed to Gray’s-inn in London, in order to prosecute the study of the law. This he did with great diligence, and came at length to be considered as so able a person in his profession, as to induce Henry VII. to take him very early into his service. It is said that fur his singular prudence and fidelity he was sworn of the king’s privy-council in his 23d year, which some think too early a period: it is, however, asserted by Polydore Vergil, who was then in England. In 1492 we find him one of those great men in the king’s army near Boiogne, who were chiefly instrumental in making a peace with France; and that two years after he obtained the wardship and marriage of Elizabeth, daughter of Edward Grey, viscount L‘lsle, sister and coheiress of John viscount L’lsle, her brother. In 1499 he was one of those who signed the ratification of the peace just mentioned, by the authority of parliament; which shows that he was, if not in great credit with his country, at least in high favour with his prince, whom he particularly served in helping to fill his coffers, under the colour of law, though with very little regard to equity and justice. All our general histories have handled this matter so in the gross, that it is very difficult to learn from them wherein the crimes of Empson and Dudley consisted: but Bacon, who understood it well, relates every circumstance freely and fully in the following manner: “As kings do more easily find instruments for their will and humour, than for their service and honour, he had gotten for his purpose, or beyond his purpose, two instruments, Empson and Dudley, bold men, and careless of fame, and that took toll for their master’s grist. Dudley was of a good family, eloquent, and one that could put hateful business into good language; but Empson, that was the son of a sievemaker, triumphed always in the deed done, putting off all other respects whatsoever. These two persons, being lawyers in science, and privy-counsellors in authority, turned law and justice into wormwood and rapine. For, first, their manner was to cause divers subjects to be indicted for sundry crimes, and so far forth to proceed in form of law; but, when the bills were found, then presently to commit them: and, nevertheless, not to produce them in any reasonable time to their answer, but to suffer them to languish long in prison, and, by sundry artificial devices and terrors, to extort from them great fines and ransoms, which they termed compositions and mitigations. Neither did they, towards the end, observe so much as the half face of justice in proceeding by indictment, but sent forth their precepts to attach men, and convent them before themselves and some others, at their private houses, in a court of commission; and there used to shuffle up a summary proceeding by examination, without trial of jury, assuming to themselves there, to deal both in pleas of the crown and controversies civil. Then did they also use to enthral and charge the subjects’ lands with tenures in capite, by finding false offices, and thereby to work upon them by wardships, liveries, premier seisins, and alienations, being the fruits of those tenures, refusing, upon divers pretexts and delays, to admit men to traverse those false offices according to the law. Nay, the king’s wards, after they had accomplished their full age, could not be suffered to have livery of their lands, without paying excessive fines, far exceeding all reasonable rates. They did also vex men with informations of intrusion, upon scarce colourable titles. When men were outlawed in personal actions, they would not permit them to purchase their charters of pardon, except they paid great and intolerable sums, standing upon the strict point of law, which, upon outlawries, giveth forfeiture of goods: nay, contrary to all law and colour, they maintained the king ought to have the half of men’s lands and rents, during the space of full two years, for a pain, in case of outlawry. They would also ruffle with jurors, and enforce them to find as they would direct and, if they did not, convent them, imprison them, and fine them.”

, son of the preceding, baron of Maipas, viscount L‘Isle, earl of Warwick, and duke of Northumberland, was born in 1502, and afterwards became one of the most powerful subjects this kingdom ever saw. At the time his father was beheaded, he was about eight years old; and it being known that the severity exercised in that act was rather to satisfy popular clamour than justice, his friends found no great difficulty in obtaining from the parliament, that his father’s attainder might be reversed, and himself restored in blood; for which purpose a special act was passed in 1511. After an education suitable to his quality, he was introduced at court in 15-23, where, having a line person, and great accomplishments, he soon became admired. He attended the king’s favourite, Charles Brandon, duke of Suffolk, in his expedition to France; and distinguished himself so much by his gallant behaviour, that he obtained the honour of knighthood. He attached himself to cardinal Wolsey, whom he accompanied in his embassy to France; and he was also in great confidence with the next prime minister, lord Cromwell. The fall of these eminent statesmen one after another, did not at all affect the favour or fortune of sir John Dudley, who had great dexterity in preserving their good graces, without embarking too far in their designs; preserving always a proper regard for the sentiments of his sovereign, which kept him in full credit at court, in the midst of many changes, as well of men as measures. In 1542, he was raised to the dignity of viscount L’Isle, and at the next festival of St. George, was elected knight of the garter. This was soon after followed by a much higher instance both of kindness and trust; for the king, considering his uncommon abilities and courage, and the occasion he had then for them, made him lord high admiral of England for life; and in this important post he did many singular services. He owed all his honours and fortune to Henry VII L and received from him, towards the close of his reign, very large grants of church lands, which, however, created him many enemies. He was also named by king Henry in his will, to be one of his sixteen executors; and received from him a legacy of 500l. which was the highest he bestowed on any of them.

, baron of Denbigh, and earl of Leicester, son to John duke of Northumberland, and brother to Ambrose earl of Warwick, before mentioned, was born about 1532, and coming early into the service and favour of king Edward, was knighted in his youth. June 1550 he espoused Amy, daughter of sir John Robsart, at Sheen in Surrey, the king honouring their nuptials with his presence; and was immediately advanced to considerable offices at court. In the first year of Mary he fell into the same misfortunes with the rest of his family; was imprisoned, tried, and condemned; but pardoned for life, and set at liberty in October 1554. He was afterwards restored in blood, as we have observed in the former article. On the accession of Elizabeth, he was immediately entertained at court as a principal favourite: he was made master of the horse, installed knight of the garter, and sworn of the privy-council in a very short time. He obtained moreover prodigious grants, one after another, from the crown: and all things gave way to his ambition, influence, and policy. In his attendance upon the queen to Cambridge, the highest reverence was paid him: he was lodged in Trinity college, consulted in all things, requests made to the queen through him; and, on August 10, 1564, he on his knees entreated the queen to speak to the iruversity in Latin, which she accordingly did, and was probably prepared to grant the request. At court, however, Thomas earl of Sussex shewed himself averse to his counsels, and strongly promoted the overture of a marriage between the queen and the archduke Charles of Austria; as much more worthy of such a princess than any subject of her own, let his qualities be what they would. This was resented by Dudley, who insinuated that foreign alliances were always fatal; that her sister Mary never knew an easy minute after her marriage with Philip; that her majesty ought to consider, she was herself descended of such a marriage as by those lofty notions was decried: so that she could not contemn an alliance with the nobility of England, but must at the same time reflect on her father’s choice, and her mother’s family. This dispute occasioned a violent rupture between the two lords, which the queen took into her hands, and composed; but without the least diminution of Dudley’s ascendancy, who still continued to solicit and obtain new grants and offices for himself and his dependants, who were so numerous, and made so great a figure, that he was styled by the common people “The Heart of the Court.”

Upon the restoration of Charles II. Dugdale was, through chancellor Hyde’s recommendation, advanced to the office of Norroy king at arms; and in 1662 he published “The History of Imbanking and Draining of divers Fens and Marshes, both in foreign parts and in this kingdom, and of the improvement thereby. Extracted from records, manuscripts, and other authentic testimonies. Adorned with sundry maps, &c.” This work was written at the request of the lord Gorges, sir John Marsham, and others, who were adventurers in draining the Great Level, which extends itself into a considerable part of the counties of Cambridge, Huntingdon, Northampton, Norfolk, and Suffolk. About the same time he completed the second volume of sir Henry Spelman’s Councils, and published it in If64, under this title “Concilia, decreta, leges, constitutiones in re ecclesiarum orbis Britannici, &c. ah introitu Normannorum, A.D. 1066, ad exutum papam A. D. 1531. Accesserunt etiam alia ad rem ecclesiasricam spectantia,” &c. Archbishop Sheldon and lord Clarendon had been the chief promoters of this work, and employed Dugdale upon it; and what share he had in it will appear from hence, that out of 2 “4 articles, of which that volume consists, 191 are of his collecting; being those marked (*) in the list of the contents at the beginning of the volume. The same great personages employed him also to publish the second part of that learned knight’s” Glossary.“The first part was published in 1626, folio, and afterwards considerably augmented and corrected by sir Henry. He did not live to finish the second, but left much of it loosely written; with observations, and sundry bits of paper pinned thereto. These Dugdale took the pains to dispose into proper order, transcribing many of those papers;, and, having revised the first part, caused both to be printed together in 1664, under the title of” Glossariuin archaiologicum, continens Latino-barbara, peregrina, obsoleta, & novse significationis vocabula.“The second part, digested by Dugdale, began at the letter M; but Wood observes, that” it comes far short of the first." There was another edition of this work in 1687.

The incidents of Albert Durer’s life have been variously represented, and modern critics have entertained various opinions of his skill. Referring to our authorities for some of these, we shall conclude this article with what has been advanced by his latest critic, Mr. Fuseli. He seems, says this artist, to have had a general capacity, not only for every branch of his art, but for every science that stood in some relation with it. He was perhaps the best engraver of his time. He wrote treatises on proportion, perspective, geometry, civil and military architecture. He was a man of extreme ingenuity, without being a genius. He studied, and as far as his penetration reached, established rtain proportions of the human frame, but he did not invent or compose a permanent standard of style. Every work of his is a proof that he wanted the power of imitation; of concluding from what he saw, to what he did not see; that he copied rather than imitated the forms of individuals, and tacked deformity and meagreness to fulness, and sometimes to beauty. Such is his design. In composition, copious without taste, anxiously precise in parts, and unmindful of the whole, he has rather shewn us what to avoid than what to follow: in conception he sometimes had a glimpse of the sublime, but it was only a glimpse. Such is the expressive attitude of his Christ in the Garden, and the figure of Melancholy as the Mother of Invention. His Knight attended by Death and the Fiend, is more capricious than terrible, and his Adam and Eve are two common models, hemmed in by rocks. If he approached genius in any part of the art, it was in colour. His colour went beyond his age, and in easel-pictures, as far excelled the oil-colour of Raphael for juice and breadth, and handling, as Raphael excels him in every other quality. His drapery is broad, though much too angular, and rather snapt than folded. Albert is called the Father of the German school, and if numerous copyists of his faults can confer that honour, he was. That the exportation of his works to Italy should have effected a temporary change in the principles of some Tuscan artists, in Andrea del Sarto and Jacopo da Pontormo, who had studied Michel Angelo, is a fact which proves that minds at certain periods may be as subject to epidemic influence, as bodies.

, an eminent English lawyer, was descended from an ancient and honourable family in Somersetshire, of the same family with sir Edward Dyer, the poet, who was fourth in descent from sir James Dyer’s great-grandfather. Sir James was the second son of Richard Dyer, esq. of Wincalton and Roundhill in Somersetshire, at the latter of which places he was born about the year 1512. Wood says he was a commoner of Broadgate-hall (now Pembroke college), Oxford, and that he left it, without taking a degree, probably about 1530, when he went to the Middle Temple. Here he appears to have rendered himself conspicuous for learning anil talents, as in 1552 he performed the office of autumnal reader to that society; a distinction which was at that time conferred only upon such as were eminent in their profession. He had, on May 10 preceding, been called to the degree of serjeant at law, and in the following November his abilities were rewarded with the post of king’s Serjeant. On the meeting of the last parliament of Edward VI. 1552-3, Dyer was chosen speaker of the house of commons (that office being considered in those days as peculiarly appropriated to lawyers of eminence), and in this capacity, on Saturday afternoon, March 4, made “an ornate oration before the king.” This is the only particular concerning the speaker which occurs in the Journals of that short parliament, which sat only for one month; and the dissolution of which was quickly followed by the death of that excellent young prince; whose successor, though in most respects she pursued measures totally opposite to those of his reign, continued the royal favour to Dyer, whom, Oct. 19, 1553, she appointed one of her serjeants, In this office his name appears as one of the commissioners. on the singular trial of sir Nicholas Throckmorton; when his jury, with a freedom rarely exercised in that unhappy period, ventured to acquit the prisoner. Our author’s behaviour on that occasion is not disgraced by any servile compliances with the views of the court; yet his regard for his own character was tempered with so much discretion, as not to occasion any diminution of her majesty’s protection; for on May 20, 1557, being at that time recorder of Cambridge, and a knight, he was appointed a judge of the common pleas, whence on April 23 of the next year, he was promoted to the queen’s bench, where he sat (though of the reformed religion) during the remainder of this reign as a puisne judge.

, knt. memorable for his embassies at several courts, was born at Plymouth, in Devonshire, about 1563. He was the fifth and youngest son of Thomas Edmondes, head customer of that port, and of Fowey, in Cornwall, by Joan his wife, daughter of Antony Delabare, of Sherborne, in Dorsetshire, csq. who was third son of Henry Edmondes, of New Sarum, gent by Juliana his wife, daughter of William Brandon, of the same place. Where he had his education is nut known. But we are informed that he was introduced to court by his name-sake, sir Thomas Edmonds, comptroller of the queen’s household; and, being initiated into public business under that most accomplished statesman, sir Francis Walsingham, secretary of state, he was, undoubtedly through his recommendation, employed by queen Klizabcth in several embassies. In 1592, she appointed him her resident at the court of France, or rather agent for her affairs in relation to king Henry IV. with a salary of twenty shillings a day, a sum so ill paid, and so insufficient, that we find him complaining to the lord treasurer, in a letter dated 1593, of the greatest pecuniary distress. The queen, however, in May 1596, made him a grant of the office of secretary to her majesty for the French tongne, “in consideration of his faithful and acceptable service heretofore done.” Towards the end of that year he returned to England, when sir Anthony Mild may was sent ambassador to king Henry; but he went back again to France in the beginning of May following, and in less than a month returned to London. In October, 1597, he was dispatched again M agent for her majesty to the king of France and returned to EngJand about the beginning of May 1598, where his stay Was extremely short, for he was at Paris in the July following. But, upon sir Henry Neville being appointed ambassador to the French court, he was recalled, to his great satisfaction, and arrived at London in June 1597. Sir Henry Neville gave him a very great character, and recommended him to the queen in the strongest terms. About December the 26th of that year, he was sent to archduke Albert, governor of the Netherlands, with a letter of credence, and instructions to treat of a peace. The archduke received him with great respect; but not being willing to send commissioners to England, as the queen desired, Mr. Edmondes went to Paris, and, having obtained of king Henry IV. Boulogne for the place of treaty, he returned to England, and arrived at court on Sunday morning, February 17. The llth of March following, he embarked again for Brussels and, on the 22d, had an audience of the archduke, whom having prevailed upon to treat with the queen, he returned home, April 9, 1600, and was received by her majesty with great favour, and highly commended for his sufficiency in his negotiation. Soon after he was appointed one of the commissioners for the treaty of Boulogne, together with sir Henry Neville, the queen’s ambassador in France, John Herbert, esq. her majesty’s second secretary, and Robert Beale, esq. secretary to the council in the North; their commission being dated the 10th of May, 1600. The two last, with Mr. Edmondes, left London the 12th of that month, and arrived at Boulogne the 16th, as sir Henry Neville did the same day from Paris. But, after the commissioners had been above three months upon the place, they parted, July 28th, without ever assembling, owing to a dispute about precedency between England and Spain. Mr. Edmondes, not long after his return, was appointed one of the clerks of the privy-council; and, in the end of June 1601, was sent to the French king to complain of the many acts of injustice committed by his subjects against the English merchants. He soon after returned to England but, towards the end of August, went again, and waited upon king Henry IV. then at Calais to whom he proposed some measures, both for the relief of Ostend, then besieged by the Spaniards, and for an offensive alliance against Spain. After his return to England he was appointed one of the commissioners for settling, with the two French ambassadors, the depredations between England and France, and preventing them for the future. The 20th of May, 1603, he was knighted by king James I; and, upon the conclusion of the peace with Spain, on the 18th of August, 1604, was appointed ambassador to the archduke at Brussels. He set out for that place the 19th of April, 1605; having first obtained a reversionary grant of the office of clerk of the crown and, though absent, was chosen one of the representatives for the Burgh of Wilton, in the parliament which was to have met at Westminster, Nov. 5, 1605, but was prevented by the discovery of the gunpowder-plot. During his embassy he promoted, to the utmost of his power, an accommodation between the king of Spain and the States-General of the United Provinces . He was recalled in 1609, and came back to England about the end of August, or the beginning of September. In April 1610, he was employed as one of the assistant-commissioners, to conclude a defensive league with the crown of France; and, having been designed, ever since 1608, to be sent ambassador into that kingdom , he was dispatctyed thither in all haste, in May 1610, upon the new of the execrable murder of king Henry IV. in order to learn the state of affairs there. He arrived at Paris, May 24th, where he was very civilly received; and on the 27th of June, had his audience of Mary de Medicis, queen regent; the young king (Lewis XIII.) being present. In November following he caused an Italian to be apprehended at Paris for harbouring a treasonable design against his master, king James I. There being, in 1613, a competition between him and the Spanish ambassador about precedency, we are told that he went to Home privately, and brought a certificate out of the pope’s ceremonial, shewing that the king of England is to precede the king of Castile. He was employed the same year in treating of a marriage between Henrv prince of Wales and the princess Christine, sister of Lewis XIII. king of France; but the death of that prince, on the 6th of November 1612, put an end to this negotiation. And yet, on the 9th of the same month, orders were sent him to propose a marriage between the said princess and our prince Charles, but he very wisely declined opening such an affair so soon after the brother’s death. About the end of December 1613, sir Thomas desired leave to return to England, but was denied till he should have received the final resolution of the court of France about the treaty of marriage; which being accomplished, he came tp England towards the end or' January 1613-14. Though- the privy-council strenuously opposed this match because they had not sooner been made acquainted with so important an affair, yet, so zealous was the king for it, that he sent sir Thomas again to Paris with instructions, dated July 20, 1614, for bringing it ta a conclusion. But, after all, it appeared that the court of France were not sincere in this affair, and only proposed it to amuse the protestants in general. In 1616 sir Thomasassisted at the conference at Loudun, between the protestants and the opposite party; and, by his journey to liochelle, disposed the protestants to accept of the terms offered them, and was of great use in settling the pacification. About the end of October, in the same year, he was ordered to England; not to quit his charge, but, after he should have kissed the king’s hand, and received such honour as his majesty was resolved to confer upon him, in acknowledgment of his long, painful, and faithful services, then to go and resume his charge; and continue in France, till the affairs of that kingdom, which then were in an uncertain state, should be better established. Accordingly he came over to England in December; and, on the 21st of that month, was made comptroller of the king’s household; and, the next day, sworn a privy-counsellor. He returned to the court of France in April 1617; but took his leave of it towards the latter end of the same year. And, on the 19th of January, 1617-18, was advanced to the place of treasurer of the household; and in 1620 was appointed clerk of the crown in the court of king’s bench, and might have well deserved the post of secretary of state that he had been recommended for, which none was better qualified to discharge. He was elected one of the burgesses for the university of Oxford, in the first parliament of king Charles I. which met June 18, 1623, and was also returned for the same in the next parliament, which assembled at Westminster the 26th of February following; but his election being declared void, he was chosen for another place. Some of the speeches which he made in parliament are primed. On the 11th of June 1629, he was commissioned to go ambassador to the French court, on purpose to carry king Charles’s ratification, and to receive Lewis the XIIIth’s oath, for the performance of the treaty of peace, then newly concluded between England and France: which he did in September following, and with this honourable commission concluded all his foreign employments. Having, after this, enjoyed a creditable and peaceful retreat for about ten years, he departed this life, September 20, 1639. His lady was Magdalen, one of the daughters and co-heirs of sir John Wood, knight, clerk of the signet, by whom he had one son, and three daughters. She died at Paris, December 31, 1614, with a character amiable and exemplary in all respects. Sir Thomas had with her the manor of Albins, in the parishes of Stapleford-Abbot, and Navestoke in Essex, where Inigo Jones built for him a mansion ­house, delightfully situated in a park, now the seat of the Abdy family. Sir Thomas was small of stature, but great in understanding. He was a man of uncommon sagacity, and indefatigable industry in his employments abroad; always attentive to the motions of the courts where he resided, and punctual and exact in reporting them to his own; of a firm and unshaken resolution in the discharge of his duty, and beyond the influence of terror, flattery, or corruption. The French court, in particular, dreaded his experience and abilities; and the popish and Spanish party there could scarcely disguise their hatred of so zealous a supporter of the protestant interest in that kingdom. His letters and papers, in twelve volumes in folio, were once in the possession of secretary Thurloe, and afterwards of the lord chancellor Somers. The style of them is clear, strong, and masculine, and entirely free from the pedantry and puerilities which infected the most applauded writers of that age. Several of them, together with abstracts from the rest, were published by Dr. Birch in a work entitled “An historical view of the Negotiations between the Courts of England, France, and Brussels, from the year 1592 to 1617. Extracted chiefly from the ms State-papers of sir Thomas Edmondes, kt. ambassador in France, &c. and of Anthony Bacon, esq. brother to the lord chancellor Bacon,” London, 1749, 8vo. Several extracts of letters, written by him in the early part of his political life, occur in Birch’s “Memoirs of queen Elizabeth,” and other letters are in Lodge’s “Illustrations of British History.”

, son to sir Thomas Edmondes, mentioned as the patron of the preceding sir Thomas, was born in Shropshire in 1566 and in 1585 became either clerk or chorister of All Souls’ college took one degree in arts, and then was chosen fellow of the house in 1590. Four years after, he proceeded in that faculty; and then leaving the college, was, mostly by his father’s endeavours, made successively secretary, as it is said, for the French tongue to queen Elizabeth about 1601, remembrancer of the city of London, master of the requests, muster-master at Briel, in Zealand, one of the clerks of the council, and in 1617, a knight. He was a learned person, was generally skilled in all arts and sciences, and famous as well for military as for politic affairs; and therefore esteemed by all an ornament to his degree and profession. He published “Observations on the five first books of Caesar’s Commentaries of the civil wars,” London, 1600, folio; “Observations on the sixth and seventh books of Caesar’s Commentaries,” &c. London, 1600, folio; “Observations on Caesar’s Commentaries of the civil wars, in three books,” London, 1609, folio. On which, or the former observations, Ben Jonson has two epigrams. All, or most, of these observations, are reprinted with an addition of an eighth commentary by Hirtius Pansa, with our author’s (Edmondes) short observations upon them, London, 1677, fol. Before which edition is the Life of Caesar, &c.

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

On the 20th of May following, he was constituted one of the commissioners to treat with sir Noel Caroon, knight, ambassador for the States General, concerning the rendition of the cautionary towns into the hands of the States. On the 3d of June, the archbishop of Canterbury, and others, were appointed to inquire who were the authors of his being indicted of pr<emunirc, which was the leading cause of sir Edward Coke’s disgrace. He was one of the grand council, convened at Whitehall on the 6th of June, 1616, the king himself in council, before whom the twelve judges were summoned to appear, and accused of having, in the execution of their office, unconstitutionally trenched on the powers and prerogatives of the crown, in granting commcndams. The king himself took an active part in this business, and, after a judicial discussion of the question, in which the opinion of sir Francis Bacon, the attorney general, was seconded and confirmed by that of the chancellor, they were severely censured for having grossly and wilfully erred both in the matter and manner of their proceedings; particularly in not obeying the royal command delivered to them by the attorney general, and in not delaying to proceed in a cause in which the prerogative was concerned till they had consulted his majesty, and known his farther pleasure. They all submitted willingly, except the lord chief justice Coke (in the whole of which business he acted a very noble part), and were obliged to crave his majesty’s gracious favour and pardon npon their knees. On the 20tb, the king, in the star-chamber, asserted the authority of the chancellor as more especially his own; and on the 30th, lord chief justice Coke was degraded for several causes of offence, particularly those two which have been just mentioned, viz. his attack upon the chancellor, and the affair of the commendams.

On his return to England, the gratitude of the British senate was as forward as the public voice in giving him that distinguished mark his merit deserved, to which his majesty was pleased to add that of knight of the bath and an elevation to the peerage, by the title of lord Heathfield, baron Gibraltar, on June 14, 1787, and permitting his lordship to take also the arms of the fortress he had so bravely defended, to perpetuate to futurity his noble conduct. He married Anne, daughter of sir Francis Drake, of Devonshire, who died in 1769, leaving his lordship a son, Francis Augustus Eliott, the present peer. He closed a life of military renown at the most critical season for his memory. He had acquired the brightest honours of a soldier, the love and reverence of his country; and he fell in an excursion beyond his strength, from an anxiety to close his life on the rock where he had acquired his fame. He died in the seventy-third year of his age, July 6, 1790, at his chateau at Aix-la-Chapelle, of a second stroke of the palsy, after having enjoyed for some weeks before a tolerable share of good health, and an unusual flow of spirits. Two days before his death, he dined with a friend with whom he was soon after to have travelled to Leghorn in his way to Gibraltar. His remains were brought to Dover from Ostend, in the Race-horse packet, whence they were conveyed to Heathfield in Sussex, and there deposited, in a vault built for that purpose, over which a handsome monument is erected.

Sir Thomas Elyot’s Castle of Health, we are told by the same author, subjected him to various strictures. When some gallants had mocked at him for writing a book of medicine, and said in derision, that he was become a physician, he gave this answer: “Truly, if they call him a physician which is studious about the weal of his country, I vouchsafe they so name me. For, during my life, I will in that affection always continue.” Indeed, sir Thomas’s work exposed him to the censures both of the gentry and the medical faculty. To the former, who alleged that it did not beseem a knight to write upon such a subject, he replied, “that many kings and emperors (whose names he sets down) did not only advance and honour that science with special privileges, but were also studious in it themselves.” He added, “that it was no more shame for a person of quality to be the author of a book on the science of physic, than it was for king Henry the Eighth to publish a book on the science of grammar, which he had lately done.” What offended the physicians was, that sir Thomas should meddle in their department, and particularly that he should treat of medicine in English, to make the knowledge thereof common. But he justified himself by endeavouring to shew, that his work was intended for their benefit. As for those who found fault with him for writing in English, he, on the other hand, blamed them for affecting to keep their art a secret. To such of the college as reflected upon his skill, he represented, that before he was twenty years old, one of the most learned physicians in England read to him the works of Hippocrates, Galen, Oribasius, Paulus Celius, Alexander Trallianus, Pliny, Dioscorides, and Joannicius. To these sir Thomas afterwards added the study of Avicen, Averroes, and many more. Therefore, though he had never been at Montpelier, Padua, or Salerno; yet he said, “that he had found something in physic, by which he had experienced no little profit for his own health.”

On the whole, sir Thomas Elyot was both one of the most learned, and one of the wisest men of his time. Having in the earlier part of his life served his king and country in embassies and public affairs, he devoted his latter years to the writing of such discourses as he hoped would be serviceable in promoting true wisdom and virtue. From his youth he had a great desire after knowledge, and an earnest solicitude to be useful to his countrymen. The books which he most diligently perused, and which he eagerly sought after wherever they could be found, were all the ancient works, whether in Greek or Latin, that treated of moral philosophy, and the right institution of Jife. Strype has produced some examples of the wisdom of our knight in those weighty sentences which often came from his pen.

How he spent his time with the bishop of Cambray, with whom he continued some years, we have no account. bishop, however, was, now his patron, and apparently very fond of him; and he promised him a pension to maintain him at Paris. But the pension, as Erasmus himself relates, was never paid him; so that he was obliged to have recourse to taking pupils, though a thing highly disagreeable to him, purely for support. Many noble English became his pupils, and, among the rest, William Blunt, lord Montjoy, who was afterwards his very good friend and patron. Erasmus tells us, that he lived rather than studied, “vixit verius qnam studuit,” at Paris; for, his patron forgetting the promised pension, he had not only no books to carry on his studies, but even wanted the necessary comforts and conveniences of life. He was forced to take up with bad lodgings and bad diet, which brought on him a fit of illness, and changed his constitution so much for the worse, that, from a very strong one, it continued ever after weak and tender. The plague too was in that city, anl had been for many years; so that he was obliged, after a short stay, to leave it, almost without any of that benefit he might naturally have expected, as the university at that time was famous for theology. Leaving Paris, therefore, in the beginning of 1497 he returned to Cambray, where he was received kindly by the bishop. He spent some days at Bergis with his friend James Battus, by whom he was introduced to the knowledge of Anne Borsala, marchioness of Vere. This noble lady proved a great benefactress to him; and he afterwards, in gratitude, wrote her panegyric. This year he went over to England for the first time, to fulfill a promise which he had made to his noble disciple Montjoy. This noble lord, a man of learning, and patron of learned men, was never easy, it is said, while Erasmus was in England, but when he was in his company. Even after he was married, as Knight relates, he left his family, and went to Oxford, purely to proceed in his studies under the direction of Erasmus. He also gave him the liberty of his house in London, when he was absent; but a surly steward, whom Erasmus, in a letter to Colet, calls Cerberus, prevented his using that privilege often. Making but a short stay in London, he went to Oxford; where he studied in St. Mary’s college, which stood nearly opposite New-Inn hall, and of which there are some few remains still visible. Here he became very intimate with all who had any name for literature: with Colet, Grocyn, Linacer, William Latimer, sir Thomas More, and many others. Under the guidance of these he made a considerable progress in his studies; Colet engaging him in the study of divinity, and Grocyn, Linacer, and Latimer teaching him Greek. Greek literature was then reviving at Oxford; although much opposed by a set of the students, who called themselves Trojans, and, like the elder Cato at Rome, opposed it as a dangerous novelty.

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

The parliament, which met Dec. 14, 1537, appointed him by the title of “John Erskine of Dun, knight and provost of Montrose,” to go to the court of France, as one of the commissioners from Scotland, to witness the young queen’s (Mary) marriage with the dauphin, and to settle the terms of the marriage contract; and on his return he was surprised to find that the reformation was likely to be forwarded by the very means taken to suppress it. An aged priest named Mill, had suffered martyrdom at St. Andrew’s, and in the opinion of archbishop Spottiswood, “the death of this martyr was the death of popery in this realm.” The protestants were now increasing in numbers, and were not a little encouraged by the death of queen Mary of England, and the accession of Elizabeth, whom they knew to be favourable to their cause. The queen regent of Scotland was therefore addressed more boldly than before by the protestant lords, in behalf of the free exercise of their religion, and by Erskine among the rest; but, although his demands and language are said to have been more moderate than the rest, this produced no effect, and a proclamation was issued, requiring the protestant ministers to appear at Stirling, May 10, 1559, and there to be tried for reputed heresy. The protestant lords and other laity determined upon this to accompany and defend their ministers, and much confusion would have immediately ensued, if Mr. Erskine had not obtained a promise from the queen regent, that the ministers should not be tried; and the people were ordered to disperse. No sooner had this been done, than the queen broke her promise, and a civil war followed, for the particulars of which we must refer to the page of history. It may suffice to notice here, that Mr. Erskine occasionally assisted as a temporal baron, but before the war was concluded, he relinquished his armour, and became a preacher, for which by his learning and study of the controversies between the church of Rome and the reformers, he was well qualified. The civil war ended in favour of the prntestant party, by the death of the queen regent in 1560 and a parliament, or convention of the estates was immediately held, who began their proceedings by appointing a committee of lords, barons, and burgesses, to distribute the few protestant ministers whom they then had, to the places where their services were most required. The committee nominated some of them to the chief cities, and as “The first book of Discipline” was now produced, they, agreeably to the plan proposed in that book, nominated five ministers who should act in the capacity of ecclesiastical Supkrintendants. Mr. Erskine was one of these five, and had the superintendency of all ecclesiastical matters in the counties of Angus and Mearus, and from this period Ins usual designation was, “John Erskine of Dun, knight, superintendant of Angus and Mearus.” This was in fact a kind of episcopal authority, conferred for life; but for their conduct the superintendants were accountable to the general assembly of the clergy. Their office was sufficiently laborious, as well as invidious; and we find Mr. Erskine several times applying to be dismissed. In 1569, by virtue of his office, he had to suspend from their offices for their adherence to popery, the principal, sub-principal, and three professors of King’s-college, Aberdeen. In 1577, he had a hand in compiling the “Second Book of Discipline,” or model for the government of a presbyterian church, which still exists; and in other respects he was an active promoter of the reformation as then established, until his death, March 21, 1591, in the eightysecond year of his age. Buchanan, Knox, and Spottiswood, agree in a high character of him; and even queen Mary preferred him as a preacher, because, she said, he “was a mild and sweet natured man, and of true honesty and uprightness.”

, born in 1660, succeeded John, count d'Estrees, his father, in the post of vice-admiral of France, which he filled with great reputation in the maritime parts of the Levant. He bombarded Barcelona and Alicant in 1691, and commanded in 1G97 the fleet at the siege of Barcelona; being appointed in 1701 lieutenant-general of the naval forces of Spain by Philip V. a station which he held together with that of vice-admiral of France, and thus had the command of the Spanish and French fleets. Two years afterwards, in 1703, he was made marshal of France, and took the name of marechal des Cceuvres. This dignity was followed by those of grandee of Spain, and knight of the golden fleece; all which he merited by his heroic but prudent courage. Though the abb de St. Pierre describes him as a man of a capricious temper, he had an excellent disposition, and was capable of strong attachments. The French academy, that of sciences, and that of inscriptions, admitted him of their societies. Amidst the tumultuous occupations of war, he never forgot the cultivation of letters. He died at Paris, Dec, 28, 1737, in the seventy-seventh year of his age, equally lamented by the citizen, the scholar, and the philosopher. He left no issue by his wife, Lucia Felicia de Noailles.

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

In 1713, though forced to act only defensively on the Rhine against the French, who now threatened to overrun the empire, he nevertheless so signalized himself by his vigilance and conduct, that he obliged them to spend one whole summer in taking Landau and Friburg. March 6, 1714, he concluded with marshal Villars, at Rastadt, preliminary articles of a general peace between the empire and France; which were signed by him, as his imperial majesty’s plenipotentiary, Sept. the 27th following, in a solemn treaty of peace, at Baden in Ergau: in which treaty he is entitled “The most high prince and lord Eugene, prince of Savoy and Piedmont, knight of the golden fleece, counsellor of state to his sacred imperial majesty, president of the council of war, lieutenant-general and marshal of the holy Roman empire.” Upon his return to Vienna, he was received with the loudest acclamations of joy by the people, and with the most cordial affection by the emperor, who presented him with a fine sword richly adorned with diamonds. He now seemed to have some respite from the fatigues of war but neither was this to last long: for, though peace was concluded with France, yet war broke out on the side of the Turks, who in 1716 began to make extraordinary preparations. Eugene was sent with the command of the imperial army into Hungary, attacked the Turks in their camp, and obtained a complete victory over them. He took the important fortress of Temeswaer, after the Turks bad been in possession of it 164 years; and next invested Belgrade, which he also took.

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

, the third son of the preceding, was born at Louvain, whence he got the name of Grudius, that city having, according to some authors, been the residence of the ancient Grudius’s. His own merit and the reputation of his father soon raised him to preferment. He was treasurer of the states of Brabant, knight and secretary of the golden fleece, counsellor to the emperor Charles V. and Philip II. king of Spain. Like his father, he had talents for business, and was equally upright and disinterested, making no other use of his influence than to patronize the deserving, especially men of learning. He was much connected with the eminent scholars of his time, with some of whom he appears to have studied at Bologna, in 1533, and these, as well as other learned contemporaries, are mentioned in his poems. Mr. Roscoe notices him as a foreign associate of the Neapolitan academy, but mistakes in stating him to be the father, instead of the brother of Joannes Secundus. He died at Venice, where he happened to be on some affairs concerning the republic, in 1571. His only works are Latin poems, many of which are elegant, although Nicerou seems disposed to undervalue them. They are, 1. “Epigrammata arcuum triumphalium, Valentianis Carolo V. in ejus adventu exhibitorum,” Louvain, 1540. 2. “Apotheosis jjn obitum Maximiliani ab Egmonda, comitis Burani,” ibid 1549. 3. “Negotia, sen poematum piorum libri duo,” Antwerp, 1566, 8vo, and other pieces, a collection of which was printed at Leyden, 1612, 12mo. This contains three books of elegies, three of epigrams, epitaphs, elegies, &c. among the latter are two on the death of his two wives, and elegies on that of Joannes Secundus, his brothers, his father, and other friends.

The kindness and disinterested generosity of Fabricius gained him the esteem of the principal families of Padua, and the republic of Venice built a spacious anatomical amphitheatre, on the front of which his name was inscribed; they also decreed him an annual stipend of a thousand crowns, and the honour of a statue, and created him a knight of St. Mark. But the celebrity which he obtained for the university of Padua by his talents, afforded him a gratification above that which accrued from all those flattering favours.

, one of the most celebrated historians and poets of his nation in the seventeenth century, was born March 18, 1590, at Sonto near Caravilla in Portugal, of a noble family, both by his father’s and mother’s side. His father’s name was Arnador Perez d'Eiro, and his mother’s Louisa Faria, but authors are not agreed in their conjectures why he did not take his father’s name, but preferred Faria, that of his mother, and Sousa, which is thought to have been his grandmother’s name. In his infancy he was very infirm, yet made considerable progress, even when a puny child, in writing, drawing, and painting. At the age of ten, his father sent him to school to learn Latin, in which his proficiency by no means answered his expectations, owing to the boy’s giving the preference to the Portuguese and Spanish poets. These he read incessantly, and composed several pieces in verse and prose in both languages, but he had afterwards the good sense to destroy his premature effusions, as well as to perceive that the Greek and Roman classics are the foundation of a true style, and accordingly he endeavoured to repair his error by a careful study of them. In 1604, when only in his fourteenth year, he was received in the Tank of gentleman into the household of don Gonzalez de Moraes, bishop of Porto, who was his relation, and afterwards made him his secretary; and during his residence with this prelate, which lasted ten years, he applied himself indefatigably to his studies, and composed some works, the best of which was an abridgment of the historians of Portugal, “Epitome de las historias Portuguesas, desde il diluyio hasta el anno 1628,” Madrid, 1628, 4to. In this he has been thought to give rather too much scope to his imagination, and to write more like an orator than a historian. In 1612 he fell in love with a lady of Porto, whom he calls Albania, and who was the subject of some of his poems; but it is doubtful whether this was the lady he married in 1614, some time after he left the bishop’s house, on account of his urging him to go into the church, for which he had no inclination. -He remained at Porto until 1618, when he paid his father a visit at Pombeiro. The year following he went to Madrid, and into the service of Peter Alvarez Pereira, secretary of state, and counsellor to Philip the III. and IV. but Pereira did not live long enough to give him any other proof of his regard than by procuring to be made a knight of the order of Christ in Portugal. In 1628 he returned to Lisbon with his family, but quitted Portugal in 1631, owing to his views of promotion being disappointed. Returning to Madrid, he was chosen secretary to the marquis de Castel Rodrigo, who was about to set out for Rome as ambassador at the papal court. At Rome Faria was received with great respect, and his merit acknowledged; but having an eager passion for study, he visited very few. The pope, Urban VIII. received him very graciously, and conversed familiarly with him on the subject of poetry. One of his courtiers requested Faria to write a poem on the coronation of that pontiff, which we find in the second volume of his poems. In 1634, having some reason to be dissatisfied with his master, the ambassador, he quitted his service, and went to Genoa with a view to return to Spain. The ambassador, piqued at his departure, which probably was not very ceremonious, wrote a partial account of it to the king of Spain, who caused Faria to be arrested at Barcelona. So strict was his confinement, that for more than three months no person had access to him; until Jerome de Villa Nova, the prothonotary of Arragon, inquired into the affair, and made his innocence known to the king. This, however, had no other effect than to procure an order that he should be a prisoner at large in Madrid; although the king at the same time assured him that he was persuaded of his innocence, and would allow him sixty ducats per month for his subsistence. Faria afterwards renewed his solicitations to be allowed to remove to Portugal, but in vain; and his confinement in Madrid, with his studious and sedentary life, brought on, in 1647, a retention of urine, the torture of which he bore with great patience. It occasioned his death, however, on June 3, 1640. He appears to have merited an excellent character, but was too little of a man of the world to make his way in it. A spirit of independence probably produced those obstacles which he met with in his progress; and even his dress and manner, we are told, were rather those of a philosopher than of a courtier. Besides his History of Portugal, already mentioned, and of which the best edition was published in 1730, folio, he Wote, 1. “Noches claras,” a collection of moral and political discourses, Madrid, 1623 and 1626, 2 vols. 12mo. 2. “Fuente de Aganipr, o Rimes varias,” a collection of his poems, in 7 vols. Madrid, 1644, &c. 3. “Commentarios sobra las Lusiadas de Luis de Camoens,” an immense commentary on the Lusiad, ibid. 1639, in 2 vols. folio. He is said to have began it in 1614, and to have bestowed twentyfive years upon it. Some sentiments expressed here had alarmed the Inquisition, and the work was prohibited. He was permitted, however, to defend it, which he did in, 4. * Defensa o Information por'los Commentaries, &c.“Madrid, 1640 or 1645, folio. 5.” Imperio de la China, &e.“and an account of the propagation of religion by the Jeuits, written by Semedo: Faria was only editor of this work, Madrid, 1643, 4to. 6.” Nobiliario del Concle D. Petro de Barcelos,“&c. a translation from the Portuguese, with notes, ibid. 1646, folio. 7.” A Life of Don Martin Bapt. de Lanuza,“grand justiciary of Arragon,” ibid. 1650, 4to. 8. “Asia Portuguesa,” Lisbon, 1666, &c. 3 vols. folio. 9. “Europa Portuguesa,” ibid. 1678, 2 vols. folio. 10. “Africa Portuguesa,” ibid. 1681, folio. Of this we have an English Edition by John Stevens, Lond. 1695, 3 vols. 8vo. 11. “America Portuguesa.” All these" historical and geographical works have been considered as correct and valuable. Faria appears to have published some other pieces of less importance, noticed by Antonio.

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

The ruins of his house at Castre still remaining, shew it to have been alike capacious and strong. It was moate4 round, but the moat is now for the most part filled up. The grand entrance was on the West. The house formed a rectangled parallelogram the south and north sides longer than east and west the stables in front the best rooms on the right hand of the square, under which side is a noble vault, and over it probably the hall. The embattled brick tower at the north west corner is standing, above one hundred feet high; and over one of the windows were carved his arms in the garter as above described, supported by angels, now removed; on one of the doors a saltire engrailed. To it adjoined a dining-parlour, fifty-nine feet long, and twenty-eight broad. East from the castle stood the college, forming three sides of a square larger than the former, with two round towers; the whole converted into barns and stables. The castle moat is said to have communicated with a navigable creek, and in a farm housa north west of the mansion, called the barge-house, is shewn a large arch, capable of receiving a boat of considerable burthen. Weever says he had licence from Henry VI. to build his house castle-wise as a fortification on that side of Yarmouth, to which perhaps relates the licence granted him 1443, 22 Hen. VI. to employ some of the king’s ships to carry materials for building and furnishing one of his mansion-houses. The current tradition is, that this house was erected by a French nobleman, who was taken prisoner by our famous knight, according to the model and architecture of his own castle in France, as the price of his ransom.

Sir John Fastolff had by his will appointed John Paston, esq. eldest son and heir of sir William Paston, the judge, one of his executors; and had given to them all his manors, lands, &c. in trust, to found the college of the seven priests, and seven poor men, in the manor-house at Castre, c. “For the singular trust and love,” says sir John, “that I have to my cousin John Paston before all others, being in every belief that he will execute this my last will.” Edward IV. 1464, for 300 marks, 100 in hand, and the remainder when the foundation takes place, granted John Paston, sen. esq. licence to found the college before mentioned, and his favour and protection against Yelverton, Jenney, and others; but it appears that this John Paston, esq. had entered on this manor of Castre, and was imprisoned in the Fleet of London by Nevill, bishop of Exeter, (on Nov. 3, 1464 ) then chancellor. On his death, in 1466, he left it to his eldest son sir John Paston. July 6, the king granted him a warrant under his hand and privy seal, to take possession of all the lands and inheritance of his late father, or of Agnes his grandmother, or of Margaret his mother, or of William Paston, and Clement Paston, his uncles; also the manor and place of Castre, or of any other estate which his father had, by way of gift, or purchase, of the late sir John Fastolff; which lands had been seized by the king, on evil surmises made to him, against his deceased father, himself and uncles, of all which they were sufficiently, openly, and worshipfully cleared before the king. “So that all yee now being in the said place of Caster, or in any liBihode, late the sir John Paston' s, by way of gift or purchase, of the late sir John Fastolff, that was seized into our hands, avoid the possession of the same, and suffer our truly and well beloved knight, sir John Paston, to enjoy the profits thereof, with all the goods and chattels there, and pay all the issues and profits thereof, as yee did unto his father, at any time in his life.”

As sir John Falstoff’s valour made him a terror in war, his humanity made him a blessing in peace: all we can find in his retirement, being elegant, hospitable, and generous, either as to the places of his abode, or those persons and foundations on which he showered his bounty. At his death he possessed lands and estates in Norfolk, Suffolk, Yorkshire, and Wiltshire. He was a benefactor to both the universities; bequeathing a considerable legacy to Cambridge, for building the schools of philosophy and Jaw, for which the first order under their chancellor Laurence, bishop of Durham, is dated in June 1458; and, at Oxford, he was so bountiful to Magdalen college, through the affection he had for his friend William Wainfleet, the founder thereof two years before, that his name is commemorated in an anniversary speech; and though the particulars of his bounty are not now remembered, because he enfeoffed the said founder in his life-time, yet it is known, that the boar’s head in Southwark, now divided into tenements, yielding one hundred and fifty pounds yearly, together with Caldecot manor in Suffolk, were part of the lands he bestowed thereon; and Lovingland in that county is conceived also to have been another part of his donation. There had been an ancient free chapel of St. John the Baptist in the manor house at Castre, the ancient seat of his family, as early as the reign of Edward I. Sir John intended to have erected a college for seven monks or secular priests (one of whom to be head), and seven poo? men; and to endow it with 120 marks rent charge, out of several manors which he gave or sold to his cousin John Paston, senior, esq. charged with this charity. Mr. Paston laboured to establish this pious foundation till his death, 6 Ed. IV. as did his son sir John Paston, knight, but whether it was ever incorporated and fully settled, bishop Tanner doubts, as there is no farther mention of it in the rolls or the bishop of Norwich’s registry. Only in the valuation, 26 Hen. VIII. there is said to have been in Castrehall a chantry of the foundation of sir John Fastolff, knight, worth tl. 135. 4d. per annum. 6 Ed. IV. from receipts it appears that the priests had in money, besides their diet, 40l. per annum, and the poor men 40$. per annum each. The foundation was certainly not completed till after his decease; for William Worcester, in a letter to Margaret Paston in 1466, tells her he had communed with her son whether it should not be at Cambridge in case it shall not be at Castre, neither at St. Benet’s (in the Holme), and that the bishop of Winchester (Wainflete) was disposed to found a college in Oxford for his sayd mayster to be prayed for, yet with much less cost he might make some other memorial in Cambridge.

His first publication appears to have been, 1. “A prefatory Epistle concerning some Remarks to be published on Homer’s Iliad: occasioned by the proposals of Mr. Pope towards a new English version of that poem, 17 14,” 12mo. It is addressed to Dr. Swift. It would seem to have been his intention to write a kind of moral commentary upon Homer; but, probably for want of encouragement, this never appeared. The first work by which he distinguished himself in any considerable degree, was, 2. “Theologia Speculativa: or the first part of a body of divinity under that title, wherein are explained, the principles of Natural and Revealed Religion, 1718,” folio. This met with a favourable reception from the public: yet when Stackhouse, a man certainly not of much higher talents, afterwards executed a work of a similar nature, he endeavoured to depreciate the labours of his predecessor. Dr. Fiddes’s second part is entitled “Theologia Practica, wherein are explained the duties of Natural and Revealed Religion;” and was published in 1720, folio. The same year also he published in folio, 3. “Fifty-two practical Discourses on several subjects, six of which were never before printed.” These, as well as his Body of Divinity, were published by a subscription, which was liberally encouraged at Oxford. But the work which gained him the most friends, and most enemies, was, 4. “The Life of Cardinal Wolsey, 1724,” in folio, dedicated to the chancellors, vice-chancellors, doctors, and other members of the two universities; and encouraged by a large subscription. This work was attacked with great severity in “The London Journal,” and the author charged him with being a papist; who repelled this accusation in, 5. “An Answer to Britannicus, compiler of the London Journal, 1725,” in two letters; in the first of which he endeavours to obviate the charge of popery; in the second, to show his impartiality in the life of this cardinal. Dr. Knight, in the “Life of Erasmus,” published a little after our author’s death, attacked him in the severest terms, accusing him of speaking irreverently of Erasmus, “probably,” says he, “because he had by his writings favoured the reformation.” Dr. Fiddes, he says, vilifies the reformation, depreciates the instruments of it, and palliates the absurdities of the Romish church. He declares also that the life was written at the solicitation of bishop Atterbury, on the occasion of the dispute in which he was then engaged with archbishop Wake: and that Atterbury supplied him with materials, suggested matter and method, entertained him at his deanery, procured him subscribers, and “laid the whole plan for forming such a life as might blacken the reformation, cast lighter colours upon popery, and even make way for a popish pretender.” Fiddes, indeed, had given occasion for part of this surmise, by saying that “a very learned prelate generously offered to let me compile the life of cardinal Wolsey in his house.” Suspicion was likewise heightened by the eulogium he made on Atterbury, a little before his deprivation. Though it may be difficult to determine how far this author was at the bottom an enemy to the reformation, yet in his Life of Wolsey, his prejudices in favour of the ancient religion are unquestionably strong, and in these he shared with some contemporaries of no inconsiderable fame. Asa collection of facts, however, the work is highly valuable, and he has the merit (whatever that may be esteemed) of placing the life and character of Wolsey in a more just light than any preceding writer. As the munificent founder of Christ church, he could not avoid a certain reverence for Wolsey, nor, if Atterbury assisted him, can we wonder at that prelate’s disposition to think well of so great a benefactor to learning, who would have proved a still greater benefactor, had he not been sacrificed to the avarice and caprice of his royal master.

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

In 1660, came out, under the letters T. F. a collection of poems, entitled “Virtus Rediviva; a Panegyric on the late king Charles the First, of ever blessed memory,” &c, but these not being reprinted in any edition of his “Poems,” Wood will not afiinn them to be FJatman’s. In 1661, was published a piece in prose, entitled “Don Juan Lamberto, or a Comical History of the late Times,” with a wooden cut before it, containing the pictures of giant Desborough with a great club in his right hand, and of Lambert, both leading under the arms the meek knight Richard Cromwell; and this being very successful, a second part was published the same year, vrith the giant Husonio before it, and printed with the second edition of the first. This satirical work has to it the disguised name of Montelion, knight of the oracle; but Wood says, the acquaintance and contemporaries of Flatman always averred him to be the author of it. Montelion' s Almanack came out in 1660, 1661, 1662. The Montelions of the two last years are supposed to be Flatman’s, that of the first was written by Mr. John Philips. It is remarkable, that Flatman, in his younger days had a dislike to marriage, and made a song describing the incumbrances of it, with this beginning “Like a dog with a bottle tied close to his tail, Like a tory in a bog, or a thief in a jail,” &c. But being afterwards, according to Wood, “smitten with a fair virgin, and more with her fortune, he espoused her in 1672; upon which,” says the same author, “his ingenious comrades did serenade him that night with the said song.” He died at his house in Fleet-street, London, in 1688; his father, a clerk in chancery, being then alive, and in his eightieth year. Although of very little value as a poet, he succeeded better as a painter, and as Granger says, one of his heads is worth a ream of his Pindarics.

, lord deputy of Ireland during the usurpation, descended of a good family in Lincolnshire and Staffordshire, was the son of sir William Fleetwood, knt. cup-bearer to James I. and Charles I. and comptroller of Woodstock park. His grandfather, sir William Fleetwood, had been receiver of the court of wards, an office, which in May 1644, was conferred upon the subject of this article, who embarked on the parliamentary side in the beginning of the rebellion. He was next, in May 1644-45, advanced to the rank of colonel of horse, and in Oct. following made governor of Bristol, and knight of the shire for the county of Bucks. In July 1647, he was appointed one of the commissioners of the army for treating with those of the parliament, with relation to the points in dispute between those two bodies, but notwithstanding his zeal for the interests of the former, he was not personally concerned in the death of Charles I. After the establishment of the commonwealth he was raised to the rank of lieutenant-general, and in Feb. 1650-1 chosen a member of the council of state, and Sept. 3 following, had a considerable share in the victory gained at Worcester over king Charles II. Soon after this he was present at the conference held between several members of the parliament and the principal officers of the army, at the speaker’s house, concerning the settlement of the nation, in which he declared that it appeared to him very difficult to determine, whether an absolute republic, or a mixed monarchy, was the most proper form of government to be established; though the soldiers in general discovered themselves to be averse to any thing of monarchy, while every one of them was a monarch in his own regiment or company. The lawyers, however, were, most of them, for a mixed monarchical government.

, or de Fluctibus, an English philosopher, was the son of sir Thomas Fludd, knight, sometime treasurer of war to queen Elizabeth in France and the Low Countries; and was born at Milgate, in the parish of Bearsted, in Kent, in 1574. He was admitted of St. John’s-college, Oxford, in 1591; and having taken both the degrees in arts, applied himself to physic. He then spent six years in travelling through France, Spain, Italy, and Germany: in most of which countries he not only became acquainted with several of the nobility, but read lectures to them. After his return, being in high repute for his chemical knowledge, he accumulated the degrees of bachelor and doctor of physic. This was in 1605; about which time he practised in London, and became fellow of the college of physicians. He did not begin to publish till 1616, but afterwards became a voluminous writer, being the author of about twenty works, mostly written in Latin, and as dark and mysterious in their language, as in their matter. Some of his productions were aimed against Kepler and Mersennus; and he had the honour of replies from both those philosophers. He wrote two books against Mersennus; the first entitled “Sophias cum Moria certamen, in quo lapis Lydius, a falso structore Patre Marino Mersenno Monacho reprobatus, celeberrima voluminis sui Babylonici in Genesim figmenta accuratæ examinat.” Franc. 1629, folio. The second, “Summum Bonorum, quod est verum Magiae, Cabalae, Alchymije, Fratrum Roseug Crucis Verorum, subjectum: in dictarum scientiarum laudem, in insignis calumniatoris Fr. Mar. Mersenni dedecus publicatum, per Joachim. Frizium,” 1629, folio. Mersennus desiring Gassendus to give his judgment on these two books of Fludd against him, that great man drew up an answer divided into three parts: the first of which sifts the principles of Fludd’s whimsical philosophy, as they lie scattered throughout his works the second is against “Sophiae cum Moria certamen” and the third against “Summum Bonorum,” &c. This answer, called “Examen Fluddanae Philosophise,” is dated Feb. 4, 1629, and is printed in the third volume of Gassendus’s works in folio. In the dedication to Merseniius, this antagonist fairly allows Fludd the merit of extensive learning. His other works were: 1. “Utriusque Cosmi, majoris et minoris, Technica Historia,” Oppenheim, 1617, in two volumes foiio. 2. “Tractatus Apologeticus integritatena societatis de Rosea cruce defendens,” Leyden, 1617. 3. “Monochordon mundi symphoniacum, eu Replicatio ad Apologiam Joannis Kepleri,” Francfort, 1620. 4. “Anatomise Theatrum triplici effigie designatum,” ibid. 1623. 5. “Philosophia Sacra et vere Christiana, seu Meteorologia Cosmica,” ibid, 1626. 6, “Mediclna Cathotica, sen, Mysticum artis Medicandi Sacrarium,” ibid. 1626. 7. “Integrum Morborum Mysterium,” ibid. 1631. 8. “De Morborum Signis,” ibid. 1631. These two treatises are a part of the Medicina Catholica. 9. “Clavis Philosophise et Alchyrniae Fluddanse,” ibid. 1633. 10. “Philosophia Mosa'ica,” Goudae, 1638. 11. “Pathologia Daemoniaca,” ibid. 1640.

, an eminent Italian architect, but perhaps more justly celebrated for his knowledge of mechanics, was born at Mili, on the lake of Lugano, in 1543, and came to Rome in his twentieth year, to study architecture. Sixtus V. to whom his merits were known when he was cardinal Montalti, was no sooner raised to the tiara, than he made him his architect. Among other great designs for ornamenting the city of Rome, this pontiff had conceived the project of digging out and re-erecting the famous obelisk, formed of one entire piece of granite, originally from Egypt, which had formerly decorated the circus of Nero, but was now partly buried near the wall of the sacristy of St. Peter’s. For this purpose he called together the ablest artists, engineers, and mathematicians, to consider of the means by which this vast relic of Roman grandeur, which was thirty-six feet high, and weighed above a million of pounds, could be removed, and placed on its pedestal in the front of the piazza of St. Peter’s. The machinery employed by the Egyptians in preparing this obelisk, or of conveying il to Rome, were so forgotten, that even tradition preserved no probable conjecture; but the ingenuity of Fontana was completely successful. He first produced before the pope a model of the machinery to be employed, and demonstrated the practicability of the operation; and having made all the necessary erections, the obelisk was raised and safely transported to the piazza, about 150 yards distance, and placed on its pedestal amidst the acclamations of the astonished populace of Rome, on Sept. 10, 1586, the same day that the duke of Luxembourg, ambassador from Henry IV. made his entry into the city. It is said that Fontana undertook this work with the alternative of losing his head if it did not succeed, and that he had provided horses at every gate at Rome, to aid his escape, in case of any accident. Be this as it may, the pope revyarded him munificently. He created him a knight of the golden spur, gave him titles of nobility, and caused medals to be struck to his honour. To all this he added a pension of 2000 crowns, with reversion to his heirs; 3000 crowns as a gift, and all the materials employed on the undertaking, the value of which was computed at 20,000 crowns. Besides the erection of this obelisk, on which Fontana’s fame chiefly rests, he constructed three others, and built for the pope a superb palace near St. John of Lateran, and the library of the Vatican, and repaired some of the ancient monuments of art in Rome. His forte, indeed, was rather in mechanics than in original architecture, in which last he is said to have committed many mistakes; and either this, or the envy which his great enterprize created, is supposed to have raised him enemies, who at length persuaded pope Clement VIII. to dismiss him from his office of pontifical architect. In 1592, however, he was invited to Naples by the viceroy, the count Miranda, who made him royal architect and chief engineer. In that city he built the royal palace and some other considerable edifices, and died there in 1607. He published an account of the removal of the obelisk, entitled “Delia transportatione dell' Obelisco Vaticano e delle fabriche Sixto V.” Rome, 1590, fol. reprinted at Naples in 1603. He had a brother, John, who assisted him in his works at Rome, but who excelled chiefly in hydraulic machinery. He died at Rome in the year 1614.

His printed works were, besides the occasional sermons already mentioned, “Sermons to Young Women,” 1765, 2 vols. 12mo, “Addresses to Young Men,” 1777, 2 vols. 12mo. “Addresses to the Deity,” 1785, 12mo. A volume of “Poems,” 1786; and some sermons, the most valuable of which is “A charge at the ordination of the rev. James Lindsay,” his successor in Monkwell-street, to whose eloquent and affectionate discourse on his funeral, we are indebted for the principal part of this account. He printed also when at Bath, “A Discourse on Pain,” 1791 remarkable for a certain cure for the cramp, which we dare not transcribe, but of which the original thought seems to be borrowed from Beaumont and Fletcher’s Knight of the burning Pestle, Act 3. Of these works his “Sermons to young Women” were once in high esteem. The novelty of the title, and of the subjects, as coming from the pulpit, made them universally read; but neither in them, nor in the greater part of his other works, do we discover talents that are more than superficial. He was perhaps the first of sentimental preachers, but we question whether that pre-eminence be enviable. He drew largely on his imagination, and by striking allusions, and graceful turns of expression, produced all that eloquence can produce when it is not addressed to the judgment, a temporary persuasion. But he made no additions to our stock of theological knowledge, and, although he appealed in a general way, to the fundamental articles of the Christian belief, he illustrated none of its doctrines. His chief aim in truth seems to have been to refine and polish the language of devotion, and in this it must be confessed he has eminently succeeded.

In April 1463, he embarked with queen Margaret, prince Edward, and many persons of distinction, who followed the fortunes of the house of Lancaster, at Hamburg, and landed at Sluys in Flanders; whence they were conducted to Bruges, thence to Lisle, and thence into Lorrain. lu this exile he remained for many years, retiring from place to place, as the necessities of the royal family required: for though, during that space, the queen and prince were often in motion, and great efforts were made to restore. Henry, yet, considering the age of Fortescue, it is not probable that he was suffered to expose himself to such hazards; especially as he might do them better service by soliciting their interest at different courts. It is certain, that he was not idle; but, observing the excellent understanding of prince Edward, who applied himself wholly to military exercises, and seemed to think of nothing but qualifying himself for an expert commander, he thought it high time to give him other impressions, and to infuse into his mind just notions of the constitution of his country, as well as due respect to its laws; so that, if Providence should favour his designs, he might govern as a king, and not as a tyrant, or a conqueror. With this view 1 as we learn from his introduction, he drew up his famous work, entitled “De Laudibus Legtirn Anglise;” which, though it failed of its primary intention, that hopeful prince being not long after cruelly murdered, will yet remain an everlasting monument of this great and good man’s respect and affection for his country. This very curious and concise vindication of our laws was received with great esteem when it was communicated to the learned of that profession; yet it was not published till the reign of Henry VIII. when it was printed hy Edward Whitchurch, in 16mo, but without a date. In 1516 it was translated by Robert Mulcaster, and printed by R. Tottel, and again in 1567, 1573, and 1575; also by Thomas White in 1598, 1599, and 1609. Fortescue, with HenghamVs “Summa magna et parva,” was likewise printed in 1616 and 1660, 12mo, and again, with Selden’s notes, 1672, 12mo. In 1737 Fortescue was printed in folio; and lastly, in 1775, an English translation with the original Latin, was published in 8vo, with Selden’s notes, and a great variety of remarks relative to the history, antiquities, and laws of England, with a large historical preface by F. Gregor, esq. In 1663, E. Waterhouse, esq. published “Fortescue illustratuV” a commentary on the “De Laudibus,” which, although prolix and defective in style, Mr. Hargrave thinks may be resorted to with great advantage, and may very much facilitate the labours of more judicious and able inquirers. When lord chancellor, sir John is said to have drawn up the statute 2$ Henry VI. “of resumption of certain grants of the crown,” which, though much relied upon by the writers on that subject, is not extant in any present edition of the statutes. The house of Lancaster having afterwards a prospect of retrieving their fortunes, the queen and the prince went over to England, Fortescue with many others accompanying them. They did not succeed, so that this chancellor was forced to reconcile himself as well as he could to the victorious Edward IV.; for which purpose he wrote a kind of apology for his own conduct. Tlws treatise, though it has never been published, Selden had seen; as he tells us in his preface to Fortescue' s book, “L)e Laudibus, <kc.” After all these extraordinary changes of masters and fortunes, he preserved his old principles in regard to the English constitution; as appears from another valuable and learned work, written by him in English, and published in the reign of queen Anne, with this title: “The difference between an absolute and limited monarchy, as it more particularly regards the English constitution: being a treatise written by sir John Fortescue, knight, lord chief justice, and lord high chancellor of England, under king 'Henry VI. Faithfully transcribed from the manuscript copy in the Bodleian library, and collated with three other manuscripts (which were afterwards printed). Published with some remarks by John Fortescue Aland, of the Inner Temple, esq. F. R. S. 1714,” 8vo. There is a manuscript of this work in the Cotton library, in the title of which it is said to be addressed to Henry VI. but many passages in it shew it to have been plainly written in favour of, and for the service of, Edward IV. A second edition, with amendments, was published in 1719, 8vo. As for this author’s other writings, which were pretty numerous, as they were never printed, we know nothing more of them than we learn from the titles, and the commendations bestowed upon them by those who had perused them. They have, however, been carefully preserved in libraries, some of them being still extant under the following titles “Opusculum de natura Legis Naturae, et de ejus censura in successione regnorum supremorum;” “Defensio juris Domus Lancastriae” “Genealogy of the House of Lancaster” “Of the title of the House of York” “Genealogise Ilegum Scotios” “A Dialogue between Understanding and Faith” "A Prayer Book which savours touch of the times we live in,' 1 &c. It would certainly be a gratification, if not a benefit, to the learned world, if his manuscripts were printed; for he was a man of general knowledge, great observation, and his writings would probably throw much light upon the dark parts of our history and antiquities.

, knt. whose ancestors were seated at Narford, in Norfolk, so early as the reign of Henry III. was educated as a commoner of Christchurch, Oxford, under the care of that eminent encourager of literature, Dr. Aldrich. He at the same time studied under Dr. Hickes the Anglo-Saxon language, and its antiquities; of which he published a specimen in Hickes’s “Thesaurus,” under the title of “Numismata Anglo-Saxonica et Anglo-Danica, hreviter illustrataab Andrea Fountaine, eq. aur. & aedis Christi Oxon. alumno. Oxon. 1705,” in which year Mr. Hearne dedicated to him his edition of Justin the historian. He received the honour of knighthood from king William; and travelled over most parts of Europe, where he made a large and valuable collection of pictures, ancient statues, medals, and inscriptions; and, while in Italy, acquired such a knowledge of virtu, that the dealers in antiquities were not able to impose on him. In 1709 his judgment and fancy were exerted in embellishing the “Tale of a Tub” with designs almost equal to the excellent satire they illustrate. At this period he enjoyed the friendship of the most distinguished wits, and of Swift in particular, who repeatedly mentions him in the Journal to Stella in terms of high regard. In December, 1710, when sir Andrew was given, over by his physicians, Swift visited him, foretold his recovery, and rejoiced at it though he humourously says, “I have lost a legacy by his living for he told me he had left me a picture and some books,” &c. Sir Andrew was vice-chamberlain to queen Caroline while princess of Wales, and after she was queen. He was also tutor to prince William, for whom he was installed (as proxy) knight of the Bath, and had on that occasion a patent granted him, dated Jan. 14, 1725, for adding supporters to his arms. Elizabeth his sister, married colone.1 Clent of Knightwick, in Worcestershire. Of his skill and judgment in medals ancient and modern, he made no trifling profit, by furnishing the most considerable cabinets of this kingdom; but if, as Dr. Warton tells us, Annius in the “Dunciad” was meant for him, his traffic was not always of the most honourable kind. In 1727 he was appointed warden of the mint, an office which he held till his death, which happened Sept. 4, 1753. He was buried at Narford, in Norfolk, where he had erected an elegant seat, and formed a fine collection of old china ware, a valuable library, an excellent collection of pictures, coins, and many curious pieces of antiquity. Sir Andrew lost many miniatures by a fire at White’s original chocolate-house, in St. James’s-street, where he had hired two rooms for his collections. A portrait of him, by Mr. Hoare of Bath, is in the collection at Wilton house; and two medals of him are engraved in Snelling’s “English Medals,” 1776. Montfaucon, in the preface to “L'Antiquit6 Explique,” calls sir Andrew Fountaine an able antiquary, and says that, during his stay at Paris, that gentleman furnished him with every piece of antiquity that he had collected, which could be of use to his work; several were accordingly engraved and described, as appears by sir Andrew’s name on the plates.

king of France, surnamed “the Great, and the restorer of learning,” succeeded his father-in-law Louis XII. who died without a son in 1515. Francis I. was the only son of Charles duke of Orleans, constable of AngoulSroe, and born at Cognac, September 12, 1494. Immediately after his coronation he took the title of cluke of Milan, and put himself at the head of a powerful army to assert his right to that duchy. The Swiss, who defended it, opposed his enterprize, and attacked him. near Marignana; but they were cut to pieces in a sanguinary contest, and about 15,000 left dead on the field. The famous Trivulce, who had been engaged in eighteen battles, called this “The battle of the Giants,” and the others “Children’s play.” It was on this occasion that the king desired to be knighted by the famous Bayard. That rank was originally the highest that could be aspired to: princes of the blood were not called monseigneur, nor their wives madaine, till they had been knighted; nor might any one claim that honour, unless he could trace his nobility at least three generations back, both on his father’s and mother’s side, and also bore an unblemished character, especially for military courage and valour. The creation of a knight was attended with few ceremonies, except at some festivals, inwhich case a great number were observed. This institution, which may be traced up to the first race, contributed not a little to polish the minds of the French, by restraining them within the bounds of a benevolent morality. They swore to spare neither life or fortune in defence of religion, in fighting against the infidels, and in protecting the widow, the orphan, and all who were defenceless. By this victory at Marignana, Francis I. became master of the Milanese, which was ceded to him by Maximilian Sforza, who then retired into France. Pope Leo X. alarmed by these conquests, held a conference with the king at Bologna, obtained from him the abolition of the Pragmatic Sanction, and settled the Concordate, which was confirmed the year following in the Latcran council. From that time the kings of France appointed to all consistorial benefices, and the pope received one year’s income upon every change. The treaty of N.oyon was concluded the same year between Charles V. and Francis I. one principal article or' which was the restoration of Navarre. Charles V. on the death of Maximilian I. being elected emperor, 1519, in opposition to Francis, the jealousy which subsisted between those two princes broke out immediately, and kindled a long war, which proved fatal to all Europe. The French, commanded by Andrew de Foix, conquered Navarre in 1520, and lost it again almost directly; they drove the English and Imperialists from Picardy; took Hesdin, Fontarabia, and several other places; but lost Milan and Tournay in 1521. The following year, Odet de Foix, viscount of Lautrec, was defeated at the bloody battle of Bicoque, which was followed by the loss of Cremona, Genoa, and a great part of Italy. Nor did their misfortunes end here. The constable of Bourbon, persecuted by the duchess of Angouleme, joined the emperor 1523, and, being appointed commander of his forces in 1524, defeated admiral Bonevet’s rear at the retreat of Rebec, and retook all the Milanese. He afterwards entered Provence with a powerful army, but was obliged to raise the siege of Marseilles, and retired with loss. Francis I. however, went into Italy, retook Milan, and was going to besiege Pavia; but, having imprudently detached part of his troops to send them to Nappies, he was defeated by the constable de Bpurbon in a bloody battle before Pavia, February 24, 1525, after, having two horses killed under him, and displaying prodigious valour. His greatness of mind never appeared more conspicuously than after this unfortunate engagement. In a letter to his mother he says, “Every thing is lost but honour.” He was conducted as a prisoner to Madrid, and returned the following year, after the treaty which was concluded in that city, January 14, 1526. This treaty, extorted by force, was not fulfilled; the emperor had insisted on the duchy of Burgundy being ceded to him but, when Lannoi went to demand it in his master’s name, he was introduced to anaudience given to the deputies of Burgundy, who declared to the king, that he had no power to give up any province of his kingdom. Upon this the war re-commenced immediately. Francis I. sent forces into Italy, under the command of Lautrec, who rescued Clement VII. and at first gained great adVantages, but perished afterwards, with his army, by sickness. The king, who had been some years a widower, concluded the treaty of Cambray in 1529, by which he engaged to marry Eleanor of Austria, the emperor’s sister; and his two sons, who had been given as hostages, were Ransomed at the king’s return for two millions in gold. The ambition of possessing Milan, caused peace again to be broken. Francis took Savoy in 1535, drove the emperor from Provence in 153G, entered into an alliance with 8olyman II. emperor of the Turks; took Hesdin, and seyeral other places, in 1537, and made a truce of ten years with Charles V. at Nice, 1538, which did not, however, Jast long. The emperor, going to punish the people of Ghent, who had rebelled, obtained a passage through France, by promising Francis the investiture of the duchy of Milan for which of his children he pleased; but. after being received in France with the highest honours in 1539, he was no sooner arrived in Flanders than he refused to keep his promise. This broke the truce; the war was renewed, and carried on with various success on both sides. The king’s troops entered Italy, Roussillorr, and Luxemburg. Francis of Bourbon, comte d‘Enguien, won the battle of Cerizoles in 154*, and took Montferrat. Francis I. gained over to his side Barbarossa, and Gustavus Vasa, Icing of Sweden; while, on the other hand, Henry VIII. of England espoused the interests of Charles V. and took Bologna, ’1544. A peace was at last concluded with he emperor at Cressy, September 18, 1544, and with Henry VIII. June 7, 154fi; but Francis did not long enjoy the tranquillity which this peace procured him; he died at the castle of Rambouillet the last day of March, 1547, aged fifty-three. This prince possessed the most shining qualities: he was witty, mild, magnanimous, generous, and benevolent. The revival of polite literature in Europe was chiefly owing to his care; he patronized the learned, founded the royal college at Paris, furnished a library at Fountainbleau at a great expence, and built several palaces, which he ornamented with pictures, statues, and costly furniture. When dying, he particularly requested his son to dimiuish the taxes which he had been obliged to levy for defraying the expences of the war; and put it in his power to do so, for he left 400,000 crowns of gold in his coffers, with a quarter of his revenues which was then due. It was this sovereign who ordered all public acts to "be written in French. Upon the whole he appears to have been one of the greatest ornaments of the French throne.

, an eminent and ancient French historian and poet, was born in Valenciennes, about 1337. Of his parents we know only that his father, Thomas Froissart, was a painter of arms, and although our historian is titled knight, at the beginning of a manuscript in the abbey of St. Germain des Prez, it is thought that the copyist had given it to him of his own authority. His infancy announced what he would one day be: he early manifested that eager and inquisitive mind, which during the course of his life never allowed him to remain long attached to the same occupations, and in the same place; and the different games suitable to that age, of which he gives us a picture equally curious and amusing, kept up in his mind a fund of natural dissipation, which during his early studies tried the patience and exercised the severity of his masters. He loved hunting, music, assemblies, feasts, dancing, dress, good living, wine and women; these tastes, which almost all shewed themselves from twelve years of age, being confirmed by habit, were continued even to his old age, and perhaps never left him. The mind and heart of Froissart being not yet sufficiently occupied, his love for history filled up that void, which his passion for pleasure left; and became to him an inexhaustible source of amusement.

Almost immediately after this event Froissart found another patron in Guy count de 3lojis, who made him clerk oJ' his chapel; and he testified his gratitude by a pastoral, and epithalamium on a marriage in the family. He passed the years 1385, 1386, and 1387, sometimes in the Blaisois, sometimes in Touraine; but the count de Blois having engaged him to continue his history, which he left unfinished, he determined in 1388 to take advantage of the peace which was just concluded, to visit the court of Gaston Phoebus count de Foix, in order to gain full information in whatever related to foreign countries, and the more distant provinces of the kingdom-. His health and age still allowed him to bear great fatigue; his memory was suifrciently strong to retain whatever he should hear; and his judgment clear enough, to point out to him the use he should make of it. In his journey to the count de Foix, he met on the road with sir Espaing du Lyon, a gallant knight who had served in the wars, and was able to give him much information. At length they arrived at Ortez in Beam, the ordinary residence of the count de Foix, where Froissart met with a society suited to. his views, composed of brave captains who had distinguished themselves in combats or tournaments. Here Froissart used to entertain Gaston, after supper, by reading to him the romance of “Meliador,” which he had brought with him. After a considerable residence at this court, he left it in the suite of the young duchess of Berry, whom he accorupanied to Avignon. His stay here, however, was unfortunate, as he was robbed; which incident he made the subject of a long poem, representing his loss, and his expensive turn. Among other things he says that the composition of his works had cost him 700 francs, but he regretted, not this expence, for he adds, “I have composed many a history which will be spoken of by posterity.”

The time of the death of Froissart has not been decided by his biographers. He relates some events of the year 1400, and by some is thought to have lived considerably beyond that period, but nothing certain can be affirmed. He probably ended his days ii> his own chapter, and was interred in tlje chapel of St. Anne in the coHegiate church. Although he was the author of 30,000 verses, his poetical character is forgotten, and he is now celebrated, and most justly, as a historian. His Chronicle, which is divided into four books, comprehends the period between 1326 and 1400, and relates the events which took place not only hi France, btrt in Flanders, Scotland, and Ireland, with numerous details respecting the papal courts of Rome and Avignon, and collateral particulars of the transactions in the rest of Europe, in Turkey, and even in Africa. His reputation stands high as a faithful and diligent narrator of what he saw and heard. By the French he has been charged with gross partiality towards the English; they bring against him the crime of making Edward, and his son, the Black Prince, the heroes of his history. But it tfannot be denied that they were the heroes of the age in which they flourished, and therefore an impartial historian was obliged to represent them in their true colours, and to make them the teading characters of the day. Mr. Johnes-, to whom the public is indebted for an admirable edition of Froissart’s Chronicles, has successfully vindicated the character of the historian from the charge of partiaFrty: throughout the whole work, he says, there is an evident disposition to give praise to valour on whatever side it was employed. The historian mourns over the death of each valiant knight, exults in the success of every hardy enterprize, and seems carried away almost by his chivalrous feelings, independently of party considerations. Till the publication of Mr. Johnes’s translation, the best edition of the “Chronicles” was that of Lyons in four volumes folio, 1559; and Mr. Johnes has since gratified the public wish by an equally accurate and well illustrated edition of Froissart’s continuator, Monstrelet.

, a learned English divine and critic, was born at Southampton in 1557, and educated at the free-school in that town. He did not go directly thence to the university, but was taken into the family of the bishop of Winchester, Dr. Robert Home; where spending some time in study, he was made at length his secretary, and afterwards continued in that office by his successor, Dr. Watson. But Watson dying also in about three years, Fuller returned home, with a resolution to follow his studies. Before he was gettled there, he was invited to be tutor to the sons of a knight in Hampshire, whom he accompanied to St. John’s college, Oxford, in 1584. His pupils leaving him in a little time, he removed himself to Hart- hall, where he took both the degrees in arts, and then retired into the country. He afterwards took order*, and was presented to the rectory of Aldington, or Ailington, near Amesbury, in Wiltshire. He afterwards became a prebendary in the church of Salisbury*, and rector of Bisbop’s-Waltham, in Hampshire. He died in 1622. He was extremely learned in the sacred tongues, and, as Wood quaintly says, “was so happy in pitching upon useful difficulties, tending to the understanding of the Scripture, that he surpassed all the critics of his time.” His “Miscellanea Theologica,” in four books, were published first at Heidelberg, 1612, 8vo, and afterwards at Oxford, in 1616, and at London, in 1617, 4 to. These miscellanies coming into the hands of John Drusius, in Holland, he charged Fuller with plagiarism, and with taking his best notes from him without any acknowledgment. But Fuller, knowing himself guiltless, as having never seen Drusius’s works, published a vindication of himself at Leyden, in 1622, together with two more books of “Miscellanea Sacra,” Leyden and Strasburgh, 1650, 4to. All these miscellanies are printed in the 9th volume of the Critici Sacri,“and dispersed throughout Pool’s” Synopsis Griticorum.“There are some manuscript* of Fuller in the Bodleian library at Oxford, which shew his great skill in Hebrew and in philological learning; as” An Exposition of rabbi Mordecai Nathan’s Hebrew Roots, with notes upon it,“and” A Lexicon," which he intended to have published with the preceding.

, an eminent royal architect of France, built the palace at Choisy, and undertook the royal bridge at Paris, but died in 1686, before he had completed this work, which was finished by his son James and Frere Romain. James was born at Paris 1667, became a pupil of the celebrated Mansart, and acquired so great a reputation as to be appointed overseer- general of buildings, gardens, arts and manufactures first architect and engineer of bridges and banks through the kingdom, and knight of St. Michael. He planned the common sewer, and many public buildings, among which are the hotel de Ville, and the presidial court of Paris, &c. He died in that city 1742, leaving a son, first architect to the king, who long supported the reputation of his ancestors, and died in 1782.

It was after this period, in going to Italy to engage performers, that he obtained his title at Rome of the pope, who made him “Cavaliere del speron d'Oro,” knight of the golden spur, the only order which his holiness has to bestow. But lord Kenyon, when his title was introduced in court on a trial, refused to acknowledge it, and treated the assumption with indignation and contempt. Sir John, however, continued to retain it, and was abetted by the public.

Although he was extremely worldly, dextrous at a bargain, and cautious in his dealings with mankind, he became an unfortunate projector in his attempt at a rapid increase of his property. The rooms in Hanover-square, we believe, were very productive, as he let every floor and every room, not only to concerts, balls, and assemblies, but to exhibitions, lectures, and lodgers of all kinds, scarcely allowing himself a habitable apartment for his own residence. When the opera house was burned down in 1789, he advanced 30,000l. towards rebuilding it, and sent an architect to Italy to procure plans of all the great theatres of that country, out of which to choose the most eligible for the new construction; but it has been generally believed, that by some jumble of clashing interests, or chicane of law, the management was taken out of his hands, and he not only lost his power but his money. While the great theatre in the Hay market was rebuilding, sir John fitted up the opposite little theatre as a temporary opera house, but it was so small and inconvenient, that it could not contain an audience sufficient to cover his expences. The next year the Pantheon was transformed into an opera house before that in the Haymarket was finished; and the unfortunate knight of the golden spur, tired of the squabbles and accidents which happened previous to the opening of his new theatre, sold his patent, and afterwards wholly confined himself to the produce of his Hanoversquare rooms, and the exercise of his profession as a dancjng-master, to the end of his life.

, a physician at Caen, but a native of Paris, received his degree before the age of twenty, and came over to England, where he abjured the Roman catholic religion. He was incorporated in the university of Oxford on the 10th of March, 1657, and having settled in London, was appointed physician to the French ambassador: but fortune was altogether adverse to him, and he died overwhelmed with poverty and distress, in some part of Westminster, occasioned, as Wood says, “by the ill usage of a certain knight,” whose name, however, he does not mention, nor the time of our author’s death.He was a man of some science, as his works evince. They consist of a treatise, in English, on the nature and properties of the tincture of coral, printed in 1676, in 12iuo; and another in Latin, entitled “Angiiae Flagellum, seu, Tabes Anglica numeris omnibus absolute,” 1647, in iSmo. He also translated into English, “The true Prophecies or Prognostics of Michael Nostradamus, physician to Henry II. Francis II. and Charles IX. kings of France,” 1672, folio.

Without blaming his father, farther than by calling his disinheritance “a froward deed,” he now resolved to assume the airs of independence, in hopes that his courtly friends would render him in reality independent; but he soon found that their favours were not to be obtained without solicitations incompatible with a proud spirit. A more honourable resource then presented itself. William prince of Orange was at this time endeavouring to emancipate the Netherlands from the tyranny of the Spanish monarch, and Gascoigne, prompted by the hope of gaining laurels in a field digntfied by patriotic bravery, embarked on the 19th of March, 1572, for Holland. The vessel being under the guidance of a drunken Dutch pilot, was run aground, and twenty of the crew who had taken to the long-boat were drowned. Gascoigne, however, and his friends remained at the pumps, and being enabled again to put to sea, landed safe in Holland, where, having obtained a captain’s commission under the prince of Orange, he acquired considerable military reputation, but an unfortunate quarrel with his colonel retarded his career. Conscious of his deserts, he repaired immediately to Delf, and resolved to resign his commission to the hands from which he received it; the prince in vain endeavouring to close the breach between his officers. During this negociation a circumstance occurred which had nearly- cost our poet his life. A lady at the Hague (then in the possession of the enemy) with whom Gascoigne had been on intimate terms, had his portrait in her hands, and resolving to part with it to himself alone, wrote a letter to him on the subject, which fell into the hands of his enemies in the camp; from this paper they meant to have raised a report unfavourable to his loyalty: but upon its reaching his hands, Gascoigne, conscious of his fidelity, laid it immediately before the prince, who saw through their design, and gave him passports for visiting the lady at the Hague: the burghers, however, watched his motions with malicious caution, and he was cabled in derision “the Green Knight.” Although disgusted with the ingratitude of those on whose side he fought, Gascoigne still retained his commission, till the prince coming personally to the siege of Middleburg, gave him an opportunity of displaying his zeal and courage, and rewarded him with 300 gilders beyond his regular pay, and a promise of future promotion. He was, however, surprised soon after by 3000 Spaniards, when commanding, under captain Sheffield, 500 Englishmen lately landed, but retired in good order at night, under the walls of Leyden; the jealousy of the Dutch was then displayed by their refusing to open their gates, and Gascoigne with his band were in consequence made captives. At the expiration of twelve days his men were released, and the officers after an imprisonment of four months, were sent back to England.

, a Swedish naturalist, and called the Reaumur of that nation, was born in 1720, and after being educated in classical learning at Utrecht, studied tinder Linnæus at Upsal. Having an interest in the mines of Dannemora, he greatly improved the working of them by machinery of his own invention; and the improvements which he at the same time introduced in the cultivation of his estates procured him a very large fortune, which he expended in acts of munificence, such as endowing schools, repairing churches, and making provision for the poor. His opulence and reputation raised him to the honours of chamberlain, marshal of the court, knight of the order of Vasa, &c. a member of the academy of Stockholm, and at corresponding member of that of Paris. He died irt March 1778. His studies in natural history produced his “Memoires pour servir a Pbistoire des Insectes,” 7 vols. generally bound in 9, 4to, illustrated with valuable and accurate engravings. The first volume of this work is extremely rare, for which a singular reason has been assigned. The author, it is said, was so hurt at the indifferent reception the public gave to it, as to commit to the flames the unsold copies, which made by far the greater part of the impression. Nor, when he recovered fromthis caprice, and pursued his undertaking, did he forget the fate of his first attempt, as he announced that the last volume would be given gratis to the purchasers of the first.

, a brave officer and navigator, was born in 1539, in Devonshire, of an ancient family, and though a second son, inherited a considerable fortune from his father. He was educated at Eton, and afterwards at Oxford, but is not mentioned by Wood, and probably did not remain long there. His destination was the law, for which purpose he was to have been sent to finish his studies in the Temple; but being introduced at court by his aunt, Mrs. Catherine Ashley, then in the queen’s service, he was encouraged to embrace a military life. Having distinguished himself in several expeditions, particularly in that to Newhaven, in 1563, he was sent over to Ireland to assist in suppressing a rebellion excited by James Fitzmorris; and for his signal services he was made commander in chief and governor of Munster, and knighted by the lord-deputy, sir Henry Sidney, on Jan. 1, 1570, and not by queen Elizabeth in 1577, as Prince asserts. He returned soon after to England, where he married a rich heiress. In 1572 he sailed with a squadron of nine ships, to reinforce colonel Morgan, who at that time meditated the recovery of Flushing; and when he came home he published in 1576, his “Discourse to prove a passage by the North-west to Cathaia, and the East Indies,” Lond. This treatise, which is a masterly performance, is preserved in Hakluyt’s Voyages. The style is superior to most writers of that age, and shows the author to have been a man of considerable reading. The celebrated Frobisher sailed the same year, probably in consequence of this publication. In 1578, sir Humphrey obtained from the queen a very ample patent, empowering him to discover and possess in North America any lands then unsettled. He accordingly sailed to Newfoundland, but soon returned to England without success; yet, in 1583, he embarked a second time with five ships, the largest of which put back on occasion of a contagious distemper on board. Gilbert landed at Newfoundland, Aug. 3, and two days after took possession of the harbour of St. John’s. By virtue of his patent he granted leases to several people; but though none of them remained there at that time, they settled afterwards in consequence of these leases, so that sir Humphrey deserves to be remembered as the real founder of our American possessions. His half-brother, sir Walter Raleigh, was a joint adventurer on this expedition, and upon sir Humphrey’s death took out a patent of the same nature, and sailed to Virginia. On the 20th August in the above year (1583), sir Humphrey put to sea again, on board of a small sloop, for the purpose of exploring the coast. After this he steered homeward in the midst of a tempestuous sea, and on the 9th of September, when his small bark was in the utmost danger of foundering, he was seen by the crew of the other ship sitting in the stern of the vessel, with a book in his hand, and was heard to cry out, “Courage, my lads! we are as sear heaven at sea as at land.” About midnight the bark was swallowed up by the ocean; the gallant knight and all his men perished with her. He was a man of quick parts, a brave soldier, a good mathematician, and of a very enterprizing genius. He was also remarkable for his eloquent and patriotic speeches both in the English and Irish parliaments. At the close of the work above-mentioned, he speaks of another treatise “On Navigation,” which he intended to publish, but which is probably lost.

, son and successor to his father, the subject of the preceding article, was born in London, in 1597, and entered of Trinity college, Oxford, in 1612, on an exhibition from the Mercers’ company. When he had taken his master’s degree, he became usher under his father in St. Paul’s school, and under Thomas Farnaby, in his private school, but succeeded his father in 1635, and next year took the degree of D. D. He held the school only five years, being dismissed, as Knight thinks, for excessive severity. An allowance, however, was made to him of 25l. yearly, with which he set up a private school in Aldersgate-street, where he died in 1642, and was buried in the church of St. Botolph, Aldersgate. Wood speaks of his “unsettled and inconstant temper,” and of his “many changes, rambles, and some imprisonments,” but upon what account he does not inform us. Some light, however, is thrown upon the circumstance of imprisonments at least, in a late publication of Aubrey’s Lives. In his account of Chillingworth he says, “Dr. Gill, films doctorisGill, schoolmaster of Paules school, and Chillingworth, held weekely intelligence one with another for some years, wherein they used to nibble at state-matters. Dr. Gill, in one of his letters, calls king James and his sonne, the old foole and the young one, which letter Chillingworth communicated to W. Laud, A. B. Cant. The poore young Dr. Gill was seised, and a terrible storme pointed towards him, which by the eloquent intercession and advocation of Edward earle of Dorset, together with the teares of the poore old doctor, his father, and supplication on his knees to his majestic, was blowne over.” Most of his Latin poetry, in which he excelled, is published in a volume entitled “Poetici Conatus,” 1632, 12mo, but he has other pieces extant both in Latin and English, some of which are enumerated by Wood, who had seen others in manuscript. When usher of St. Paul’s school, he had the honour of having Milton under him, who was his favourite scholar. Three of Milton’s familiar Latin letters to him are extant, replete with the strongest testimonies of esteem and friendship. Milton also pays him high compliments on the excellence of his Latin poetry. He gave to the library of Trinity college the old folio edition of Spenser’s “Faerie Queene,” Brayton’s “Polyolbion,” by Selden; and Bourdelotius’s “Lucian,” all having poetical mottos from the classics in his own hand-writing, which shew his taste and track of reading; and in the “Lucian” are the arms of the Gills elegantly tricked with a pen, and coloured by him. He had two brothers, George and Nathaniel, who were both of the same college.

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

, one of the few poets who flourished in the first periods of our poetical history, is supposed to have been born before Chaucer, but of what family, or in what part of the kingdom is uncertain. Leland was informed that he was of the ancient family of the Gowers of Stitenham, in Yorkshire, and succeeding biographers appear to have taken for granted what that eminent antiquary gives only as a report. Other particulars from Leland are yet more doubtful, as that he was a knight and some time chief justice of the common pleas; but no information respecting any judge of that name can be collected either in the reign of Edward II. during which he is said to have been on the bench, or afterwards. Weever asserts that he was of a Kentish family and, in Caxton’s edition of the “Confessio Amantis,” he is said to have been a native of Wales.

The only other circumstances of his history are, that he was esteemed a man of great learning, and lived and died in affluence. That he possessed a munificent spirit, we have a most decisive proof in his contributing largely, if not entirely, to the rebuilding of the conventual church of St. Mary Overy, or, as it is now called, St. Saviour’s church, Southwark, and he afterwards founded a chauntry in the chapel of St. John, now used as a vestry. He appears to have lost his sight in the first year of Henry IV. and did not long survive this misfortune, dying at an advanced age in 1402. He was interred in St. Saviour’s church, and a monument was afterwards erected to his memory, which, although it has suffered by dilapidations and injudicious repairs, still retains a considerable portion of antique magnificence. It is of the gothic style, covered with three arches, the roof within springing into many angles, under which lies the statue of the deceased, in a long purple gown on his head a coronet of roses, resting on three volumes entitled Vox Clamantis, Speculum Meditantis, and Confessio Amantis. His dress has given rise to some of those conjectures respecting his history which cannot now be determined, as his being a knight, a judge, &c.

, a learned lawyer, was born at Delft in 1600. He wrote various works upon legal and political subjects, by which he acquired a considerable reputation. Among these are “Libertas Veneta, seu Venetorurn in se et suos imperandi Jus.” This was published in 1634, and in 1644 he defended the republic of Venice, in a dispute with the duke of Savoy concerning precedence; for which service, that republic created him a knight of St. Mark. He had also before this, attempted to confute Buchanan’s treatise “De Jure Majestatis,” in a work dedicated to Christina, queen of Sweden, who was known to be a great assertor of regal privileges. Grasswinkel defended the liberty of the seas against Selden, and Burgus, a native of Genoa, in his work “Maris Liberi Vindiciae,” and with so much judgment, in their opinion, that the States of Holland gave him a pension of 500 florins, with the title of Advocate-general of the marine, until an opportunity offered of rewarding his merit with a more honourable employment; which was afterwards that of advocate of the exchequer, and register and secretary of the chambre-mi-partie. He was author, likewise, of a treatise in two volumes, 4to, “On the Sovereignty of the States of Holland.” He died of an apoplexy at Mechlin, Oct. 12, 1666.

, an English divine and miscellaneous writer, was a younger son of Richard Graves, esq. of Mickleton, in Gloucestershire, where he was born in 1715. His father, who was an able antiquary, died in 1729. His son, Richard, was educated partly at home, under the rev. Mr.Smith, curate of the parish in which his father resided, and partly at a public school at Abingdon, in Berkshire, whence, at the age of sixteen, he was chosen a scholar of Pembroke college, Oxford. Soon after his arrival he joined a party of young men who met in the evening to read Epictetus, Theophrastus, and other Greek authors, seldom read at schools; and a short time after became the associate of his contemporaries, Shenstone the poet, and Anthony Whistler, who used to meet to read poetry, plays, and other light works. In 1736 he was elected a fellow of All Souls college, where he acquired the particular intimacy of sir William Blackstone; but instead of pursuing the study of divinity, according to his original intention, he now devoted his attention to physic, and attended in London two courses of anatomy. A severe illness, however, induced him to resume the study of divinity, and in 1740, after taking his master’s degree, he entered into holy orders. About the same time he removed with Mr. Fitzherbert, fatlier of lord St. Helen’s, to the estate of that gentleman at Tissington, in Derbyshire, where he remained three years enjoying in his house the highest pleasures of refined society. At the end of that period, he set off‘ to make the tour of the north, and while at Scarborough, accidentally met with a distant relation, Dr. Samuel Knight, archdeacon of Berkshire, and the author of the Lives of Colet and Erasmus, by whose recommendation he obtained a curacy near Oxford. This was particularly gratifying to Mr. Graves, who was then coming, by turn, into office in the college, and had been for some time desirous of procuring such a situation. He immediately took possession of his curacy, but as the parsonage-house was out of repair, he took a lodging with a gentleman -farmer in the neighbourhood. The attractions of the farmer’s youngest daughter made such a powerful impression on the heart of Mr. Graves that he resigned his fellowship and married her. After residing about two years on his curacy, he was presented by Mr. Skrine to the rectory of Claverton, where he went to reside in 1750, and till his death, was never absent from it a month at a time. As the narrowness of his circumstances obliged him to superintend in person the education of his children, he likewise -resolved to take other pupils under his tuition; and this practice he continued, with great credit to himself, upwards of thirty years. In 1763, through the interest of Ralph Allen, esq. of Prior-Park, he was presented to the living of Kilmersdon, in addition to tbat of Claverton, and that gentleman likewise procured him the appointment of chaplain to lady Chatham. His conversation was rendered highly agreeable by that epigrammatic turn which points his writings of the lighter kind. His constant good humour rendered him an acceptable companion in every society, his colloquial impromptus being frequently as happy as the jeux d’e^prit of his pen, while both were invariably the unmeditated effusions of a sportive fancy and guileless heart. He died at Claverton, Nov. 23, 1804, at the advanced age of ninety.

, descended of an ancient family distinguished by many honourable persons, which took its name from a town so called in Norfolk, was the younger son of sir Richard Gresham, knight, alderman, sheriff, and lord mayor of London, an opulent merchant, and a man of great public spirit, who died in February 1548. His brother, sir John Gresham, was also an opulent merchant, and had served the offices of alderman, sheriff, and lord mayor. He died of a pestilential fever in 1556, after, among other acts of munificence, endowing the free school of Holt in Norfolk, and bestowing the government of it on the fishmongers’ company in London. Thomas, the son of the preceding sir Richard, was born in 1519 at London, and bound apprentice to a mercer there while he was young: but, to enlarge his mind by an education suitable to his birth and fortune, was sent to Caius college, then Gonvil-hall, in Cambridge; where he remained a considerable time, and made such improvements in learning, that Caius the founder of the college styles him “doctissimus mercator,” the very learned merchant. However, the profits of trade were then so great, and such large estates had been raised by it in his own family, that he afterwards engaged in it, and was admitted a member of the Mercers’ company in 1543. About this time he warned Anne, the daughter of William Femley, esq. of West Creting, in Suffolk, und widow of William Heade, of Fulham, in Middlesex, esq., by whom he had a son named Richard, who not long after succeeded his father in the office of agent to king Edward for taking up money of the merchants at Antwerp, and removed to that city with his family in 1551.

Having thus settled his affairs so much to his own honour, the interest of the public, and the regards due to his family, he was at leisure to reap the fruits of his industry and success. But he did not long enjoy this felicity, for Nov. 21, 1579, coming from the exchange to his house in Bishopsgate-street, he suddenly fell down in his kitchen, became speechless, and presently died. He was buried in his own parish church of St. Helen’s. His obsequies were performed in a very solemn manner, the corpse being attended by 100 poor men, and the like number of poor women, whom he had ordered to be cloathed in black gowns of 5s. 8d. per yard at his own expence. The charges of the funeral amounted to 800. His corpse was deposited in a vault at the north-east corner of the church, which he had before provided for himself and family, with a curious marble tomb over it; on the south and west sides of which are his own arms, and on the north and east the same impaled with those of his lady. The arms of sir Thomas, together with the City of London and Mercers company, are likewise painted in the glass of the east window of the church, above the tomb, which stood as he left it without any inscription, till 1736, when the following words, taken from the parish register, were cut on the stone that covers it, by order of the church-wardens: “Sir Thomas Gresham, knight, was buried December 15, 1579.” By his death many large estates in several counties of England, amounting at that time to the clear yearly value of 2300l. and upwards, came to his lady, who survived him many years, and continued to reside after his decease in the mansionhouse at London, in the winter, and at Osterley-park in the summer season, at which last place she died Nov. 23, 1596, very aged. Her corpse was brought to London, and buried in the same vault with her husband.

During his excursions abroad, his royal mistress granted him the reversion of two of the best offices in the court of the marches of Wales, one of which falling to him in 1580, he met with some difficulties about the profits. In this contest he experienced the friendship of sir Philip Sidney, who by a letter written to his father’s secretary, Mr. Molyneux, April 10, 1581, prevailed on him not to oppose his cousin Greville' s title in any part or construction of his patents; and a letter of sir Francis Walsingham to the president, the next day, April 11, put an end to the opposition that had been made from another quarter. This office appears to be clerk of the signet to the council of Wales, which is said to have brought him in yearly above 2000l. arising chiefly from the processes which went out of that court, all of which are made out by that officer. He was also constituted secretary for South and North Wales by the queen’s letters patent, bearing date April 25, 1583. In the midst of these civil employments he made a conspicuous figure when the French ambassadors, accompanied by great numbers of their nobility, were in England a second time to treat of the queen’s marriage with the duke of Anjou, in 1581. Tilts and tournaments were the courtly entertainments in those days; and they were performed in the most magnificent manner on this occasion by two noblemen, beside sir Philip Sidney and Fulk Greville, who with the rest behaved so bravely as to win the reputation of a most gallant knight. In 1586 these two friends were separated by the unfortunate death of the former, who be* queathed to his dear friend one moiety of his books.

, LL. D. an English divine, and miscellaneous writer, was of a Yorkshire family, originally from France. He was born in 1687, and was admitted a pensioner in Jesus college, Cambridge, April 18, 1704, but afterwards removed to Trinity-ball, where he was admitted scholar of the house, Jan. 6, 1706-7; LL. B. 1709 LL. D. 1720; and though he was never fellow of that college, he was elected one of the trustees for Mr. Ayloffe’s benefaction to it. He was rector of Houghton Conquest in Bedfordshire: and vicar of St. Peter’s and St. Giles’s parishes in Cambridge, where he usually passed the winter, and the rest of his time at Ampthill, the neighbouring market-town to his living. He died Nov. 25, 1766, at Ampthill, and was buried at Houghton Conquest. Very little of his history has descended to us. How he spent his life will appear by a list of his works. He is said to have been of a most amiable, sweet, and communicative disposition; most friendly to his acquaintance, and never better pleased than when performing acts of friendship and benevolence. Being in the commission of the peace, and a man of reputable character, he was much courted for his interest in elections. He was not, however, very active on those occasions, preferring literary retirement. His works were, 1. “A Vindication of the Church of England, in answer to Mr. Pearce’s Vindication of the Dis^ senters; by a Presbyter of the Church of England.” 1720, 8vo. 2. “Presbyterian Prejudice displayed,” 1722, 8vo. 3. “A pair of clean Shoes and Boots for a Dirty Baronet; or an answer to Sir Richard Cox,” 1722. 4. “The Knight of Dumbleton foiled at his own weapons, &c. In a Letter to Sir Richard Cocks, knt. By a Gentleman and no Knight,” 1723. 5. “A Century of eminent Presbyterians: or a Collection of Choice Sayings, from the public sermons before the two houses, from Nov. 1641 to Jan. 31, 1648, the day after the king was beheaded. By a Lover of Episcopacy,” 1723, 6. “A Letter of Thanks to Mr. Benjamin Bennet,” 1723. This Bennet published “A memorial of the Reformation,” full of gross prejudices against the established church, and “A defence of it.” 7. “A Caveat against Mr. Benj. Bennet, a mere pretender to history and criticism. By a lover of history,” 1724, 8vo. 8. “A Defence of our ancient and modern Historians against the frivolous cavils of a late pretender to. Critical History, in which the false quotations smd unjust inferences of the anonymous author are confuted and exposed in the manner they deserve, la two parts,” 1725, 4vo. In reply, Oldmixon, the critical historian alluded to, published “A Review of Dr. Zachary Grey’s Defence of our ancient and modern historians. Wherein, instead of dwelling upon his frivolous cavils, false quotations, unjust inferences, &c it is proved (to his glory be it spoken) that there is not a book in the English tongue, which contains so many falsehoods in so many pages. Nori vitiosus homo es, Zachary, sed vitium. By the author,” &c. y. “An Appendix by way of Answer to the Critical Historian’s Review,” 1725. 10. * f A Looking-glass for Fanatics, or the true picture of Fanaticism; by a gentleman of the university of Cambridge,“1725. 11.” The Ministry of the Dissenters proved to be null and void from Scripture and antiquity,“1725. 12. In 1732 he wrote a preface to his relation dean Moss’s sermons,” by a learned hand.“Mr. Masters in his history of C. C. C. C. ascribes this to Dr. Snape, who might perhaps have been editor of the sermons, but it was written by Dr. Grey. 13.” The spirit of Infidelity detected, in answer to Barbeyrac, with a defence of Dr. Waterland,“1735, 8vo. 14.” English Presbyterian eloquence. By an admirer of monarchy and episcopacy,“1736, 8vo. 15.” Examination of Dr. Chandler’s History of Persecution,“1736, 8vo. 16.” The true picture of Quakerism,“1736. 17.” Caveat against the Dissenters,“1736, 8vo. 18.” An impartial Examination of the second volume of Mr. Daniel Neal’s History of the Puritans,“1736, 8vo. The first volume of Neal had been examined by Dr. Madox, assisted in some degree by Dr. Grey, who published his examination of the third volume in 1737, and that of the fourth in 1739. J 9.” An examination of the fourteenth chapter of Sir Isaac Newton’s Observations upon the prophecies of Daniel,“1736, 8vo. This is in answer to sir Isaac’s notion of the rise of Saintworship. 20.” An attempt towards the character of the Royal Martyr, king Charles I.; from authentic vouchers,“1738. 21.” Schismatics delineated from authentic vouchers, in reply to Neal, with Dowsing' s Journal, &c. By Philalethes Cantabrigiensis,“1739, 8vo. 22.” The Quakers and Methodists compared,“&c. 1740. 23.” A Review of Mr. Daniel Neil’s History of the Puritans, with a Postscript. In a letter to Mr. David Jennings;“a pamphlet, Cambridge, 174-4. 24.” Hudibras with large annotations, and a prelate,“&c. 1744, 2 vols. 8vo. 2b.” A serious address to Lay Methodists: by a sincere Protestant,“1745, 8vo. 27.” Popery in its proper colours, with a list of Saints invocated in England before the Reformation,“17, 8vo. 28,” Remarks upon a late edition of Shakspeare, with a long string of emendations borrowed by the celebrated editor from the Oxford edition without acknowledgement. To which is prefixed, a Defence of the late sir Thomas Hanmer, bart. addressed to the rev. Mr. Warburton, preacher of Lincoln’s-Inn,“8vo, no date, but about 1745. 29.” A word or two of Advice to William Warburton, a dealer in many words; by a friend. With an Appendix, containing a taste of William’s Spirit of Railing,“1746, 8vo. 30.” A free and familiar Letter to that great refiner of Pope and Shakspeare, the rev. William Warburton, preacher at Lincoln’s-Inn. With Remarks upon the epistle of friend W. E. (query if not T. E. i. e. Thomas Edwards). In which his unhandsome treatment of this celebrated writer is exposed in the manner it deserves. By a Country Curate,“1750, 8vo, 31.” A Supplement to Hudibras,“1752, 8vo. 32.” Critical, historical, and explanatory notes on Shakspeare, with emendations on the text and metre,“1755, 2 vols. 8vo. 33.” Chronological account of Earthquakes,“1757, 8vo. In 1756 he assisted iVIr. Whalley in his edition of Shakspeare; he had also contributed to Mr. Peck’s” Desiderata,“and” Life of Cromwell," and collected some materials for a Life of Baker, the Cambridge antiquary, which were afterwards enlarged and published by the rev. Robert Masters. Dr. Grey left some other Mss. and a collection of letters, now in Mr. Nichols’s possession.

, a man eminently learned in his day> and one of the revivers of literature, was born at Bristol in 1442, and educated at Winchester-school. He was elected thence to New college, Oxford, in 1467; and in 1479, presented by the warden and fellows to the rectory of Newton-Longville, in Buckinghamshire. But his residence being mostly at Oxford, the society of Magdalen college made him their divinity reader, about the beginning of Richard the Illd’s reign; and that king corning soon after to Oxford, he had the honour to hold a disputation before him, with which his majesty was so pleased, that he rewarded him graciously. In 1485 he was made a prebendary of Lincoln, and in 1488 he quitted his reader’s place at Magdalen college, in order to travel into foreign countries; for though he might be reckoned a great master of the Greek and Lati languages in England, where the former especially was then scarcely understood at all, yet he well knew that a more perfect knowledge of it might be attained; and accordingly he went into Italy, and studied there some time under Demetrius Chalcondyles and Politian. He returned to England, and fixed himself in Exeter college, at Oxford, in 1491, where he took the degree of B. D. Here too he publicly taught the Greek language, and was the first who introduced a better pronunciation of it than had been known in this island before. But the introduction of this language alarming many, as a most dangerous innovation, the university divided itself into two factions/distinguished by the appellation of Greeks and Trojans, who bore each other a violent animosity, and proceeded to open hostilities. Anthony Wood says, “I cannot but wonder when I think upon it, to what a strange ignorance were the scholars arrived, when, as they would by no means receive it, but rather scoff and laugh at it; some against the new pronunciation of it, which was endeavoured to be settled; others at the language itself, having not at all read any thing thereof. It is said that there were lately a company of good fellows (Cambridge men as 'tis reported) who, either out of hatred to the Greek tongue, or good letters, or merely to laugh and sport, joined together and called themselves Trojans: one, who was the senior, and wiser than the rest, called himself Priam, another Hector, a third Parys, and the rest by some ancient Trojan names who, after a jocular way, did oppose aa Grecians, the students of the Greek tongue.” In this situation Grocyn was, when Erasmus came ta Oxford; and if he was not this great man’s tutor, yet he certainly assisted him in attaining a more perfect knowledge of the Greek. He was, however, very friendly toErasmus, and did him many kind offices, as introducing him to archbishop Warham, &c. He also boarded him gratis in his house, although he was by no means in affluent circumstances. We cannot be surprized therefore that Erasmus speaks of him often in a strain which shews that he entertained the most sincere regard for him, as well as the highest opinion of his abilities, learning, and integrity. About 1590 he resigned his living, being then made master of Allhallows college, at Maidstone,in Kent, though he continued still to live mostly at Oxford. Grocyn had no esteem for Plato, but applied himself intensely to Aristotle, whose whole works he had formed a design of translating, in conjunction with William Latimer, Linacre, and More, but did not pursue it. While his friend Cotet was dean of St. Paul’s, Grocyn gave a remarkable evidence of the candour and ingenuousness of his temper. He read in St. Paul’s cathedral a public lecture upon the book of Dionysius Areopagita, commonly called “Hierarchia Ecclesiastica;” it being customary at that time for the public lecturers, both in the universities, and in the cathedral thurches, to read upon any book, rather than upon the scriptures, till dean Colet reformed that practice. Grocyn, in the preface to his lecture, declaimed with great warmth against those who either denied or doubted of the authority of the book on which he was reading. But after he had continued to read a few weeks, and had more thoroughly examined the matter, he entirely changed hi sentiments; and openly and candidly declared that he had been in an error; and that the said book, in his judgment, was spurious, and never written by him who, in the Acts of the Apostles, is called Dionysius the Areopagite. But when dean Colet had introduced the custom of reading lectures upon some part of the scriptures at his cathedral, he engaged Grocyn, according to Dr. Knight, as one of the most learned and able men he could meet with, in that useful employment.

Grocyn died at Maidstone in 1519, of a stroke of the palsy, which he had received a year before, and which made him, says Erasmus, “sibi ipsi superstitem;” that is, outlive his faculties. Linacre, the celebrated physiciaa just mentioned, was his executor, to whom he left a con. siderable legacy, as he did a small one fo William Lilly, the grammarian, who was his godson. His will is printed in the appendix to Knight’s “Life of Erasmus.” He had indeed but little to leave, having never enjoyed preferment equal to his worth *; yet he was a man of great generosity, which at one time obliged him to pawn his plate to Dr. Young, who generously returned it by his will without taking principal or interest. A Latin epistle of Grocyn’s to Aldus Manutius is prefixed to Linacre’s translation of“Proclus de Sphaera,” printed at Venice in 1449, fol. Erasmus says, that “there is nothing extant of his but this epistle: indeed a very elaborate and acute one, and written in good Latin.” His publishing nothing more seems to have been owing to too much delicacy; for, Erasmus adds, “he was of so nice a taste, that he h^d rather write nothing than write ill.” Some other things, however, of his writing are mentioned by Bale, Leland, and Tanner, as “Tractatus contra hostiolum Joannis Wiclevi;” “Epistolae ad Erasmum et alios” Grammatica;“” Vulgaria puerorum;“”Epigrammata“” Nota ia Terentium,“and” Isagogicum quoddam."

Grose, to a stranger, says Mr. Noble, might have been supposed not a surname, but one selected as significant of his figure: which was more of the form of Sancho Panca than Falstaff; but he partook of the properties of both. He was as low, squat, and rotund as the former, and not less a sloven; equalled him too in his love of sleep, and nearly so in his proverbs. In his wit he was a Falstaff. He was the butt for other men to shoot at, but it always rebounded with a double force. He could eat with Sancho, and drink with the knight. In simplicity, probity, and a compassionate heart, he was wholly of the Panca breed; his jocularity could have pleased a prince. In the “St. James’s Evening Post,” the following was proposed as an epitaph for him:

In his thirtieth year he entered into the service of the duke Alphonso II.; but there seems some difficulty in understanding the order and nature of the business on which he was employed, and the origin of the title of knight which is usually joined to his name, and which he had engraven on the seal with which he sealed his letters. It is probable, however, that the duke bestowed this title on him as a necessary appendage to the rank of ambassador. The first office of this kind which he filled, was in 1567, when he was sent to Venice, with the congratulations of the duke Alphonso to the new doge Pier Loredano, and the address which he spoke on this occasion being printed, gave the Italian literati a very favourable idea of his talents. The duke then sent him as resident ambassador to Emmanuel Philebert, duke of Savoy, and after continuing there some years, he was sent to Rome in 1571, to compliment pope Gregory XIII. as successor to Pius V. He arrived by post in the evening, passed the night in writing his address, and delivered it next morning in a full consistory. Two years afterwards, the duke sent him to Germany to the emperor Maximilian, whence he went to Poland, to congratulate Henry of Valois on his accession to the throne, in 1571.

, an English lawyer and historiographer, was the son of John Halle of Northall in Shropshire, by Catherine his wife, daughter and heir of Thomas Gedding, and was descended from sir Francis Van Halle, knight of the garter in the time of Edward III. who was the son of Frederic Van Halle, of the Tyrol, in Germany, natural son of Albert king of the Romans and archduke of Austria. He was born, probably about the last year of the fifteenth century, in the parish of St. Mildred’s, London. He was educated at Eton, whence in 1544 he was sent to King’s college, Cambridge, where he continued until he became a junior fellow. He afterwards studied at Gray’s-inn, and resided there until he was made a judge in the sheriffs’ court. Wood, however, says that he went to Oxford about 1518, when cardinal Wolsey founded certain lectures there; and adds that, that being the common mart of learning, no person of ingenuity or curiosity thought themselves complete until they had been there. But Mr. Baker of St. John’s, in a letter to Hearne, seems to think this doubtful, as he is not to be traced from Gray’s-inn to Oxford.

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

The twelve years which elapsed from 1772 to 1784, formed a remarkable epoch in Mr. Hamilton’s life, with respect to his advancement and domestic affairs. On the S Au f Januar >"> 1772 > he was created knight of the bath. About 1775, he lost his only daughter. In 1782, he likewise lost his lady. And in 1784, after twenty years’ absence, he visited his native country. He had been made a tellow of the royal society in 1766.

, a distinguished statesman and polite writer, was born about 1676, and had his education at Westminster-school, and Christ-church, Oxford. When he arrived at years of maturity, he was chosen knight of the shire for the county of Suffolk, and sat in parliament near thirty years, either as a representative for that county, or for Flintshire, or for the borough of Thetford. In this venerable assembly he was soon distinguished; and his powerful elocution and unbiassed integrity drew the attention of all parties. In 17 13 he was chosen speaker of the house of commons; which office, difficult at all times, but at that time more particularly, he discharged with becoming dignity. All other honours and emoluments he declined. Having withdrawn himself by degrees from public business, he spent the remainder of his life in an honourable retirement amongst his books and friends; and there prepared an elegant and correct edition of the works of Shakspeare. This he presented to the university of Oxford; and it was printed there 1744, in 6 vols. 4to, with elegant engravings, by Gravelot, at the expence of sir Thomas. He died at his seat in Suffolk, April 5, 1746.

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

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

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

He was the issue of a third wife, his father having married two Polonian ladies of noble extraction. This third wife seems to have been an English woman, for she had two sisters very honourably married here; one, first to Mr. Clark, son of a lord mayor, and afterwards to a “veryrich knight, sir Richard Smith, one of the king’s privycouncil, she bringing him a portion of 10,000l.; after his death, she married a third time sir Edward Savage, and was made one of the ladies of honour to the king’s mother. Her daughter married sir Anthony Irby, at Boston,” a knight of 4 or 5000l. sterling a year.“The other sister married Mr. Peak, a younger brother. Warton says, Hartlib came over into England about 1640. In 1641 he published” A relation of that which hath been lately attempted, to procure ecclesiastical peace among Protestants," Lond. 1641.

, a statesman and lawyer in queen Elizabeth’s reign, was the third and youngest son, of William Hatton, of Holdenby in Northamptonshire, by Alice, daughterof Lawrence Saunders, of Horringworth, in the same county. He was entered a gentleman commoner of St. Mary Hall, Oxford, but removed, without taking a degree, to the society of the Inner Temple, not to study law, but that his mind might be enlarged by an intercourse with those who were at once men of business and of the world, for such was the character of the lawyers of that day. He came on one occasion to the court at a masque, where queen Elizabeth was struck by the elegance of his person, and his graceful dancing. It is not improbable also that his conversation corresponded with his outward appearance. He was from this time, however, in the way to preferment; from one of the queen’s pensioners he became successively a gentleman of the privy chamber, captain of the guard, vice-chamberlain, and privy-counsellor, and by these unusual gradations rose to the office of lord chancellor in 1587, when he was likewise elected a knight of the garter. His insufficiency is said at first to have created strong prejudices among the lawyers against him, founded, perhaps, on some degree of envy at his sudden advancement without the accustomed studies; but his good natural capacity supplied the place of experience and study; and his decisions were not found deficient either in point of equity or judgment. In all matters of great moment he is said to have consulted Dr. Swale, a civilian. “His station,” says one of his biographers, “was great, his dispatches were quick and weighty, his orders many, yet all consistent: being very seldom reversed ijii thartcery, and his advice opposed more seldom in council. He was so just, that his sentence was a law to the subject, and so wise, that his opinion was an oracle to the queen.” When, in 1586, queen Elizabeth sent a new deputation to queen Mary of Scotland, informing her that the plea of that unhappy princess, either from her royal dignity, or from her imprisonment, could not be admitted, sir Christopher Hatton was one of the number, along with Burleigh, and Bromley the chancellor; and it was by Hatton’s advice chiefly, that Mary was persuaded to answer before the court, and thereby give an appearance of legal procedure to the trial.

, an eminent naval officer, was the son of Edward Hawke, esq. barrister at law, by Elizabeth, daughter of Nathaniel Bladen, esq. He was from his youth brought up to the sea, and passed through the inferior stations till, in 1713—4, he was appointed captain of the Wolf. His intrepidity and conduct were first of all distinguished in the memorable engagement with the combined fleets of France and Spain on Toulon, in 1744, when the English fleet was commanded by the admirals Matthews, Lestock, and Rowley. If all the English ships had done their duty on that day as well as the Berwick, which captain Hawke commanded, the honour and discipline of the navy would not have been so tarnished. He compelled the Pader, a Spanish vessel of 60 guns, to strike; and, to succour the Princessa and Somerset, broke the line without orders, for which act of bravery he lost his commission, but was honourably restored to his rank by the king. In 1747 he was appointed rear-admiral of the 'white; and on the 14th of October, in the same year, fell in with a large French fleet, bound to the West Indies, convoyed by nine men of war, of which he captured seven. This was a glorious day for England, and the event taught British commanders to despise the old prejudice of staying for a line of battle. “Perceiving,” says the gallant admiral in his letters to the Admiralty, “that we lost time in forming our line, I made the signal for the whole squadron to chase, and when within a proper distance to engage.” On October the 31st, admiral Hawke arrived at Portsmouth with his prizes, and as a reward of his bravery, he was soon afterwards made knight of the bath. In 1748 he was made vice-admiral of the blue, and elected an elder brother of the Trinity-house; in 1755 he was appointed viceadmiral of the white, and in 1757 commanded the squadron which was sent to co-operate with sir John Mordaunt in the expedition against Rochfort. In 1759, sir Edward commanded the grand fleet opposed to that of the French equipped at Brest, and intended to invade these kingdoms. He accordingly sailed from Portsmouth, and, arriving off Brest, so stationed his ships that the French fleet did not dare to come out, and had the mortification of beholding their coast insulted, and their merchantmen taken. The admiral, however, being by a strong westerly wind blown from his station, the French seized this opportunity, and steered for Quiberon-bay, where a small English squadron lay under the command of commodore Duff. Sir Edward Hawke immediately went in pursuit of them, and on the 20th of November came up with them off Belleisle. The wind blew exceedingly hard at the time, nevertheless the French were engaged, and totally defeated, nor was the navy of France able to undertake any thing of consequence during the remainder of the war. This service, owing to the nature of the coast, was peculiarly hazardous; but when the pilot represented the danger, our gallant admiral only replied, “You have done your duty in pointing out the difficulties; you are now to comply with my order, and lay me along the Soleil Royal.” For these and similar services, the king settled a pension of 2000l. per annum on sif Edward and his two sons, or the survivor of them; he also received the thanks of the house of commons, and the freedom of the city of Cork in a gold box. In 1765 he was appointed vice-admiral of Great Britain, and first lord of the admiralty; and, in 1776, he was made a peer of England, under the title of Baron Hawke, of Towton, in the county of York. His lordship married Catharine the daughter of Walter Brooke, of Burton-hall, in Yorkshire, esq. by whom he had four children. He was one of the greatest characters that ever adorned the British navy; but most of all remarkable for the daring courage which induced him on many occasions to disregard those forms of conducting or sustaining an attack, which the rules and ceremonies of service had before considered as indispensable. He died at his seat at Shepperton in Middlesex, October 14, 1781.

, an able naval commander, was born at Plymouth about 1520. Being the son of a seaman, captain William Hawkins, he imbibed a love for the profession, and when a youth made several voyages to Spain, Portugal, and the Canaries. In the spring of 1562 he formed the design of his first famous voyage, the consequence of which was very important to his country, as he then began that traffic in slaves, which after two centuries and a half we have seen abolished. At that time, however, this trade was accounted honourable and useful, and sir John bore the badge of his exploits in a crest of arms granted him by patent, consisting of a “demi-moor in his proper colour, bound with a cord,” not unlike a device which we have seen employed to excite an abhorrence of the slave-trade when its abolition was first agitated. In returning from a third expedition of this kind he was attacked and defeated by a Spanish fleet. After undergoing many hardships, he reached home in Jair. 1568; and it is said that his ill-success in this instance damped his ardour for maritime enterprise. In 1573 he was appointed treasurer of the navy, and in a few months he had nearly lost his life by a wound from an enthusiastic assassin, who mistook him for another person. He was now consulted on every important occasion, and in 1588; was appointed rear-admiral on-board the Victory, to confront the famous armada. His conduct on this occasion obtained for him the high commendations of his illustrious queen, the honour of knighthood, and other important commands in the navy. He died in 1595, it is said of vexation, on account of an unsuccessful attempt on the enemies possessions in the West Indies, and in the Canaries. He was a good mathematician, and understood every thing that related to his profession as a seaman. He possessed much personal courage, and had a presence of mind that set him above fear, and which enabled him frequently to deliver himself and others out of the reach of the most imminent dangers; he had great sagacity, and formed his plans so judiciously, and executed the orders committed to him with so much punctuality and accuracy, that he ever obtained the applause of his superiors. He was submissive to those above him, and courteous to his inferiors, extremely affable to his seamen, and much beloved by them. He sat twice in parliament as burgess for Plymouth, and once for some other borough. He erected an hospital at Chatham for the relief of disabled and diseased seamen, and is highly applauded by his contemporaries and by historians, who lived after him. His son, sir Richard Hawkins, was brought up to a maritime life, and in 1582, when very young, he had the command of a vessel in an expedition under his uncle to the West Indies; he also commanded a ship in the action against the Spanish armada, in which he was greatly distinguished. About 1593, he sailed with three ships, his own property, to the coast of Brazil, at the commencement of a much longer voyage; but he was obliged to burn one of his little squadron, another deserted their commander, so that he was under the necessity of sailing alone through the straits of Magellan. To satisfy the desires of his men, he made prizes of some vessels, which drew upon him the whole force of a Spanish squadron, to which he was compelled to yield. After a confinement of two years in Peru and the adjacent provinces, he was sent back to Europe. He died in 1622, as he was attending, on business, the privycouncil. He left behind him a work of considerable value, which was printed and ready for publication it is entitled “The Observations of sir Richard Hawkins, knight, into the South-sea, A.D. 1593.” From this piece, which the author dedicated to prince Charles, afterwards king Charles I., it appears that the issue of his voyage to the South-seas, his long confinement, and the disasters which naturally attended it, brought him into great distress. His nautical observations, his description of the passage through the straits of Magellan, and his remarks on the sea-scurvy, and on the best methods of preserving his men in health, were considered at that period of very great importance. He intended to have published a second part of his observations, in which he meant to have given an account of what happened to him and his companions during their stay in Peru, and in Terra Firma, but which death prevented him from accomplishing.

Our hero is said to have been put apprentice to a tailor in London: “but soon,” says Fuller, “turned his needle into a sword, and his thimble into a shield,” being prest into the service of Edward III. for his French wars, where he behaved himself so valiantly, that from a common soldier he was promoted to the rank of captain; and for some farther good service had the honour of knighthood conferred on him by that king, though he was accounted the poorest knight in the army. His general, the black prince, highly esteemed him for his valour and conduct, of which he gave extraordinary proofs at the battle of Poictiers.

The learned have all joined in their praises of Heinsius. Gerard Vossius says that he was a very great man; and calls him the ornament of the muses and the graces. Casaubon admires him equally for his parts and learning. Pareus calls him the Varro of his age. Barthius ranks him with the first writers. Bochart pronounces him a truly great and learned man and Selden speaks of him as “tarn severiorum quam amceniorum literarum sol” a light to guide us in our gay as well as severe pursuits in letters. Some, however, have thought that, he was not so well formed for criticism; and Le Clerc, in his account of the Amsterdam edition of Bentley’s “Horace,” says that though doubtless a learned man, who had spent his life in the study of criticism, yet if we may judge by his Horace, he was by no means happy in his conjectures; but he speaks much more advantageously of his son Nicolas Heinsius; and agreed, with the rest of the world, that though not so learned a man as his father, he had a better taste for criticism. Daniel Heinsius was, however, highly honoured abroad as well as at home; and received uncommon marks of respect from foreign potentates. Gustavus Adolphus, king of Sweden, gave him a place among his counsellors of state: the republic of Venice made him a knight of their order of St. Mark: and pope Urban VIII. was such an admirer of his fine talents and consummate learning, that he made him great offers if he would come to Rome; “to rescue that city from barbarism,” as the pontiff is said to have expressed himself.

, a native of Emesa in Phoenicia, and bishop of Tricca in Thessaly, flourished in the reigns of Theodosius and Arcaclius towards the end of the fourth century. In his youth he wrote a romance, by which he is now better known than by his subsequent bishopric of; Tricca. It is entitled “Ethiopics,” and relates the amours of Theagenes and Chariclea, in ten books. The learned Huetius is of opinion that HcUodorus was among the romance-writers what Homer was among the poets, the source and model of an infinite number of imitations, all inferior to their original. The first edition of the Ethiopics was printed at Basil, 1533, with a dedication to the senate of Nuremberg, prefixed by Vincentius Opsopseus, who informs us that a soldier preserved the ms. when the library of Buda was plundered. Bourdeiot’s learned notes upon this romance were printed at Paris in 1619, with Heliodorus’s Greek original, and a Latin translation, which had been published by Stanislaus Warszewicki, a Polish knight, (with the Greek) at Basil, in 1551. An excellent English translation of this romance was published by Mr. Payne in 2 vols. 12mo, in 1792. A notion has prevailed that a provincial synod, being sensible how dangerous the reading of Heliodorus’ s Ethiopics was, to which the author’s rank was supposed to add great authority, required of the bishop that he should either burn the book, or resign his dignity; and that the bishop chose the latter. But this story is thought to be entirely fabulous; as depending only upon the single testimony of Nicephorus, an ecclesiastical historian of great credulity and little judgment; and it is somewhat difficult to suppose that Socrates should omit so memorable a circumstance when speaking of Heliodorus as the author of “a love-tale in his youth, which he entitled Ethiopics.” Valesius, in his notes upon this passage, starts another difficulty, for while he rejects the account of Nicephorus as a mere fable, he seems inclined to think, that the romance itself was not written by Heliodorus bishop of Tricca; but in this opinion he has not been followed. Opsopaeus and Melancthon have supposed that this romance was in reality a true history; but Fabricius thinks this as incredible as that Heliodorus, according to others, wrote it originally in the Ethiopic tongue. Some again have asserted, that Heliodorus was not a Christian, from his saying at the end of his book, that he was a Phoenician, born in the city of Emesa, and of the race of the sun; since, they say, it would be madness in a Christian, and much more in a bishop, to declare that he was descended from that luminary; but such language, in a young man, can scarcely admit the inference.

, lord Herbert, of Cherbury in Shropshire, an eminent English writer, was descended from a very ancient family, and born 1581, at Montgomery-­castle in Wales. At the age of fourteen he was entered as a gentleman-commoner at University college, in Oxford, where he laid, says Wood, the foundation of that admirable learning, of which he was afterwards a complete master. In 1600 he came to London, and shortly after the accession of James I. was created knight of the hath. He served the office of high sheriff for the county of Montgomery, and divided his time between the country and the court. In 1608, feeling wearied with the sameness of domestic scenes, he visited the continent, carrying with him some romantic notions on the point of honour, which, in. such an age, were likely to involve him in perpetual quarrels. His advantageous person and manners, and the reputation for courage which he acquired, gained him many friends, among whom was the constable Montmorenci. As a seat of this nobleman he passed several months practising horsemanship, and other manly exercises, in which he became singularly expert. He returned to England in 1609, and in the following, year he quitted it again, in. order that he might have the opportunity of serving with the English forces sent to assist the prince of Orange at the siege of Juliers. Here he signalised himself by his valour, which, in some instances, was carried to the extreme of rashness. After the siege he visited Antwerp and Brussels, and returned to London, where he was looked now upon as one of the most conspicuous characters of the time. An attempt was made to assassinate him, in revenge for some liberties which he took, or was supposed to have taken, with a married lady. In 1614 he went into the Low. Countries to serve under the prince of Orange; after this he engaged with the duke of Savoy, to conduct from France a body of protestants to Piedmont for his service. In 1616 he was sent ambassador to Louis XIII. of France, to mediate for the relief of the protestants of that realm, but was recalled in July 1621, on account of a dispute between him and the constable de Luines. Camden says that he had treated the constable irreverently; but Walton tells us that “he could not subject himself to a compliance with the humours of the duke de Luines, who was then the great and powerful favourite at court: so that, upon a complaint to our king, he was called back into England in some displeasure; but at his return gave such an honourable account of his employment, and so justified his comportment to the duke and all the court, that he was suddenly sent back upon the same embassy.”